4,601 Forum Posts by "BeFell"
It is certianly not the best but I am proud of my MS Paint skills and clever right wing rhetoric.
At 3/24/04 07:27 PM, pierrot-le-fou wrote: COMMUNISM ALL THE WAY BABY!!! whoo yeah! If a country with the economic prosperity like the US turned communist, everyone would have cell phones, computers, everyone would have cable TV, everyone would have good food and clothes, good houses and cars, shit, communism now would be perfect.
Most Americans already have most of those things. Some it is just better.
At 3/24/04 06:38 PM, Red_Skvnk wrote:
Nobody is stopping the Americans from being so agressive?
Cute
I know your not talking about Iraq, because nearly all of the large human rights violations occured in the 80's (& early 90's), while - incidentally - Republicans were in power in America.
What about the rest of the world. Eventualy it was taken care of.
Through out the 90's, sanctions worked to limit Iraq's military capabilities.
I still believe we don't know for sure one way or another but even if Iraq did destroy it's weapons and followed the sanctions nobody knew he did and the potential for disaster is still there.
Well you sorta got what I was going for so you get my frowny star.
Good for you. (I can't draw and paint is all I have don't make fun)
The best way for England and France to stop Germany before the war would have been for them to impose the sactions listed in the Treaty of Versalles. Basically after WWI Germany was not supposed to have a military nor weapons of war. The international community should have stepped in when Hitler started building up his army but they didn't and millions died. Now a gold star will go to anyone who can connect this to recent world events.
At 3/24/04 03:04 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:
Not if you're poor/
That's what welfare is for a small peice of socialism in a capitalist structure. Or they could get jobs.
At 3/24/04 02:59 PM, Red_Skvnk wrote:
Isn't there an inbetween between shooting rockets from helicopters and completely giving up on capturing them?
Yeah that was really stupid on Israel's part you just don't blow up handicapped people on their way out of a religous structure. I think that if Israel actually sent people in to capture these leaders and put them on trial they might not open themselves up to such a severe backlash. Don't get me worng thought he was a bad man that deserved to die they should have just done it a little bit more discreatly.
In the real world capitalism seems to be the best choice.
At 3/24/04 02:43 PM, Red_Skvnk wrote:
Yes... Well.. There. We agree.
Scary
The need for a wall would be almost zilch at that point.
I think even after they get a country there will stil be a few extremist who simply want to kill all of the jews and have no compromise at all. They are the ones who are currently holding back a Palestinian state.
At 3/24/04 02:28 PM, Red_Skvnk wrote:
There is no easy answer. I would start by deconstructing Israeli settlements on Palestinian territory, withdrawing to the '69 borders, and cracking down on terrorist through regular, usual domestic means (police, domestic forces), instead of tanks, planes and helicopters.
I agree that Israel should get the hell out of Palestine but I think once that is done the Palestinians should be given socernty a wall should go up and a live and let live policy should be adopted.
Why don't we just 'relocate' all of the Palestinians? Or genocide? I mean, really, it would be the easiest, quickest solution.
An independant Palestinian state is the easiest quickest solution there is no reason for Israel to have any kind of control over the Palestinians and it just breeds resentment.
What, some people have morals? Oh... Then maybe walling off an entire population isn't the best way either?
I only propose a wall after borders are fairly drawn up and the Palestinians recieve soveirnty. After that the Palestinians will be responsible for their own fate just like any other country.
What would you suggest Israel do to end the violence. For the last forty some years diplomacy hasn't seemed to work. Nor have the various cease fires and peace plans proposed by other nations. A complete seperation in my opinion is the only way to end it.
At 3/24/04 02:41 AM, Red_Skvnk wrote:At 3/24/04 02:23 AM, BeFell wrote: Also I heard that the rich guy that owns CNN might be somewhat liberal why don't you complain about that?Naw, I'd rather complain about that filthy rich conservative Murdoch who owns fox, 20 something other television stations and more than a hundred newspapers and other publications around the world.
I was just mentioning Turner to bring up the point that this is really nothing to whine about because it is everywhere on both sides. People have personal opinions and there is nothing wrong with that. An inteligent person should just educate themself on who might be leaning twoards which ideal and move on with life.
At 3/24/04 11:13 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:At 3/23/04 06:44 AM, Uberleader wrote:
Me: This is a result of war and it cannot be avoided. It is for the price that they die to ensure that millions wont die or be tortured in the future. Besides, with the suicide bombers these days, they kill more of their own citizens then our soldiers do.Millions? Please provide your source that stated that Saddam had killed and tortured millions. Now please research the result of indirect deaths from sanctions.
Hamas Suicide bombers have killed 500 Isrelis so far, apparantly (i'm reading this off the front page of the Times in front of me). How many citizens have the US troops killed ? - http://www.iraqbodycount.org
He was exagerating a little with "millions" but it is confirmed that Saddam has killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. Many of these included the people whom he attacked with biological weapons during the first Gulf War and the rest come from the mass graves uncovered by coalition forces currently occupying Iraq. I think the suicide bombers he was referring to were those car bombs that recently killed 200 Iraqi police men. If you want a source I will find you one after I get back from class but anyone who has kept up on the news should know these things.
From my understanding of the article it apears that the people that run Clear Channel support Bush not Clear Channel itself. Private citizens have the right to do whatever they like with their own money. Also I heard that the rich guy that owns CNN might be somewhat liberal why don't you complain about that?
At 3/23/04 06:44 AM, Uberleader wrote: and MY responses:
and here's mine
1. Americans are fat, lazy, ignorant, loudmouthed, etc-
They are just jeleous becuase having the strongest economy in the world allows us to have all of the food we want and our unmatched freedoms allow us to think and say whatever we feel like.
2. America is in Iraq for oil.
I think if Bush was going to piss liberals off to get oil he would have just went to Alaska. Caribou probably wouldn't have put up much of fight.
3. America cant find WMDs, thus there arent any.
Even if Iraq did destroy its weapons of mass destruction the fact remains that Bill Clinton, France, Russia, the UN and John Kerry were absoulutely positive that Iraq had them. As David Kay reported Saddam even thought he had them becuase his scientists were lying to him. I think knowing the same things as the president of Iraq is pretty good intelegence but apparently Bush was supposed to know more about Iraq than Saddam.
4. Soldiers in Iraq kill many citizens and children.
American soldiers do not target civilians any inavertant attacks were the result of Iraqi troops hiding among civilians in hospitals and schools.
5. Osama Bin Laden had a right to attack the World Trade Centers because we invaded/destroyed his country.
Someone else expanded on this one further up they did well enough.
At 3/23/04 01:39 AM, TumorCircus wrote: Here's my problem with conservatives. Their main purpose is to conserve the past, yet even the most recent past was all about corporal punishment, the domination of men over women, the segregation of races, and unity between church and state.
There was never corpal punishment nor unity between church and state, in the US at least and segregation was the democratic party's idea. Conservatives aren't so much trying to preserve the past but rather certian principles that they deam imprortant. Most of these are based in issues of morality. Oh yes, I guess Neo Conservatives like the KKK would like to have some of the things you mentioned but certainly not the mainstream.
At 3/22/04 09:46 PM, implodable wrote: If the US is so liberal, then why is the media trying to tell you that everyone is Republican and a righty? check Mike's site out (click on my signature).
Who in the media is telling you this? My understanding is that it is more or less 50/50
At 3/12/04 09:53 PM, TheSickEmpire wrote:
Name calling? What do republicans do when you corner them, ill quote bill Orialy (however you spell his name..) "SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP!" Then the guy that was talking AGAINST BUSH was cut off and bill then let lose on the democrats and Clinton, why clinton? Because its the only thing they have. If you want proof ill give you some proof, the only thing that is legally deemed indecent is the "7 dirty words" This was done by the supreme court, the FCC is going after Stern for something that happened 3 years ago, why now? Is it because he JUST NOW got smart and started talking against bush? and if you want more proof, they arent giveing stern his chance in court, they are literally holding him back, if he tries to go to court the lose the papers. Think about it, everything happens for a reason, and something thats 3 years old isint it. If you wanna say its about janet jackson, do you actually know who sends these Emails? Religeous Groups that are against anything they deem wrong or makeing it wrong suits their means, they email, and email and email, same people diffrent email accounts.
Think about it, it all makes sense.
What the heck are you talking about? Howard Stern is in trouble because he was recently interviewing the guy on the sex tape with Paris Hilton and they went into an innapropriate ammount of detail. Then some guy called in and used the N-word in a racist manner? What are these emails you are reffering to. Are you talking about the public outcry for the FCC to get off its ass after the Janet Jackson thing? This situation is pretty simple and is bi-partisan. Since there is now such a great amount of interest in decency in broadcasting politicians from both sides of the aisle are playing to it. The new bill passed through the house with only 22 descenting votes. That is a pretty good right wing conspiracy.
At 3/12/04 01:24 PM, philonous wrote:
You might "feel" that marriage is an institution with the distinct purpose of producing offspring but that's not part of its definition which you seem so keen on. And indeed, even if it was, would you be prepared to accept that infertile couples and post-menopausal women ought not to be allowed to get married given that no offspring would be produced?
I knew that was a hole when I typed it and you suck for pointing it out. Ok I guess I will have to go back to my first definition man and woman or women for the kinky crowd.
Also, further up this topic, you said that you felt the need to draw the line at changing the word on religious grounds, but again, there is no element of religion in the definition of marriage.
I just don't understand why you're so opposed to changing the definition of the word. What is so important about the word that it must remain unchanged?
That is a fair question the best answer I can give is that is as accepting as I can be while staying true to my religous beliefs. I thought I was darn flexible on the subject. You would be very hard pressed to find another mormon with as liberal veiw on homosexuality as mine. Basically I don't care what they do and they can have the tax breaks but just don't call it marriage. I know that my argument makes very little sense but it the best I can do with the limits I have. These are just my personal opinions and I am by no means trying to convince anybody one way or another.
At 3/12/04 10:45 AM, mpython99 wrote: Something has occured to me, the majority of the people that are compaining about the US government, and its leaders are either under the age to vote or not from this country. It seems though that these people seem to have the all knowing opinion and ideas that can save this country. I implore you that if you don't have the right to say whats going to happen in this country please don't try to convince the rest of us. It really does no good. Now I'm not saying that one party is better than the other, thats for you to decide, but if you can vote do so based on the issues not on the parties.
Keep in mind stupid people are stupid no matter how old they are and the other way around. Most of that stuff they say is just regurgitation of what they heard older people say on CNN.
At 3/12/04 08:29 AM, Slizor wrote:Throughout all of human history marriage has been between a man and a womanInteresting.....so there's no such thing as poligamy? People haven't been married to two or more people?
I fully aknowledge poligamy, after all I'm a Mormon (they don't do that anymore), but the reason for poligamy was always to produce more offspring. That is why it was a prevelant practice among kings who wanted a lot of potential heirs and Israel in the bible who needed to create an entire race of people. So perhaps I should be a little bit more specific I feel that marriage is a historical institution between man and woman (women) with the distinct purpose of producing offspring. Like I said I don't mind civil unions at all I just don't want to change the meaning of the word.
At 3/11/04 11:46 PM, philonous wrote:At 3/11/04 11:22 PM, BeFell wrote: The only thing I want to perserve is the word.As a matter of interest, why do you want to preserve the word? Why is it so important to you that the word "marriage" keep the meaning of "a union between a man and a woman"?
-Philonous
It is mainly because of my religous beliefs. I can accept homosexuality and I don't mind if they have the same rights but I feel bound to draw the line at the word.
I don't think this has anything to do with Bush getting reelected. There has been a massive outcry from the American people for the FCC to crack down ever since the Superbowl incident. In fact today in the house a bill was passed 391 to 22 that will raise the fine to half a million dollars for each violation and gives the FCC power to revoke licenses after three violations. Unless there are only 22 democrats in the house I would say Mr. Stern would have to blame Janet Jackson if anyone for his current problems.
At 3/11/04 11:14 PM, meowmix_deliveryman wrote:
And what is your definition of the word marriage?
Man and Woman
I thought it was "the legal union of two people in wedlock" - Webster
Webster would have worded it better if man and man ever occurred to him. The only thing I want to perserve is the word.
I think that gays wanting to wed should be able to just as any other couple. And as for the constitution, i think it should stay the same. Has the constitution been changed before?
We currently have 27 amendments in the constitution and even a part that was changed and then changed back. Under normal circumstances I would tend to agree with you about changing the constitution but in this situation it is important for both sides to have an amendment defining what is what.
Well my personal feelings are that homosexuals have the right to all of the same rights and benifits as married couples my only problem is the the use of the word marriage. Throughout all of human history marriage has been between a man and a woman and I feel it should stay that way. I think that a guarantee of equal rights for civil unions should be put in the constitution with the president's proposed amendment.
At 3/11/04 10:48 PM, meowmix_deliveryman wrote:
I think it is, especially Fox News and The guy who does the debates (i dont remember his name). Anyways all i've seen is Bush = good, from television. Or if not him then his war on Iraq.
O'riley or Hanity?
Yeah I like Fox but if you change the cannel the tone changes dramatically. Fox does feature people that don't support Bush though Alan Colmes and Geraldo each have shows.
At 3/11/04 07:27 PM, Le-Reiper wrote:
Well Clinton was 10x better than Bush Jr or Bush Sr. I did like Reagan as a president though, but still think Clinton did more for the US than any of those.
Didn't the Soviet Union fall under Reagan and Bush?
At 3/11/04 10:37 PM, meowmix_deliveryman wrote: I'm lost, i thought you supported Bush?
I was just correcting his statement. As much as I would like to believe everyone likes Bush as much as I do I know that the mainstream media is clearly not biased twoard him.
At 3/11/04 06:28 PM, blueloa13 wrote:
:The mainstream media is a bush sided media that is biased to him.
Um, are you familiar with news outlets such as CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC and ABC? Yep they are nothing but Bush propaganda.
What about the countries that depend on our military for their very existance. South Korea and Israel would each be wiped out in under a week if the US developed a policy of isolationism.
Also about human aid what about that $15 billion dollars Bush sent to fight aids in Africa.
At 3/10/04 10:10 PM, The_Someone wrote: I tottally blame our capitalist society.
How about their lack of a capitalist society?
