Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

You need not worry about guessing what the war was about. You need only look at some of the seceeding state's declarations for doing so. And its Slavery. Slavery is omnipresent in these documents, in the Confederate Constitution and in the popular press of the South.

'States Rights' might have been greatly reduced in the aftermath, but the key cause was slavery. The South was shrinking demographically compared to the United States. Still, the south had enjoyed more than an equal share of representation in the government.

You need remember that many of the US Presidents were slaveowners, and that the supreme Court in the Dred Scott case made a very pro-slavery ruling that essentially abolished laws to keep slaves out of free states. The South was pushing its luck rather far, and its only logical that the rest of the USA would get annoyed with them. In this regard, the South simply acted as a poor-sport, who got mad because he didn't get everything he wanted.

Sigh.

What a lovely job the CIA does at keeping things under control.

Of course, the reason those "Ultra-Left Liberals" locked the CIA out of many of its operations is because the CIA's short-sighted anti-communist coups and assassinations earned only short term gain for the CIA and created long term hatred of the United States. Dig deeper into the Installation of the Shah in Iran or the Lebanon Situation and you will find that our major headaches with a country began when the CIA dorked up the country. If this isn't sufficient, consider the USA essentially pushed Fidel Castro into an alliance with the Soviet Union.

Osama Bin Laden is an excellent reason of why the CIA can't be trusted. In terms of acquiring information, the CIA is capable, but its obviously not very clever in learning who our friends are...

China doesn't hate the USA. The USA and China have historically been friends. The Reestablishment of our friendship in the 1970s against the Soviet Threat continues to this day. And there is the fact that China and the USA are heavy trading partners. If the theory that world trade averts world war is true, the Chinese and the USA will never come to blows. China won't force the USA to do anything cruel, or (Excluding a third president Bush), the USA will never do this kind of screwed up stuff Back.

China is a friend, on very different from the USA but oddly enough becoming more like it. Indeed, the world as a whole seems to be moving towards the USA's political, economic and social values. This might not be a complete blessing, but buying crap you don't need is far better than declaring death to large segments of humanity.

As for Russia--'Hate' is too strong. The Russians are a fading power, and this hurts their pride. Their Envy of Joseph Stalin isn't because he was a good guy, but because he made them a world power. Ultimately, competing with the USA forced the Soviet Union to make sacrifices that they simply grew tired of paying for. I doubt, though, Mikhail Gorbachev thought his reforms would kill the country.

Russia doesn't hate the US, but its frustrated and saddened by the USA's go-it-alone attitude. The Russians would every bit as eager to pwn some Islamists (Beslan School Massacre, anyone?) as we are, but for whatever reason Bush had to handle terrorism his own way. (This is retarded, but that's what happened).

At 12/14/07 02:17 AM, iiREDii wrote:

At 12/14/07 01:52 AM, public-enemy1 wrote:

At 12/14/07 01:50 AM, iiREDii wrote: I see someone has absolutely no background in history... Look up Lincoln, Teddy, Wilson, FDR... fascists and slaughterers of man. Civil rights violators and Constitution smashers. Free speech enemies and warmongerers.

You're crazy.

All four of those men could be considered top ten best Presidents. Three of them could be top five.

No. I am not crazy. I am better versed in hostory than you.

Lincoln for example:
- shut down free presses with troops
- jailed reporters
- had protestors shot by federal union troops in the streets of New York and elsewhere
- raised taxes on border southern towns so high that entire villages were thrown in prisons with conditions similair to guantonamo bay.
- deported an ohio congressman who oppposed the war
- declared total war on his own people (total war on the south, total war is when the governemtn targts civilians as well as military targets)
- jailed and threatened supreme and minor court judges
- conscripted thousands of people (most of whom just happened to also be Irish, the Irish were once looked down upon as immigrants much like Mexicans today)
- responsible for millions of dollars of damage and entire cities being burnt to the ground
- occupied and forced the south into a government not of their own choosing
- had dissenters and protesters jailed without trial
- violated 3rd amendment by quartering soldiers in peoples homes
- raised tariffs and taxes to a absurd degree to help spur war with the south, provoking them to leave the union.
- expanded and abused the powerof the presidency more than Bush, Clinton, and FDR combined
- wanted blacks deported to africa
- established one of the first fiat currency systems

the list goes on

A lot of this I know to be true--this isn't a fabrication.
Federal Troops did intervene throughout the Border States, definitely violating the election processes of those countries. Missouri's legislature moved to secede, but Unionist forces hand-picked the new constitution writers, who aborted the procedure.

The Ohio Congressman was not a run of the mill person--his name was Clarance Vallandigham, and he definitely wasn't innocent himself--he did instigate and provoke violence. His Deportation to Canada is an act of mercy, when one considers that his actions were TREASON and CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MURDER.

Conscription happened on both sides of the Civil War--indeed, it happened in every war up until Vietnam. It's not a particular problem--and Union didn't move to conscription until 1863 in the war.

Blaming Lincoln for Damages and Wartime destruction misses the point. The South was hot to secede, and in the process of seceding, it fired on a Union Garrison and seized Federal Property. Lincoln might have reacted harshly--but bear in mind that this is a reaction to a legitimate grievance.

Lincoln didn't raise taxes UNTIL the south Seceded. He needed the money that taxes and bonds provided to fight the war. He must certainly didn't provoke the South--the South seceded because their commitment to Federal Democracy was conditional--they only stayed in the Union as long as they had power over the rest of the country. Lincoln, for the first time in 50 years, was not heavily favorable to Southern Interests. Of course, Lincoln's own views against the expansion of Slavery meant that President Lincoln would head towards emancipation, not oversee it himself (All Lincoln intended to do, was keep slavery out of new territories)

As for abusing Presidential Power, in times of War the presidents power increases--its part of his powers of Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the UNited States. IN a situation where one third of the country is open revolt and another sixth is very fragile, the US Army becomes a critical element of control. Lincoln was fighting a war on his own soil. It was not always an offensive war, either: Confederate Forces moved throughout Kentucky and Maryland; Gettysburg is in Pennsylvania. Did Lincoln get more power; yes he did. Is this abusive? No--Lincoln might not to have followed his exact methods, but civil liberties are expected to take a hit in a war.

Blacks to Africa: Well, once the slaves are free, how are the former slave owners going to treat them? Not very well, obviously. For the Next century, Blacks lived as second class citizens and faced sick oppression from what was supposed to be a democratic country. Easy to Forgive Lincoln for trying to get Blacks out of such abuses, even if the whole Liberian export deal lacked feasibility. As long as it was voluntary (and it was), I fail to see any wrongness in his actions.

The point, I suppose, is that Lincoln did what he had to preserve the Union and uphold the constitution. The Constitution is a DEAD LETTER if the South can devise their own monkey Constitution which formalizes slavery. One of the basic elements of democracy is that the winners get their outcome, and the losers accept the outcome. The Confederate attitude is that of a sore loser--I didn't win, so now I'm going to quit.

The only way one can really call Lincoln a bad leader is with the idea that the South should have been allowed to Secede--but how does that make things better for anyone? Far from enjoying incredible economic growth after the Civil War, the North and the South are going to have to point guns at each other. Slavery might have continued in the South until 1914! The South Seceding invariably leads to a rematch--the USA abolishes Slavery, even if it loses the war--and then slaves need only make it to Kentucky or Maryland to Escape. The USA and CSA never resolved issues of territory in the west. The USA/CSA polarization gets added into the maze of world diplomacy, guaranteeing a rematch at latest of the first world war. The CSA doesn't really win, either--with the Confederate Constitution locking slavery into the system, they are stuck with a system that aggravates the world and the working man. The entire slave system worked nicely when the CSA could export cotton at high prices throughout the world--but the cotton boom is fading in the 1870s, and the Confederate working-man finds himself in competition with slave labor to his great detriment.

Lincoln broke the laws; but he had just cause.

Although Sorely tempting to point at Nixon and Bush Jr, I think the worst president is Woodrow Wilson.

Our history books completely remake the guy into some kind of patron saint for democracy--this is a cold, complete falsehood. So, I understand why no one really suggests him.

Screwed up points to consider:

Wilson SEGREGATED the armed forces (they weren't segregated before his presidency).
He crafted a piece of legislation far worse than the Patriot Act (The Espionage Act) which resulted in arrests of "non-patriotic" activities.
Wilson dorked with Latin America to a degree no US president had, or hopefully ever will again. (Over 1 dozen US interventions during his presidency)
The PALMER RAIDS under his presidency was a massive government SNAFU that resulted in a major governent crackdown against innocent people.
His actions revived the KKK.
Although History books like to blame Republician Henry-Cabot Lodge for being the "obstructionist" that killed the US ratification of the League of Nations, Wilson played politics with USA's victory in WW1--a game that ended when he got a stroke. Sound like 9-11 to anyone?
The WW1 peace process was so well done that a sequel war was launched 20 years later--Way to go Wilson!!

Woodrow Wilson was the worst disaster to ever befall the presidency. He's like Bush, except five terms worse.

As another advocate of Science, I think that any 'faith' should be used sparingly. Science deals with laws and principles, and if necessary, deals with tendencies and likelihoods.

We don't know what all of the rules of Science are--and its entirely possible that humanity never will. Some of the most profound questions-What created the Big Bang, why does humanity have inherent feelings of right and wrong, etc are "Answered" by religion. Which, is probably not its place. Some of these recent discoveries (Evolution, Planetary and Stellar Creation, The age of the Universe) are hotly contested by religious elements. But the facts seems to suggest that god is 'lurking behind the facts'. Each time science makes a technological advance that stops on what was formally religious ground, God simply takes a step backwards and becomes the 'cause' of the new facts.

God, then, is on the run. He's the creator of everything through loopholes and unknowns in the scientific progress. At the same time, God is also asserted to be a person's conscience. [Neuroscience probably has the power to close that gap.]

So, god somehow cares about humanity, despite being infinite and all powerful (So, it makes no real sense why he would want anything). To further confuse the point, God is generally deemed to be all-good. Despite this designation, it's obvious from the Old Testament and the Qu'ran that this is also a mistake.

I personally accept the fact that Science doesn't yet provide all of the answers, but aside from occasionally calling a hidden principle the "God Force" I don't believe in a god. And the laws of universe are as strict and uncaring as Gravity and Magnetism.

At 11/3/07 01:21 AM, Raveinx wrote: This comes to represent Christian hypocrisy. Christians essentially say "don't use any kind of artificial contraception methods, it is against God's will". OK, tell me, where the fuck is that God when 300,000 people are slaughtered in Sudan? Where the fuck is that God when millions of kids worldwide are homeless, and will inevitably either: a) Die b) Grow to become criminals or smugglers or c) Be an easy prey for extremist ideals (i.e. terrorism?) Where is the Vatican? Where is God? Where is any of that bullshit when more poors are being born than what the system can even hope to handle?

A woman who earns 60$ a month can't possibly feed her kids and can't possibly give them any form of quality education. These kids will ultimately have a tragic fate, there is nothing for them in this World. Except maybe in a Communist country.

Tell me which is better: To provide the population with some birth control methods, or to ultimately solve the overpopulation problem with a major World War resulting in the mass killings of millions of people? Because, if you don't want to face the reality of the World, and if God doesn't come to change things FAST, thats precisely whats gonna happen.

The Christian Church simply views the old way as the right way. Remember that up until the 17th century, the Church was burning heretics and torturing suspects. They don't do these things anymore, because their power has been broken. And good riddance.

You must remember that God is an alluded to FICTIONAL CHARACTER. Asking God for help is roughly the same as asking Willy Wonka for help, except that God doesn't make one think of chocolate. Literary characters are little more than a piece of imagination.

Fortunately, the last paragraph of your quote is false. Humanity, as it moves from a developing to a developed nation, slows down in terms of birth rate. It's really better to raise two children so that they have a bright future, rather than eight that will struggle to survive. And developing countries have those eight kids for two reasons:

*They need the labor to survive
*25-75% of them will die before reaching adulthood.

Obviously, in developed countries, neither point applies. So, as the world's GDP/Capita rises, the birth rate will fall, and no mass disaster will ever happen.

Pro-Choice isn't a joke. And I don't see how that kind of view can really prevail when the facts don't support it. Yes, Life is very important, but a Fetus is only potential life. It's more likely to become living then a toaster, but its still not alive on its own.

And the Life of Torment Vs. Painless Death argument can't be so easily discarded. Some of the worst monsters of human history were unloved children. Saddam Hussein, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler; these unloved children would become vicious monsters and cause massive suffering. If their parents had simply had an abortion, perhaps the world would have been a better place.

If a woman is seriously considering abortion, she's making a judgment about how little she cares about the potential life inside her. Leaving Abortion on the table doesn't preclude letting the woman either try to raise the child or putting it up for adoption.

And that's really all as far that the Pro-Choice position is really trying to say. Rhetoric and Zealotry aside, the situation of having an unwanted child is a very difficult one. The US adoption system is a very poor substitute for loving families, Indeed, children in the adoption system are occasionally abused by the people who are supposed to be protecting them. But there is no way that any law can ever force someone to accept Parental Responsibility in terms of raising a child.

Most difficult of all, most responsible people would never find themselves in a situation where they would need an abortion. The sexually abstinent, those who practice birth control, and even those who simply use protection are very unlikely to find themselves in this kind of crummy situation. The people who are likely to need an abortion are very often those who lack the responsibility to raise the child; and there is no way that this could ever be legislated. I, as a Man, have no direct stake in this abortion issue. I see no reason to get involved in something that will never affect me personally. And I suspect that most of the people here are either men, or women who know how to have safe sex.

Let's be clear: Abortion is yucky and not a good thing. But the situation its in is also a yucky, unpleasant situation, and while Abortion is wrong, even evil, it might be the best option in a sad situation. People who attack abortion on a LEGAL level miss the point. If they want to end abortions, they need to create a means to either care for the children, or support them directly.

I'm Pro-Choice, Legally. But I would be very wary of having a GF or acquaintance have an abortion.

Well, Stalin was incredibly evil. The only reason he "Got Away" with what he did is because Hitler showed up and tried to be even worse.

Putin might well be an autocratic prick who wants to reassert Russia's power in the world, and make shortsighted moves towards that aim, but that's still a far cry from Stalin. Stalin had been aggressively expanding his own borders (Winter War, moving into Eastern Europe). Putin, actually, is working on the opposite end--trying to retain Russian Influence over what little parts it has left. Despite his desires, Russia has in fact been slowly losing ground.

With the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine and the Rose Revolution in Georgia, Pro-Russian leaders have been replaced with Pro-EU leaders, weakening Russia. In addition, the Chechnya crisis continues--after the massacre of hundreds of Children by Chechen Terrorists, I fail to see how Russia would accept anything other than their arrest and execution.

Iran deals notwithstanding, Russia fears and hates Islamic Terrorism even more than the USA does. Let's not forget that a large number of Muslims are moving into their country. And, don't forget that before Bin Laden was a "terrorist" in the eyes of the United States, he was a hero for defending Afghanistan against the Soviet Incursion.

Putin = Stalin; no. Putin's role in Russia's history will probably be a negative one, but not because of human rights issues. Mostly, because, he hasn't fixed corruption and hasn't resolved the Chechen Affair.

I'm not sure that I agree.

So far, my average posts have been well larger than 200+ words, in the discussion of all kinds of deep topics; like an understanding of good and evil, Logic exercises, what happens if we COULD divide by zero.

I'll grant you that many of the people on this site are either dedicated to the point where they will argue on enthusiasm alone, or too uniformed to make anything other than basic gut-level reactions to things that are said. But these are a function of the young audience on this website. And, for what its worth, they're only about half the people here.

Skunk's golden law should be much more something like 'Skunk's recurring tendency', because I believe that sufficient counter-examples exist to throw this into doubt.

And in any case, Skunk's law has my sympathy; I don't like profane, idiotic one-minute responses, and I just assume there was some kind of 'Spam Thread" that they can pass their gas into.

A number divided by zero is undefined, by convention.

The problem is that numbers, divided by zero, start losing basic properties. Consider:
X/X as x approaches zero. No problems so far, it remains one.
Now throw in 2x/x. As X approaches zero, this remains two.
Now consider the function x/x= 2x/x. This works out at X=0.
But if you divide both sides by X/X, you have 1=2, which means that math is broken.

We assume that numbers, divided by zero, is undefined. If you want a best answer, go for the Calculus Limits to get the 'next best thing.'

I believe that dividing by zero gives you Aleph One, or infinity achieved at a finite rate. But my knowledge of Set Theory is limited. Furthermore, Mathematical rules die with infinities.

Find a math major... BlueMax has been pushed to his limits.

Well, my housemate is From Norway--a Dem. Socialist country.

His father died of cancer, after waiting for treatment for 6 weeks. If he had been in the USA, he could have paid for treatment immediately.
His aunt has not had medical care for 4 months, despite having a broken hip. The government backlog on MEDICAL NEEDS is huge.

And, of course, all of this delay is while he and his family pays extremely high taxes to pay for the system.

The point is that a socialist system is inefficient in ways that hurt people--an evil in its own right. Yes, we need rules to ensure fair play and reasonable standards for public health and safety, but why go farther than that?

Marxism is a failed political theory. A quick evaluation of some of the predictions made with it should indicate why.
--Nation's proletariats will not fight each other, instead they will overthrow their masters together (No--WWI)
--A socialist system eliminates inequality (No-- check out the Soviet Union)
--A socialist system is more humane than a capitalist system (No--Soviet Union again)

The Soviet Union was based upon socialist principles--and it became a nightmare that is almost impossible to comprehend. Stalin's NKGB enforcers killed millions of people under their quota systems. Families broke up under the extreme pressure applied by the government. And while Stalin did master propaganda to an Orwellian degree, the Soviet Union is perhaps a great betrayal of the Marxist dream--instead of becoming a paradise for workers, it would essentially oppress and abuse of all them.

And While democratic socialism would avoid Stalinist abuses of power, it doesn't get around the fact that Socialist economics are inefficient and a waste of precious resources. If people know what other people want, they should be rewarded for their efforts. We should not just leave this to a government committee to guess--but that's what Socialism does. And people die if the Government screws up.

So, no. No country should embrace Dem. Socialism. But the OP is free to emigrate to a country that follows those beliefs.

Arg...

At least the only people they're hurting is themselves.

Still, words do not begin to describe all the ways this radiates STUPID.

I've Never heard of this game, nor do I think I'd ever want to have anything to do with people who play it.

At 2/5/05 08:17 PM, DavSngSorrow wrote: why do people hate gay people they act like it is a disease or something this fuckin pisses me off i am gay myself

--We don't know enough about what causes "gay" to determine whether it is a "disease", "genetic condition", "a result of the environment" or "a form of insanity".

--Hating the gay person would work only in the case that being gay is a deliberate choice. But I believe that being gay is too difficult to be chosen over the alternative. And even in that case, couldn;t the decison to be gay be reversed?

--Most people hate gay people irrationally, because someone else told them to do so. No more justification is needed. And there is often only an interpretation to back up those facts.

--Hypothetical: Considering the extent of science in our world today, should we pursue a "Cure" to treat homosexuality?

Well.

Wal-Market Sucks. And its not just because of Unions:

Wal-Marts destroy small businesses
Wal-Mart has faced lawsuits because of Illegal Workers and Discrimination against Women.
Sam Walton, the original founder of Wal-Mart was in a mental institution twice (talk about your mental health)

I work at Target, which I believe is a better company than Wal-Mart. Many of my Co-Workers used to work there, and they tell stories about ugly fights and unprofessional activity there. I'll concede that this is anecdotal, but I do believe that something of this nature happened there.

Some Wal-Marts are okay. Some are not. And, If you think I'm biased, I probably am. But I've tried to be candid.

1. Bush is an idiot who started an entire war based on the presence of inaccurate, faulty data. We have gone over this again and again. There are no WMD's. There are no biological weapons. There are no links to al-Qaeda. Even Bush concedes to those facts now.

--Not quite. Bush cites Abu Al-Zaqari (Al Qaedas man in Iraq) as a link to Al-Qaeda. There is a 25 Million dollar bounty on that man. There may have been no terrorists before we took out Saddam, but Jihadists are the idiots fighting us today. Granted, they wouldn't be there without Bush.

2. Bush invaded Iraq for the oil. Hey, I understand. All developed nations need oil (a site about that). I just wish that he could've been more honest about it if that was the real reason.

--Impossible. Far easier to deal with Saddam, or even subvert control over Latin American Nations. Iraq may provide oil in the long term, but only if our Iraqi Gambit pays off.

3. Bush invaded Iraq for some ulterior reasons that he has not been completely honest about. I think that Bush may have invaded Iraq to establish a stronger military presence in the Middle East or to strengthen the American alliance with Saudi Arabia by diverting American military bases to Iraq and away from Saudi Arabia, but there may be other ulterior reasons that we couldn't even dream about.

--Hard to Argue points I don't know about. :)
--I would consider in particular the possibility that George W has some kind of Vendetta against Saddam Hussein. Why was it that Bush decided to focus on the Axis of Evil, instead of Al-Qaeda after the success of the Afghan Campaign? Bush wanted that war.
--ANy long term goals in Iraq will litterally take decades. The people just don't seem that interested in us. Granted, that doesn't mean Bush knew that at the time. Still, unless Bush really is dumb enough to believe that they will love us for overthrowing their government, I don't think a long term strategy was considered, at least not in terms of Arab politics.

The difference betweeen 1 and 3 really is this:

Did Bush know that Saddam had WMDs? Or did he make up the story to get his war? That is my question, and I lean towards the "Bush Is a Stupid Idiot" not a "Vicious Warmonger". In light of Bush's saber rattling against Iran, however, I may need to rethink that idea.

Here is a great example of Freedom of Speech:

Read This

A college professor writes a very insulting article about how the USA deserved 9-11 for its abuses around the world. Obviously in very poor taste, and very insulting. But should he be punished for what he is saying? It is not immediately threatening, just irritating.

I'd consider a power sharing "troika" of the six most qualified people--enough so that power is not totally concentrated in too few people. 6 Leaders/ 34 followers seems to be a decent ratio-- about 1:6.

A set of common rules would have to be agreed upon. I'd expect that returning to the mainland would be the ultimate objective.

Survival and safety would be the short term goals. It would be unlikely that the group would want to remain on the island permanently, therefore the government could function indefinitely as a provisional government. There would have to be rules--with clear support of the troika and at least a strong minority in the population.

Just my thoughts. Great question.

Outsourcing is happening because businesses are finding that it is cheaper to shift labor costs to countries with lower income expectations.

The outsourcing of unskilled labor is an eventuality--no one can live in the USA at 1$ an hour, but many other places can. We benefit by having lower costs, which (hopefully) is shared between business and the consumer.

Who wants these jobs? I argue that the loss of these jobs is unimportant, as we dont need more unskilled labor.

Now the outsourcing of skilled labor is a problem. Out best counter to it is simply to draw more skilled immigrants to our country--wouldn't they want to get paid more, anyhow?

Foriegn labor pools aren't infinite. I've heard that labor costs are spiking in parts of India, and jobs are leaving Mexico for Thailand. the end result will be the that the global floor for costs will rise. The USA, as world leader of Research and Development, has nothing to fear if we continue to remain at the forefront of science.

If we lose our lead, then we have a problem.

At 1/25/05 05:07 AM, ReiperX wrote:

No, I believe no matter what, a fair trial should be given, even in a cold blooded murderer's case. I think that this should be a basic human right, which is why I am so against the people being held in Guatonamo Bay. While I am sure many of them are guilty, they need trials.

--I assume that the subjects mentioned above are guilty. But, yes, guilt would need to be established. I would not claim a person to be unreedemable without a fair trial and evidence. They would not have to be present, however.

And where is that point where someone can be judged to be unredeemable?

I don't think there really is one. If you go out and shoot one of these people in cold blood what makes you any different than they are?

--The idea is that they "deserve" that kind of treatment. In addition, you may prevent them from hurting others. I can understand that viewpoint, but I disagree because I simply do not believe that all people are equal. You are not equal to those people if you kill those people. A person who kills three very guilty people is not a mass murderer--he may even be worthy of praise.

--But I guess this presupposes that the Death penalty is appropriate, doesn't it?

Suppose that Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and Slobdoan Milosevic were standing just down the street from yourself, and that you had a loaded handgun in your belt.

Would you take those shots to kill these men, who are responisble to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people?

The Question I'm asking is, is there a point where someone is unredeemable evil? If someone is unredeemably evil, should they be killed as quickly as possible? And where is that point where someone can be judged to be unredeemable?

The "War on Terror" is, and always has been, a war against the ideology of islamic fundamentalism.

This is a war that can be fought, and won. Don't think that it will be easy, but Fascism and Communism have been marginalized and consist mostly of dying governments and geratric leaders. Democracy (combined with Capitalism) has proved to be the strongest combination ever seen in history. Every time an Iranian buys a Coke, they are slowly being influenced into our ideology.

The fundamentalists appeal only to members of a single religion- Islam. While 20% of the world is muslim, that leaves about %80 they can't touch.

And Armed force, properly used, can create ideological victories and draw more support for ones cause. Puppet governments (or something like that) influence their people to their point of view, every bit as surely as people are being indoctrinated into fanatism.

I wouldn't expect armed action to kill an ideology completely, but It has definite value and is a tool to do so.

The origin of the middle east conflict has entirely due to the utter collapse of any meaningful power in the middle east. With the fall of the ottoman empire at the end of the 1920s, the middle east was colonized by France and the UK.

There was some attempt at a Arab Nationalist movements early on, in the 50s or so, but that failed as well. The utter failure to smash Israel, and its resultant land grab made these people angry. And corrupt leaders didn't help this situation. They funded Islamic groups, and claimed that the USA is their enemy.

Now these tinpot leaders have discovered that the forces they funded are not under their control. Iran had a Islamic revelution in the 1970s. Post Hussein Iraq may fall into the same forces of Islam. Hamas is an islamic organization in Palestine that holds serious sway in that area. The point is that Islamic Fundamentalism is a growing ideology that may topple those leaders who once supported it for gain.

This middle east conflict has little (if anything) to do with the bible. Only that Israel is the focus of the Bible ties that ancient text into this situation. Israel is inherently tied into the bible. But this current conflict with Islamic Fundamentalists is because of those forces and our ideological opposition. There are muslims who support our side. That is evidence enough that this is not simply a war between religions. Bin Laden may call this a holy war, but that is simply hype. Its his hard-liners versus more moderate people in his religion and those of other religions.

I don't buy into this, and I can simply not believe that an ancient text can predict our present ideological struggle. America will triumph and continue to coca-colonizing the world.

At 1/6/05 01:54 AM, DonPenguin-Corleone wrote: I think that the stupidest decision anyone ever made was starting a civil war. First of all, that would lead to Liberals in the north, republicans in the south. And eventually, all the slaves would have rebelled and killed off all the republicans, and we would be a better united country. whos with me on this

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Now I'm going to remorselessly smash your arguement. You've been given fair warning...

The south was democrat up until the 1980s or so, probably because of LBJ (a democrat) enfranchised the blacks.

The election of republician Abraham Lincoln only caused South Carolina to seecede. And then they fired on fort Sumter. Blame South Carolina for the civil war.

The position of political parties was radically different then compared to today. Assuming that slavery would end without a civil war (which is possible, given the pressure of other nations), there would be no slave rebellions. If slavery continued, and there was a massive revolt, count on the government to quell the revolt remorselessly and viciously, just like it did with Nat Turner's revolt.

You can't simply kill off all the people of a political viewpoint unles you have the reins of power. This means that the slaves would have to coup control of the USA into their hands. That would never happen.

Starting the civil war was definitely bad, but that isn;t repulicians or Lincolns fault. Blame that, again, on south carolina.

At 1/3/05 03:59 AM, nXXt wrote:

At 1/3/05 03:44 AM, -poxpower- wrote: anyways, are you sure that we'd like 33% longer when we go at 25% of the speed of light??
that doesn't seem right at all. I can't do the math, but I know what the curve looks like, and at 25% of the speed of light, you wouldn't be again 25% slower, you'd be aging much closer to our time.
Its only when you near lightspeed that it starts changing like crazy :o

but I might be wrong.

When traveling at the speed of the Apollo module (on a Saturn V rocket), time changed by a few seconds... so with 25% of the light speed you would probably get a fairly high number, but I doubt it's 33% slower.

--Its a reciprocal of the speed you tarvel versus the speed of light. Travel at half the speed, age half as fast. I do need to check this out thought- Relativity includes gravity and temperature as well as speed, so its all wierd. I'd like to see the fine print on this.

At 1/4/05 07:29 PM, Blackmagic wrote:

At 1/3/05 08:23 PM, BlueMax wrote: Nazis were environmentalists and strongly anti-religious.

Excuse me?

"God is with us" -Adolf Hitler

"Who says I am not under the special protection of God?"
-Adolf Hitler

But then again maybe he just said that and didn't mean it.
Frankly people will lie and make up some bullshit like say he was an atheist or some crazy crap. But in any case hitler was not anti-religion.

--"This is my last territorial demand in Europe"
--"This war is all the fault of the Jews, both in this country and abroad"

--you actually think that quoting Hitler is going to convince me of his true intentions? He is going to create a puppet "National Socialist Church" because he really cares about religion. Or persecute Catholics in southern germany. Perhaps "anti-religious" was too broad a wording, but Hitler was no believer in any faith (unless he was so bonkers that he thought he was).

--Like any astute politician, Hitler knew that there is only so far he could push the German people into doing. That was pretty far, but he needed the support of the Religious Germans until victory over the western democracies and soviet communism. Hitlers post-victory intentions were never seen, and thank goodness for that. But a man who would have 30 million people dead on his watch is no believer in any modern religion.

At 1/3/05 09:19 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote:

At 1/3/05 08:23 PM, BlueMax wrote: Bush's approval is closely tied to the situation in Iraq, which for better or for worse, is entirely caused by him.

No, it's closely tied to EVERYTHING in his platform.

--I doubt it. Bush will probably ignore his gay marriage ban and funding to NASA. These issues are relatively unimportant.

--If there was no Iraq war, Bush would have won 2004 handily, say the political anaylsists. That there was serious competition from the Democrats suggests that Iraq is a very grave issue, and while I believe that other things do matter, I believe that Iraq is probably his biggest liability. You'll note that I did not say that Iraq was the Only thing that mattered.

The Republicans have smashed the Democrats in the short term, but Bush probably won't make good on his proposal to unite the nation.

And yet, he's brought Clinton under his wing, just recently. He didn't have to do that. He could have just as easily chose some conservative who agrees with him.

--I don't think that is enough. Remember he made this Uniter, not a divider pledge on 2000, and failed entirely to make good on it. I'll grant its a start, and a good move, from Bush. But I'm still skeptical. The Supreme court nominations, the new attorney general Bush wants (who wrote the memos restricting torture and the presidents right to use it, despite laws), Bushs environmental policies and his plan to privitize Social security are all going to be divisive. I won't claim it is a given that 2008 will be a divided as 2004, but I think its going to be pretty close.

At 1/5/05 09:45 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:

Basically this: As technology increases, it grows harder and harder to stage a revelution. Staging a revelution today would be suicide.

I strongly disagree with this agruement.

Revolutions happen when:

1. A country's leadership lacks the support of the people
2. The country's leadership is contested outright by other factions
3. Another Country, which this country relied upon to survive, cuts back, or cuts out.
4. A revelutionary somehow takes the reins of power of a country, and forces revelution from the top.
5. A foreign country forces a coup on this country.

Of these, I'd say technology would reduce instances of condition two, above. The USA is forcing revolutions in Iraq and Afghanistan as we speak. Ukraine is likely to face a top down revolution as the new President takes over. The Eastern block crumbled without the SOviet Union, and, a country can not survive without some level of support.

Condition two is still not impossible. Consider the consequences if the USAs armed forces decided they wanted a millitrist government and they started a revelution.

This wacko, however, faces a governmental system that works. Not one of the above conditions apply to the USA. Even in florida 2000, there was no doubt that democracy would survive.

Hey--I know exactly how to do this.

Instead of forcing this idea on someone else, what don't you go build your own country like this. Ya know, there is a big, empty continent ripe for the picking where you can bring all of your ideas and your follower[s?]. Its got ice, and snow, and more ice, and penguins, and even more ice...

I'd really appricate it if you would LEAVE my country rather than try to "FIX" it. I have no interest in joining your neo-fascist revelution to fix problems that we could fix if we wanted to. I am dead set against this kind of revelution, deliberately and intentionally designed to disenfranchise me and my countrymen, If I'm not killed for being an Athiest.

I hope you are just toying with this idea. Otherwise, you will rise to the station of Stalin, Hitler and Mao. Quite simply, your ideas are depraved. Snap out of this "1984-like trance". Of course you would like the world on a silver platter. But It would result in the suffering of hundreds of millions of people. But maybe that doesn't matter to you.

Go ahead, and give this your best shot. The USA will not fall without one hell of a fight, and not on your fascist principles. I personally will fight tenaciously so that you will not prevail.

You want to be a fascist? Then go somewhere else.

We are all digressing here, but:

Bush's approval is closely tied to the situation in Iraq, which for better or for worse, is entirely caused by him. The Republicans have smashed the Democrats in the short term, but Bush probably won't make good on his proposal to unite the nation. His agenda is more of the same--cut taxes and domestic spending, and yet fight more wars.

This isn't even possible. If that is really what the president attempts to do (and thats from CNN, the Wall St. Journal, and the LA Times), the republician edge will be eroded, because (naturally) Bush can not make good on his promises. I am a republician today, largely because I support Arnold (my state Govinator) and state policies. I personally will leave the party if Bush continues on his military adventures and decide that he needs to tightly curtail civil liberties. (We are talking about legalizing torture here)

Back to Coulter-- Her usefulness is probably going to decline when she becomes so extreme that she attacks moderate republicans, as she is bound to do sooner or later. Eventually, she will start going after parts of her own party, in addition to the "liberals"

Oh guys, one more thing. Nazis were environmentalists and strongly anti-religious. Ann Coulter doesn't quite fit that bill.