1,352 Forum Posts by "Commander-K25"
I think that it is most certainly proper to hold a state funeral for any former president (or five-star officer, but that's another matter). The cost of this is minimal compared to the massive bureacratic waste and deleterious social welfare programs, subsidies, pork projects and other unconstitutional programs that steal from the taxpayers' pockets.
What we need is not an end to state funerals but an end to the unconstitutional, bloated bureacracy that has become our government. That's what Reagan truly wanted to achieve, yet nobody wants to talk about. You hear of South America and the Soviet Union, but what what Reagan was really trying for at home was the restoration of an America before the balooning effects of big government. Not all of what Reagan did was right, or turned out right, but I honor him for what he was at heart. He was one of the most "libertarian" of presidents this century.
At 6/5/04 06:21 PM, Rydia_Lockheart wrote: Regardless of how anyone viewed him as a president, I think it's a shame he had to die of Altzhiemer's (sp?). He had a long and fruitful life, though, so I guess that's what matters.
I think Reagan, like any president, had both his good and bad points. He was able to pick up the slack left by the Carter administration, though, so I have to give him that.
Very true. Having lost family members to Alzheimer's myself, I assure you that no one deserves to go out that way. In truth, he was gone a long time ago. As Nancy Reagan said last month, "Ronnie's long journey has finally taken him to a distant place where I can no longer reach him."
For better of for worse, goodbye Mr. Reagan.
At 5/13/04 11:36 AM, Nirvana13666 wrote:
1) No, it is way wrong. But they feel justified just like Bush wants us to feel when we retaliate back. The reality is we started this one and we will be the one's to end it no matter how many people die in the process
They feel justified? I'm sure they do; so did the Nazis.
As for the standards of comparison, look at the prison photos, then look at the Berg tape. We stripped some guys and took photos; they CUT HIS HEAD OFF!! By the logic of "we cause whatever they do," then you're absolving murderers and terrorists of any responsibility for their own actions. I don't care how justified they "felt" or if they felt justified by something we did. It neither makes their actions right or absolves them of guilt.
2) I'm upset at Mr. President for his inaction in regards to the torture our Soldiers did to those men.
There is in fact plenty of action being taken and Bush did address the Arab world his his recent interview on Arab TV. As for the prison, there is a full military investigation going on and those in the photos have all been suspended and the entire battalion is under heavy scrutiny. A big shakeup is going in the management of these prisons so I would hardly say we're "doing nothing" about it.
This incident simply further identifies what our true enemy is in this current conflict that is taking place around the world: radical Islam and the culture that spawns it. These radicals and fundamentalists are what keep women oppressed in the Mid-East, they're what prevent democracy and institute brutal dictatorships, they're the ones who prevent peace and prolong war in Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq. This is the tip of a much bigger issue than the war in Iraq, so please try to step beyond the petty arguments about prisoner abuses or suicide bombings and realize that this is a war on an entire ideology.
And it's a war we must win.
At 3/31/04 11:36 PM, JMHX_DeLux wrote: The bottom line -- these men are dead, and we are NOT WANTED THERE.
What you're seeing (because its the only thing being reported) is a small percentage of the population in Iraq. Only a small percentage of the people in Iraq actaully support or carry ou these actions and most are concentrated in certain areas. Fallujah happened to be a particularly pro-Saddam and now anti-American area. Even there though many do not support this type of thing. Reporters on the scene said that while the mutilations and hangings of the bodies were going on, people headed indoors and shielded their children inside from what was going on in the street; They turned their backs on the mob.
Still, we're dealing with some wonderful people....
At 3/22/04 07:28 PM, Red_Skvnk wrote: They dropped a bomb in the middle of a street, as the guy was exiting a Mosque. They got an interview from a completely innocent cab driver who had seen the whole thing. While I agree the Palestinians are not uniformaly absolved of any wrongdoing, it situation obviously isn't as cut and paste as your cartoon.
I'm not saying that it's a cut-and-dry issue, but at least the Israelis aim for the terrorists. Yes, civilians sometimes get killed in the crossfire but when did you ever hear "Israeli soldier gets on bus; detonates himself" or "Israeli troops slaughter pizzeria full of customers". At least there is a reason to their violence other than the "We hate Jews therefore let's kill some Jews" message of the terrorists.
At 3/22/04 06:45 PM, EvilGovernmentAgent wrote: Because the communities are popular, of course. And besides, what would NG be without men pretending to be women?
Nothing at all. That is why, Shrapnel is teh sexiest female I have EVER SEEN!!!!!!
I would like to marry her.
*Smily faise*
Shrapnel is a woman!?
I'm so confused....
A slight difference in intent:
High gas prices? Probalbly the result of govt. fuel taxes, especially in Europe.
Why are they allowed to permit smoking? Because it's private property and believe it or not, the government has no right to tell you whether you can smoke or allow smoking in your property.
If you don't like smoking, your options are to:
A) leave
or
B) deal with it.
Why EA Games? Why?
I bought your BF1942,
I played it, I loved it,
I downloaded a dozen mods for it.
But now you sell me BF: Vietnam,
The hype was good,
The trailers were exciting,
But I should have known better.
You put in great music,
And stunning details too,
but then you ruin it with a crappy turn rate.
Why EA Games, Why?
At 3/13/04 03:51 PM, punk_clock wrote: If voting really was benificial for the people shouldn't there be an annual referendum to abolish government for all us anarchists?
You're free to start a petition and make proposals to the legislature. Tell me how many signatures you get ;)
Vote on principle, vote for a candidate you believe in. There are plenty of third parties out there and if there's not one for you, then at least cast a write-in for yourself, but don't 'not vote.' If you don't vote, you're not really in a position to complain.
"Designer babies" would inevitably lead to 'trends' and fads in designing one's children. On a large scale, this could disrupt the balance of genetic traits thorughout the entire population.
It is best not to play God no matter how 'in control' we feel.
At 3/7/04 02:42 PM, WESMAN_00 wrote: A poll done by Maclean's Magazine shows that only 15% of Canadians would re-elect Bush in the upcoming election. Would you re-elect Bush?
On an unrelated note, only 11% of Ethiopians would re-elect Valdimir Putin to Pres. of Russia....
Yeah, anarchy is the absence of government. It started to gain strength as an organized movement around the same time as communism and became heavily associated with the bomb-throwing & assassination tactics of its most radical members (they hoped to start off a laborer's revolt by inciting civil unrest). The movement died out in the 20s and 30s but it seems to 'live on' thorugh self-described 'punks' that advocate it because it seems cool. The theory of anarchy itself is self-defeating and overly optimistic about human nature. It would be nice if worked, it would be perfect in fact, but like most utopian systems it doesn't work. End of story.
At 3/2/04 01:25 PM, Proteas wrote:
Solomon's temple didn't exist during the time of the Crusades, it was destroyed by the Babylonians at about 550 BC. The Dome of the Rock was built about a millenium later on Mt. Moriah, the former site of Solomon's Temple. If anyone made off with the Ark of the Covenant, it was probably the Babylonians.
Yes, the temple was destroyed, but it was then rebuilt by the Israelites after their return. It is believed that the Ark was hidden beneath the Temple to safeguard it from capture by the Babylonians.
The Templars were pretty crafty and there were a lot of power struggles between Orders and factions within the medieval church, so they may have been stashing away the Ark for later.
At 3/2/04 02:41 AM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: The problem with the libertarians is that there's so many nutty libertarians. There are a bunch of really smart ones, but the wacko libertarians make them look bad. Some weirdo put up a bunch of "Taxation is Theft, vote Libertarian" posters around Phoenix. I think that's a little extreme.
Yeah, there are some fringe-type people that can project a bit of a negative image, but they're far outnumbered by the rational Libertarians who support the party on principle. The extremists should remind themselves that it's not government = bad, it's too much government = bad.
At 3/2/04 12:41 AM, JudgeFUNK wrote: Hey, it's not the only stance I want them to have. I would love to have a perfect party stance, but I'm not fool enough to believe a party who claims to have one. I want an honest party as well as a competent one. So far all I have to choose from is incompetent dishonest parties.
There are alternatives to the Republicans & Democrats. I would urge you to investigate the Libertarian Party. They take a strong stance but that stance is in support of hands of policies. They believe that the government doesn't know how to run your life and they shouldn't try to. Read their principles or platform; it's interesting stuff.
Gore (tried to) cheated (but got caught)
Like it or not:
a) he IS your president
b) the Supreme Court did not appoint him president, they ruled on a point of law (i.e. did their job)
c) subsequent third-party recounts confirmed Bush's lead
d) this was not the only electoral 'crisis' in US history
At 3/2/04 12:32 AM, JudgeFUNK wrote: Just once, I would like the government to admit they don't really know what's best for us. If I could find a political party that would honestly admit when they make mistakes, I would actually support party politics.
True, but a party that simply throws its hands in the air and says "I don't know" is sort of weak and unlikelyto accomplish anything. They've got to have a stance.
For starters, cut all taxes.
At 3/1/04 03:26 PM, Proteas wrote:At 2/29/04 11:46 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: A particularly tantalizing possibilty is that they may have the Ark of the Covenant, (most likely hidden away in Rosslyn Chapel near Edinburgh, Sctoland).The Ark of the Covenant is hidden in the catacombs under the Dome of the Rock in Jeruselam, duh. Everyone knows that.
Possibly, or perhaps the catacombs under Solomon's Temple which the Templars excavated and searched during the Crusades/Kingdom of Jerusalem period. They were very intent on the site and nobody is really sure what they found.
Thanks for the ad hominem attacks and attempts to change the subject. This was just an interesting article that I found.
Relax.
Nihilism and the so-called "Overman" were both parts of Neitzsche's philosophy but they both rely on a concept in physics known as Eternal Return, the idea that the universe has existed and will exist infineteky but is finitely bounded and thus the total states of the universe are finite and will simply repeat themselves forever, hence no progress and no point to existence. However, the Eternal Return has been proven incorrect. The phase space of the universe is not finite, a critical condition for the Eternal Return. Instead, it goes to infinity as he the Universe collapses into final singularity.
Nietzsche had interesting ideas but he was ultimetly foiled by 19th century physics. Nihilism is based on the idea that ultimate progress is impossible, that we're just treading the same path in a circle into infinity. Ths is incorrect though; Universal progress is not only possible but inevitable. God is the final singularity, the result of the progress.
The Knights Templar? Interesting but long defunct, although there seem to be remnants or various groups that claim lineage back to the Templars. A particularly tantalizing possibilty is that they may have the Ark of the Covenant, (most likely hidden away in Rosslyn Chapel near Edinburgh, Sctoland).
A very perceptive article: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/162066_focus29.html
Some highlights:
As sharp critics who, nevertheless, love our home, we tried to point out that the America simplistically rendered in the children's drawings was a mere caricature, that our country, like theirs, is a complex society struggling to make real its founding principles of liberty, justice and equality. But it was impossible to move the conversation far from the president and his triumphalist foreign policy. Europeans are preoccupied with their disdain of Bush.
Bush-hating has also given Europeans a marvelous distraction from their own failures; their failure in the Balkans, their failure to come up with a constitution for the European Union, their failure to build an independent military force, their failure to put together a single, coherent European foreign policy. In so many ways, Europeans who once ran the world now feel impotent to affect international events or even get their own house in order. They float like a lovely but rudderless old yacht in the surging wake of an American aircraft carrier.
So, Europeans do the one thing that makes them feel superior: revile Bush, the lunatic cowboy, and all those gun-toting, overweight, money-obsessed, religion-crazed Americans who chose him as their president.
At 2/22/04 05:53 PM, Slizor wrote:
That is so weird! I agree with that. I mean not exploiting labour, not injuring each other and leaving people free - Jefferson was a Libertarian Communist, right? I'm surpurised Commander, after all this time I see I've had an effect on you.
No, you've always seemed (at least to me) to represent yourself as straight-up socialist and I've said several times before that I'm a somewhat right-leaning libertarian.
The difference is that socialism wants to 'make everything right' and be the purveyor of fairness and social justice through government action. Libertarianism say that the best policy is hands-off. People can take care of themselves.
At 2/22/04 04:53 PM, punk_hippy wrote: However, by controlling your rights, the people in charge of your government can bestow and take away your rights as they see fit.
One fine example of that are the "free zpeech zones", free speech is a value inherent to being human, not something you can take away and give only to some
That's exactly why government must be so restrained and limited. Government is a necessary evil which must perform certain duties (national defense, diplomacy, limited reglulation) but no more.
Thomas Jefferson said it best in his first Inaugural Address: "A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labour the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government...."
