1,352 Forum Posts by "Commander-K25"
At 2/27/02 08:38 PM, Len_Mystic wrote: Many people i know are all for anarchy
Screw the government is heard by me alot. I am all for i but unfortunatly i am a realist. Anarchy works on the principle of the "golden rule". This basically says that we all can manage ourselves and live in peace. If you treat others kindly. THis is sort of an anti-darwanism statement for if you truly have an honor system someone is bound to break it. This has been shown in history too. The only true anarchy in recorded history where there was civilzation was the post-roman pre-futalistic society. Everyone was on their own. And soon a small portion of welthy powermongers took control of the masses in most parts of europe. Proclaming themselves kings and lords. While the people that were under them were the surfs or glorified slaves. This is one example of how power could destroy a good system. The princible that anarchy is formed on is a good a decent idealist one but is it always to be trampled by seekers of absolute power?
What will happen if anarchy takes hold is that citizens will take it upon themselves to shun and punish criminals. You steal, the community kicks you out or places restrictions on you. The community will make decisions based on common needs, no leaders. People know what they need, safety, food, shelter, etc. Criminals and others who threaten that safety will soon get the "point" if you know what I mean.
As for evil dictators and leaders, if the people remain vigilant, they'll shun government and charsimatic leaders will be nothing more than shunned fanatics that nobody likes.
I support anarchy as a general state of society so that people can choose to follow their own forms, anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, etc. If you want to be capitalist, good, be that way and work for yourself and only you, that's good. If you want to form a commune and manage a business with a bunch of others, that's good too. You'll be free to conduct life in whatever social fashion you please. Total chaos will not happen because people do not thrive in chaos and by nature, the way in which people thrive most will rise to the top. That is a community of mutual individuals living together out of common interests (i.e. trade, food, etc.)
They'll provide for defense with militias. Everyone is free to have a gun and use it however they want. Use it for crome though and the community will hate you and punish you. You will naturally use it for self-defense and protection of the community because that is in your best interest.
Anarchy will naturally balance out to the best and most harmonious state. The only problem is getting the Revolution started.
At 2/27/02 05:50 PM, dagger_happy wrote: Ouch. Don't like us Brits much do you?
I in fact like Britain but the European arrogance that has taken root is disguisting.
:Might I point out that the UK had won the battle of Britain by the end of 1941 when the USA belatedly entered the war and there was no way that Hitler could invade while Britain had air superiority.
:They won because of Hitler's fanatical focus on bombing London rather than taking out radar sites. It was his anger that contributed a large part to the victory. And don't EVER say the US had a small part. My grandfather fought with the US army alongside the British in North Africa and later he took part in the Italy invasion. It was lucky that the bullet he took didn't kill him. Don't EVER say we didn't contribute.
:In any case, the Third Reich was ill-equipped for any kind of invasion from the sea. And that the nuclear missles in Cuba were merely evening up the gun that was already pointed at Russia's head. Missiles were right on the border of the USSR in Turkey, whilst Cuba is 90 miles from the USA. What right did you have to cut communications between Cuba and Russia?
We had the right to blockade because we were in imminent danger. The government shall provide for the commin defense. We could have just kicked Castro out.
The Marshall plan was a great act of generosity, but you cannot ignore it's other agenda: fighting communism. Also, it was a useful way for Uncle Sam to establish international monopolies for his goods, a nice little earner.
So? If we did that's free enterprise.
:I am not about to protect Josef Stalin, but the USA's worldwide crusade for capitalism was just another type of imperialism. It claimed to create freedom rather than the terror of Communism, but RIGHT-wing dictatorships were frequnetly propped up
by the USA, which were far from democratic. Pinochet in Chile, for example.
In typically simple-minded fashion now, Bush wins the war in Afgahnistan (which I did, before you start making preconceptions about me, agree with). But, quick as a flash, now he's off again to pick a fight with somebody else.
He's protecting America (and the rest of the world) by pursuing terrorism wherever it tries to hide.
:What about Afgahnistan? Ah, fuck 'em, they're not the taliban anymore, so who cares? We destroy the last remnants of infrastructure in their country and then move on. Hmm, maybe we can send some Jesuits there to convert em to to the RIGHT faith. Islam is UnAmerican! I wonder if you had even heard of a country called Afgahnistan before Sept 11?
We've still got troops there and we're cooperating closely with Hamib Karzai. After that they can elect their own leaders and run their own country.
What's ironic is that if we helped run the country like you suggest then you would say we're taking control in imperialistic fashion. There's no way to win a good opinion in the eyes of the world so we're going to do what's right and the rest of you can whine to yourselves.
Of course, my country has a history no more honourable than yours and I can admit that openly, but it really irritates me when people like you come along and insist that EVERYTHING your country ever did was righteous and perfect - well, everything the Republicans did, anyway.
Ummmm, sonce when have the Republicans hated Britain or said that America was perfect? No nation is but we're the best so far.
At 2/27/02 05:21 PM, dagger_happy wrote: They are not "truths" - they are unsupported statements. For example, "There is a God". You're gonna have to try a little harder than that to convice me to hand over my life to the house of bible-bashing hypocrisy which is the church. Also, I noticed "morality" being mentioned several times. Who's morality? Since the concept of this word is entirely subjective, I cannot accept what you say. Every person has their own idea of what is "right" "wrong" and "decadent", so I do not see how there can be an all-encompassing "one-size-fits-all" morality. I guess you were trying to fox the oppostion with this thread by making it so damn long, and you've succeeded - like I'm gonna read all that narrow-minded crap!
First of all, just by logical reasoning most of these can be proved true. Morality is NOT defined by personal choice, that's part of what's so wrong with society. There is RIGHT and there is WRONG, no matter how much some may subscribe to the "If it feels right do it" attitude. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "Only the triumph of principles can bring you peace."
At 2/27/02 05:21 PM, dagger_happy wrote: They are not "truths" - they are unsupported statements. For example, "There is a God". You're gonna have to try a little harder than that to convice me to hand over my life to the house of bible-bashing hypocrisy which is the church. Also, I noticed "morality" being mentioned several times. Who's morality? Since the concept of this word is entirely subjective, I cannot accept what you say. Every person has their own idea of what is "right" "wrong" and "decadent", so I do not see how there can be an all-encompassing "one-size-fits-all" morality. I guess you were trying to fox the oppostion with this thread by making it so damn long, and you've succeeded - like I'm gonna read all that narrow-minded crap!
I don't think many would disagree with Christian morality, to sum it up:
And God spoke all these words saying...
1) You shall have no other gods besides Me.
2) You shall not make for yourselves an idol...
3) You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain...
4) Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.
5) Honor your father and your mother...
6) You shall not murder.
7) You shall not commit adultery.
8) You shall not steal.
9) You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10) You shall not covet...
(Excerpted from Exodus 20:1-17)
At 2/27/02 06:17 PM, dagger_happy wrote:
Can you remember things before you were about four or so? Probably not, most people can't but does that mean you weren't alive? I'll say it yet again, give the kid a chance at life before you just kill him, stealing any chance that he has.
As for abortion safety, they aren't. Thousands of women have dies from them, the list goes on and on. Internal bleeding, infection, emergency histerectomies, it's a horrible thing even in the best clinics.
A necessary evil? There's no such thing. Never choose the lesser of two evils.
Check out this link for a list of only a fraction of the casualties:
http://www.priestsforlife.org/brochures/maternaldeaths.html
If you want some of the gruesome details on a few cases then click here:
http://www.prolife.com/DEADWMN.html
Abortion is not brain surgery and it is normally a safe (as safe as any operation can be) procedure. You completely ignored my point of women getting abortions illegally, which really would be dangerous. "Never choose the lesser of two evils". Unless you hadn't noticed, the entire world is built on compromise, and I find you're desire to restrict personal freedom far more worrying. I find you extremely arrogant preaching for people to use contraception or abstain as if their sexual habits are your or the government's business. You clearly haven't given much thought to how much pain, anguish and difficulty 9 months of pregnancy can cause a woman. Surely she can decide for herself if she wants the baby, and it will be on her conscience as well, not yours.
I don't think their habits are any bit of my concern. In fact it is in the utmost degree theirs. That's my entire point. They decided to have sex so they should be aware of the consequences. They're gambling if they decide to but don't want a baby. I think a woman can decide not to have a baby, by not having sex, or if she thinks the odds are good enough, birth control but that's her decision and she has to live with it. A baby may be part of those consequences though, she and her partner know this and they have to take responsibility, something not many people want to do these days. I understand that it is a man's responsibility too but she has the final say, it's her body.
I also understand that same argument of "its her body" could be used to attempt to justify abortion but the argument is flawed. It's her body but not her life that's she's taking if she aborts. The child is killed before it even has a chance, a cruel injustice of the worst kind.
Fetus aborted at 24 weeks:
At 2/27/02 05:07 PM, dagger_happy wrote: The state has NO right to decide what a woman does to her "body". I use that word in inverted commas because I ackowledge that it is another life, but it requires the mother to live and it is more a bundle of cells than human being (depending on how far into the pregnancy you are). Can you REMEMBER being in your mother's womb? Of course not: you're brain was not fully formed and you were incapable of even comprehending such a premise as memory. It is questionable whether featuses have even any concept of being. Therefore, I think it is ridiculous to compare abortion with murder because life has not really begun before birth.
As well as the moral argument, you ought to bare in mind the difference between a perfect world and the real world. Women will always have unwanted pregnancies and they will always seek to get rid of the baby - whether it's legal or not. Backstreet abortionists in the past posed a risk to the woman's life, often not using adeuqate medical hygiene or instruments and the woman could end up dead from the botched operation. Would you rather have the Kid brought up in a shitty home with unloving, resentful parents; or being continuously shipped from one foster family to the next for their childhood? I don't like abortion, but I can see that it's a necessary evil.
Can you remember things before you were about four or so? Probably not, most people can't but does that mean you weren't alive? I'll say it yet again, give the kid a chance at life before you just kill him, stealing any chance that he has.
As for abortion safety, they aren't. Thousands of women have dies from them, the list goes on and on. Internal bleeding, infection, emergency histerectomies, it's a horrible thing even in the best clinics.
A necessary evil? There's no such thing. Never choose the lesser of two evils.
Check out this link for a list of only a fraction of the casualties:
http://www.priestsforlife.org/brochures/maternaldeaths.html
If you want some of the gruesome details on a few cases then click here:
At 2/27/02 08:26 AM, pyroarchy wrote:At 2/26/02 10:24 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: This is why strong cryptography is important. So called "cypherpunks," people that support freedom of information through cryptography have said it all along. Get yourself some good encryption and be free. There are codes that are uncrackable if you do it right.everything is crackable, if you do it right. :)
Not if you have the key at both ends and rotate keys so that although similar algorithims may be used, the same key is never used twice. Sort of like a "one-time" pad but for digital information.
At 2/27/02 01:14 PM, Slizor wrote:
You should be more grateful that the UK isn't an province of the Reich now.I've thanked Russia before.
Russia?
Everyone did. Germany was divided up into sections of control, Britain, France, Russia and the US got pieces.And yet you still seized land.
Seized land? We along with all the other allies administered Germany because they had to be broken of fascism. With the Marshall Plan we rebuilt most of Europe.
You should be glad we fought communism.Hah, I'd prefer to be in a country that doesn't pretend like it's free.
So you'd prefer a brutal communist dictatorship over the most prosperous nation on Earth? I can't argue with your impeccable logic.
Korean War: South Korea asked for our help.So what if North Korea had asked for help?
Vietnam: South Vietnam asked for help.See Korea.
Afghanistan: September 11. Need I say more.That was by Al Qaeda, not Afghanistan.
Afghanistan harbored bin Laden, endorsed his operations and refused to hand him over when we gave them plenty of time and warning to. Not to mention the Taliban's own brutalities, religious oppression, violent control, oppression of women. Are you saying you support them?
Where's Panama on your list? Eh?
We took over the canal zone to run the canal and if you haven't noticed, we've given it back.
Hmmmm, not to mention all the great things the British have done with the world.See, this doesn't work. I am not saying my country is better than your country, I am saying your country is being a little biznitch, there's a difference.
A little "biznitch," We've done great things for the world. All the financial and humanitarian aid to foreign countries, the vast technological advances, and we're the antithesis to communistic madness. We've done incredible things for the world and we get hated globally and attacked by terrorists because everyone envies us.
At 2/27/02 01:25 PM, Slizor wrote: These "Truths" are inarguable. They have absolutly no premises, and therefore would have to be pronounced invalid arguments. They have no case.
They're tenets of conservatism, and they are very true.
At 2/27/02 03:13 AM, bula_luigi wrote: Firstly, you don't post a little opinion without backing it up with a reason. thats just dumb.
Secondly, whoever was dissing Left Wingers up there, fuck you. You don't know what you're talking about, but maybe I shouldn't blame you, why would American schools tell their "future" about their country's dirty past?
Thirdly, I'm a female. I'm still undecided on the whole abortion case, but to think that a woman who needs an abortion is a cheap whore and a murderer is sexist. I don't like the idea of killing babies, but if I were raped, and became pregnant, I'm not going to keep the baby, for health reasons. I don't think you guys get the idea that having a baby is no walk in the park, and with me, if I'm like my mother, i could risk my life giving birth to a child.
anyway drifting away from the topic there, why should someone give birth to a baby that was unintended?
while we're on the topic of babies, I think it is selfish for an underage girl to deliberatly have children. They say they 'want a child to love' but really, they trying to claim a single mothers pension. I don't want my tax dollar going towards a girl who can't wait until she's finished her teen years, to start a family -_-
I already said that rape would possibly justify it. And as for "unintended" babies, what were you thinking when it was conceived, if it wasn't rape? If you can't feed em, don't breed em. Use birth control.
Now I can predict your next argument, that birth control is only effective like 99% of the time and sometimes you just aren't lucky. That's true, so if you can't afford a kid, just don't so it. Abstinence works 100% of the time. Wait until you're married or at least engaged. You take risk every time, even with protection. You should know that and therefore acknowledge the risk. If the odds don't go in your favor, too bad. It was your choice.
And on the topic of other people's money being given away, that's something liberals want to do. So I don't get your complaint about "liberal-bashing." It was conservative values that made this country great. This history is taught, if only so many Democrats would try to live up to it. At least Republicans don't want to take the money of hard working, middle class Americans and give it to some poor person who won't get a job cause they're leeching off welfare and food stamps. Republicans say, tech him some job skills and help him support himself. Democrats say, give him a handout so we'll look good in the short term.
"Evidence refutes liberalism."
At 2/27/02 01:30 PM, Slizor wrote:
Third, although a fetus is technically non-sentient it is different than the cow because it will develop into a person, a sentient thinking being that deserves a chance at life.So it's immoral to kill a human fetus, but not to kill an "animal" fetus?
I've already said this, an animal is a non-sentient life form that we feed on. A human fetus is the seed of intelligence that should be given a chance to have the life that sentient, intelligent creatures have. Please read before posting.
At 2/26/02 03:26 PM, EntropicOrder wrote: Two theories about how a universe ends are as follows:
1. The universe, once fully expanded, collapses again, in which case it has the ability to cause another Big Bang, another universe, and so on.
2. The universe expands until it can't expand anymore, and then it freezes in it's most broken down state.
(I'm not saying these are the only two, nor am I saying I know everything there is to know about these theories. I'm only stating the theories.)
Now, suppose we assume infinite time. It works very well with the theory 1 because universes continue to be created and destroyed.
But, with the second theory, is it possible for our assumption to still be true (that time is infinite)? Suppose our current universe ends by freezing, meaning that our universe is the last universe that will ever exist. Does that mean that there could have been universes before it that ended by collapsing? If our not, then our universe must have been the first and the last.
If this is the case, then how did the beginning of this universe happen, and what was before that?
Maybe theory 1 only works with an atheist point of view, saying that time and matter always existed, in infinite time. And maybe theory 2 only works with the God perspective, that our before our universe, there was only God, then he created the universe, then the universe ended and we all went to heaven. (But actually, humans would end long before the universe ended, because our level of complexity cannot survive in a universe that is nearing complete entropy)
About the beginning of the universe, probably the best explanation of what happened is that there was a random vacuum fluctuation, these things happen all the time in so-called empty space. This produced a little particle, the proto-universe. The symmetry broke and it expanded in the "Big Bang."
At 2/9/02 03:44 AM, GameboyCC wrote:At 2/8/02 08:51 AM, pyroarchy wrote:I'm actually suprised that most Americans are content with living in a police state. Ever since September 11th, we've been letting more and more things slip by without so much as a raised eyebrow. Of course since we're in our little war, most people want to think that they're with the good guys... so we ignore the little black spots. We pretty much gouge out our own eyes.At 2/7/02 04:32 PM, evvil_1986 wrote:i'm afraid we need to do more than just say no, we need to bitch slap them and say "NO! thats a BAD government! leave mah fuckin freedoms alone!! arrgghh!!"At 2/7/02 08:25 AM, pyroarchy wrote: As time has passed the internet has grown in vast amounts and in all directions, but theres one thing that is wanting to own it and/or regulate it, yes the united states government. They are taking more and more part in this big network of information and freedom. This new concept that has been put into effect(i think its in effect) its called Carnivore, its a computer equipped with a 2 gig. Jaz drive and the FBI puts it in any american ISP they want to. They place it in the ISP that they think an "internet terroist" is using, and it grabs everything your computer sends out, just like a packet sniffer, it especially likes e-mail packets. Its supposivly "invisible" on the ISP's network of computers. Now does'nt this violate some law? That the FBI can just rumage thru anything that comes out of your computer, and read your e-mail is just violation of privacy to me. Now its seems that the government is taking a very large role in trying to censor and regulate the internet, they spy on IRC networks, forums, what else is next? cameras in our bathrooms? lets hope not.people will always be willing to sacrifice freedom for safety. the government will always try and take everything from you they can. They are already working on legislation for sensors they put in your finger. We need to stand up and say no, otherwise they will just keep taking our freedoms.
Tell me your opinon on this subject.
Or we listen to fear-mongers and liberal-controlled media hype that blows isolated and minor events out of proportion. Fox News is just about the only unbiased news network.
This is why strong cryptography is important. So called "cypherpunks," people that support freedom of information through cryptography have said it all along. Get yourself some good encryption and be free. There are codes that are uncrackable if you do it right.
At 2/26/02 08:26 PM, Biseor wrote:At 2/26/02 06:44 PM, VA7DAS wrote: America is only great militarily. I live in Canada and we hate you, and not becuase of envy but becuase you are a greedy, ignorant people. How can you say you are better then other nations. Canada and most european nations have higer literacy rates then america. Canada and many european countries have socialized or a better health care systems then America. Canada has a higher living standard then you. America is feared, Canada is respected(there is a differnce).Oh Bullshit. It's outright envy. Canada has better healthcare? HAH! I guess it does if you like waiting 4 years to get a simple operation done.
Canada may be respected among the EU. True. But then again, who the hell cares? In America, Canada is nothing more then a bad joke. I'll tell you this much, if America suddenly vanished from this earth, the world would decend into a chaotic shit-hole worse than it's ever been.
Slizor I wouldn't bother arguing with Biseor anymore, its like arguing with a brink wall. An extremly inbreed, stupid, rightest brick wall.Arguing with a "BRINK" wall? "Extremely INBREED"
Better literacy my ass.
Canada doesn't even have a clear culture. When do you ever say, "Hey, lets go get some Canadian food for dinner."
At 2/26/02 01:05 AM, VA7DAS wrote:At 2/25/02 09:56 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: Until The Revolution I'm Republican but my ideal state is anarco-capitalism. It'll keep the liberals from running our life. In summary:You dumb-ass the true definition of anarcy is communism without the leaders. A fundemental belief of the right wing, this is text book definition here, is that man is essentialy "evil" and that society needs laws to esure he is good. Where as liberalism believes man is essentialy "good" and that criminals can be reabilatated. Anarchy has no laws and no structer. Conservatism needs laws and Capitalism needs structer. There go you gotta lay off the pills or whatever the fuck your on. Maybe you should go read a book on the matter?
I'm an Anarco-capitalistic conservative.
Ummm, no. I have read many books on the subject. Anarchy is not liberal. In fact, it could be described as more right wing than anything. Republicans want more than anything, less government involvement in your life. Anarchy is extreme right wing principles. In a way, it and Libertarianism are off the political scale. Communism is what you get when you go too far left. Stalin, Mao Tse-Dong, Ho Chi Minh, need I say more?
And anarchy is not pro-socialism. In anarchy you will have more economic freedom than ever. You will work for you, the profits of your labor will go to you. This is also know as capitalism. The belief that what I earn I should keep rather than some arrogant, hippocrite, liberal Democrat giving it away. That's what conservatism is all about. What's mine is mine so go away and don't bother me. Anarchy is just an extension of that. The freedom from government control. The freedom from taxes. The freedom to do what you want and live how you want, within reason, of course. You'll associate with people you like and work out deals with them, (i.e. I trade a bag of beans I grew for that TV that your factory made.) Anarchy is true freedom from liberalism/socialism. Don't ever confuse the two!
At 2/26/02 12:51 AM, VA7DAS wrote:At 2/25/02 09:03 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: They're true!I hope you didn't spend alot of time on that, becuase if your trying to piss off liberals we really don't care, nor do we have the time read rush's crap.
Rush Limbaugh's Undeniable Truths
The simple truth is that Rebuplicans are the rich for the rich (or the poor, religious right). And that will never change.
Of you actually read his "crap," then you probably wouldn't be liberal. He makes a lot of sense. Are there any Republicans on NG?
At 2/26/02 07:39 AM, Reaper-n wrote: Rush is clearly the following.
A: Severly right wing
B: Christian
C:An Idiot (IMHO)
A- The right is right.
B- He'd take that as a compliment and so would I.
C- He makes more sense that "Puff" Daschle, Sore Loserman, the FemiNazis or the eco-fanatic tree-huggers. Not to mention "Slick Willie" Don't the Democrats have such great, honest, sensible, upstanding leaders? They always do what's right, don't they.
Please tell me that you're smart enough not to believe that.
At 2/26/02 07:35 AM, Reaper-n wrote: A revolution is needed but thats a different subject..
Neway Anarchy is not rlly the answer, Human nature and power are a dangerous mix, But Human nature and anarchy is worse. There are too many violent and unstable people in this world. Give them anarchy and they will give you violence. The problem is that our current system is failing too. There must be a happy medium somewhere. But where ?
Anarchy is still the answer. The only reason that violent unstable people come to power is becasue the repressed masses look for a strong leader. Unfortunantly, they often get an oppressive psychopath. Without the State oppression, people will live free without political leaders. Violent unstable people will be shunned from communities or simply shot by citizens militias. The best army is simply to have every citizen armed.
At 2/26/02 04:09 PM, Slizor wrote:
"This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least appreciated people on all the earth. Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts.America, refusing to help with the world war until threatened forsook millions of British and French lives and meant that the Germans had control of france and the French factories, meaning all of the weapons would have had to either produced in England, or bought. Which caused billions of dollars worth of debts.
You should be more grateful that the UK isn't an province of the Reich now.
:In the fallout after the war America seized German land.
Everyone did. Germany was divided up into sections of control, Britain, France, Russia and the US got pieces. You should be glad we fought communism.
When earthquakes hit distant cities, it is the United States that hurries in to help. This spring, 59 American communities were flattened by tornadoes. Nobody helped. The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent, warmongering Americans.No examples are given about the earthquakes, it just relies on the Marshall plan...again.
I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplane. Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tri-Star, or the Douglas DC10?How does this make them a good neighbor?
If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all the International lines except Russia fly american planes? Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on the moon? You talk about Japanese technocracy, and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy, and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy, and you find men on the moon - not once, but several times - and safely home again.
You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everybody to look at. Even their draft-dodgers are not pursued and hounded.There hasn't been a draft for years, not to mention the lack of examples of scandals.
I can name you 5000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.I can name you 5000 times when America has invaded countries or used their economic superiorty to attack other countries, is this the actions of a good neighbor? Certainly not.
Invaded others? Except for the brief imperialist era at the turn of the century we haven't ttack without provocation or invitation from a country on the defensive.
Revolutionary War: British oppression justified revolution.
Barbary Coast: Pirates attacked and seized American ships.
War of 1812: British provoked by kidnapping and harassing American sailors and ships.
Mexican-American War: Attacked by Mexican forces in southern Texas.
Civil War: That was an internal matter.
Spanish-American War: Sinking of the USS Maine, although questionable now, was justifiable at the time.
General Pershing's Campaign Against Pancho Villa: He attacked a fort in New Mexico.
WWI: Sinking of the Lusitania and the Zimmerman Telegram.
WWII: Attacked by Japanese @ Pearl Harbor. Hitler then declared war also.
Korean War: South Korea asked for our help.
Cuban Missile Crisis: What did ya expect us to do? Let Khruschev put a gun right against our heads? The blockade was justified.
Vietnam: South Vietnam asked for help.
Gulf War: Saddam attacked Kuwait and we along w/ UN forces drove him out.
Bosnia: UN peacekeeping ops.
Kosovo: See Bosnia.
Afghanistan: September 11. Need I say more.
Hmmmm, not to mention all the great things the British have done with the world.
<sarcasm>
So many colonies that were managed so well. And just look at how great so many of them are today!
</sarcasm>
(Except the former 13 colonies!)
At 2/26/02 04:29 PM, Slizor wrote:
Originally it was just immigrants (except for the Native Americans), but now we have an American culture and lifestyle. Our language is English. My ancestors were Swedeish but do I think that Swedish should be an official language of the US? No!Out of context, the problem is the amount of spanish speakers.
They learned English and blended in and that's what the Spanish-speaking immigrants should do. We're a melting pot of culturesAnd as a melting pot your broth should change as a bastard load of spanish is poured in.
At the turn of the century there was a massive wave of European immigrants all with their unique languages and cultures. They all blended as Hispanic immigrants must and will. When my ancestors cam eover as poor immigrants they didn't say, "Let's resist change and be stubborn by refusing to blend in." They moved west and changed the family name to sound more American. A few generations later they were ranchers and built a good life. We all came from somewhere else, so why isn't America just fragmented sub-cultures, because people came together to build a great nation. We're the world's superpower and we can govern ourselves.
First of all, if you can't feed em, don't breed em.
Second, abortion could be considered justified in the following cases:
1) Rape
2) The mother's life is in severe danger.
3) The child has severe and/or fatal defects that will prevent it from living normally, if at all.
Third, although a fetus is technically non-sentient it is different than the cow because it will develop into a person, a sentient thinking being that deserves a chance at life. A cow will develop into nothing other than a cow. Therefore, it should develop into a steak or burger for me to eat because I am a carnivorous life form and we feed on other organisms. It's simply part of nature.
Fourth, the condom/sperm that don't make it, argument is flawed since that is a part of nature also. The fastest, most able sperm will win. Abortion would unnaturally kill the life that develops. Give the kid a chance to live, he'll thank you for it later. How would you like it if you had never even been around to think about being around? Choose life, always.
At 2/24/02 09:16 PM, cableshaft wrote:
*sigh* If only I could declare my home a sovereign nation....
That's why you support anarchy! After The Revolution, your home will be a sovereign nation. You can make treaties with your neighbors as you like. Live free!
Until The Revolution I'm Republican but my ideal state is anarco-capitalism. It'll keep the liberals from running our life. In summary:
I'm an Anarco-capitalistic conservative.
At 2/25/02 12:27 PM, Slizor wrote: The USA is a country of immigrants, it is a bastardisation of other cultures. Why not accept this? There are so many spanish in the US that it should become an offical language.
Originally it was just immigrants (except for the Native Americans), but now we have an American culture and lifestyle. Our language is English. My ancestors were Swedeish but do I think that Swedish should be an official language of the US? No! They learned English and blended in and that's what the Spanish-speaking immigrants should do. We're a melting pot of cultures. English is versatile and has risen to the top. Making Spanish an official language only supports the phony multiculturalism that pervades our society today. If we support this it keeps cultures further apart. Like it or not, if you're smart, in a few generations your family will blend in and you'll be immigrants no longer. Thats what the Irish, Germans, Polish, Italians, English, etc. did. Do you call yourself Irish-American or German-American? No. Just American It's only when we start to drop the hyphens in our cultural identity that we'll be one nation. No more African-Americans or Hispanic-Americans or Asian-Americans. Just American.
At 2/25/02 05:00 PM, GameboyCC wrote:At 2/23/02 08:29 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: Fetuses are not martyrs.Take it you're not that keen on jokes...
Such hostillity! No, because I am alive. And as Slizor pointed out, I am not part of my mother.
Hmmmm, how about I kill you and use you for stem cell research?
If it's not alive because of non-formed organs, then how can it be a life? That's mainly talking about the earlier trimesters, and I assume that the cases you speak of happen in the third trimester.
It may not be fully developed but it is human life. There have been cases where aborted fetuses have lived for hours after being removed.
Even if it isn't "technically" alive it is future human life. When you abort you're killing the kid before he even has a chance. It's like killing him in the future. It's worse than murder because you're stealing a person's life before they even get a chance to experience it. No life, no joy, no happiness, just a few weeks in the womb and then a doctor reaches in and slashes you out because your mother "just didn't want you." Abortion isn't the answer, adoption is. There are plenty of deserving couples that are unable to have children of their own and would be glad to raise yours.
They're true!
Rush Limbaugh's Undeniable Truths
There is a distinct singular American culture - rugged individualism and self-reliance - which made America great.
The vast majority of the rich in this country did not inherit their wealth; they earned it. They are the
country's achievers, producers, and job creators.
No nation has ever taxed itself into prosperity.
Evidence refutes liberalism.
There is no such thing as a New Democrat.
The Earth's eco-system is not fragile.
Character matters; leadership decends from character.
The most beautiful thing about a tree is what you do with it after you cut it down.
Ronald Reagan was the greatest president of the twentieth century.
The 1980s was not a decade of greed but a decade of prosperity; it was the longest period of peacetime growth in American history.
Abstinence prevents sexually transmitted disease and pregnancy - every time it's tried.
Condoms only work during the school year.
Poverty is not the root ("rut") cause of crime.
There's a simple way to solve the crime problem: obey the law; punish those who do not.
If you commit a crime, you are guilty.
Women should not be allowed on juries where the accused is a stud.
The way to improve our schools is not more money, but the reintroduction of moral and spiritual values, as well as the four "R's": reading, 'riting, 'rithmatic, and Rush
I am not arrogant
There is a God.
There is something wrong when critics say the problem
with America is too much religion.
Morality is not defined by individual choice.
The only way liberals win national elections is by pretending they're not liberals.
Feminism was established as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society.
Follow the money. When somebody says, "It's not the money," it's always the money.
Liberals attempt through judicial activism what they cannot win at the ballot box.
Using federal dollars as a measure, our cities have not been neglected, but poisoned with welfare
dependency funds.
Progress is not striving for economic justice or fairness, but economic growth.
Liberals measure compassion by how many people are given welfare. Conservatives measure compassion by how many people no longer need it.
Compassion is no substitute for justice.
The culture war is between the winners and those who think they're losers who want to become winners. The losers think the only way they can become winners is by banding together all the losers and then empowering a leader of the losers to make things right for them.
The Los Angeles riots were not caused by the Rodney King verdict. The Los Angeles riots were caused by rioters.
You could afford your house without your government - if it weren't for your government.
Words mean things.
Too many Americans can't laugh at themselves anymore.
Peace does not mean the elimination of nuclear weapons.
Peace does not mean the absence of war.
War is not obsolete. Ours is a world governed by the aggressive use of force.
There is only one way to get rid of nuclear weapons - use them.
Peace cannot be achieved by developing an "understanding" with the terrorists.
When Americans oppose America, it is not always courageous and sacred; it is sometimes dangerous.
Communism Kills.
Neither the US, nor anyone else, imposes freedom on the peoples of other nations.
Freedom is God given.
To free peoples, peace means the absence of threats and the presence of justice.
The Peace Movement in the US, whether by accident or design, is pro-Communist.
The collective knowledge and wisdom of seasoned citizens is the most valuable, yet untapped, resource our young-people have.
There is no such thing as war atrocities. War itself is an atrocity.
Abortion is wrong.
Morality is not defined and cannot be defined by individual choice.
Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women access to the mainstream of society.
Love is the only human emotion that cannot be controlled.
Abe Lincoln saved this nation.
The US will again go to war.
To more and more people, a victorious US is a sinful US. This is frightening and ominous.
You should thank God for making you an American; and instead of feeling guilty about it, help spread our ideas worldwide.
For all of you who love to point out how the US as an "Evil Empire," I think this makes my case against that assertion. It's all true.
TRIBUTE TO THE UNITED STATES
This, from a Canadian newspaper, is worth sharing. America: The Good Neighbor. Widespread but only partial news coverage was given recently to a remarkable editorial broadcast from Toronto by Gordon Sinclair, a Canadian television Commentator. What follows is the full text of his trenchant remarks as printed in the Congressional Record:
"This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least appreciated people on all the earth. Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts.
None of these countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States. When France was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up, and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it.
When earthquakes hit distant cities, it is the United States that hurries in to help. This spring, 59 American communities were flattened by tornadoes. Nobody helped. The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent, warmongering Americans.
I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplane. Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tri-Star, or the Douglas DC10?
If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all the International lines except Russia fly american planes? Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on the moon? You talk about Japanese technocracy, and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy, and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy, and you find men on the moon - not once, but several times - and safely home again.
You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everybody to look at. Even their draft-dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, and most of them, unless they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting American dollars from mom and dad at home to spend here.
When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke.
I can name you 5000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.
Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one Canadian who is tired of hearing them get kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. I hope Canada is not one of those."
Stand proud, America! Wear it proudly!!"
I nominate myself. The numbers actually mean something. Check my profile.
At 2/25/02 12:11 AM, BurritoClock wrote:At 2/24/02 06:59 PM, Hypester wrote: A new Gulf war is just around the corner. Because war is always good for the Economy ! So.....do you want another GULF WAR ? This is a poll !I will probably take some heat for this as there are alot of peace mongers here. However, I don't want to see New York or Washington wiped out by a dirty nuke or chemical weapon. If you take the CIA, the english, and the germans estimates, they all say that in 1 to 3 years Iraq WILL be in possesion of a Nuke. Now if anyone thinks a dictator that gasses his own people would not use a nuke on a country that humiliated him and wants him ousted, then their is no debating with you. However I think this is reason enough remove Sadam and set up a democracy in Iraq. Not only will this solve that problem, but think of the effect it will have on all the countries around it. If the democracy was a success, revolutions would abound and are problems with the middle east would be VASTLY dealt with. Things would get harry for awhile I know, and it could potentially start WWIII, but sometimes war IS the answer I am afriad. I say all this knowing full well I would be among the first drafted if it got really bad, but I would go gladly.
I maybe shouldn't talk in "if's" because today it was released that we WILL invade Iraq before 2005, because Bush can't risk it all on whether he is re-elected. So it looks like we are going to be seeing an arms build up, a raise in the economy, and then war. Iraq, as we know, will not pose much of a problem, the problem comes if we piss offall the surronding regions, however there is little alternative unless the CIA can take him (Sadam) out of power through underhanded means, which they are trying.
Please (as always) ignore spelling mistakes.
Very true. We should start arming the rebels in Iraq. If doesn't let weapons inspectors in then the UN should force their way in. Of course the UN will never do this because they are weak minded beaurecrats. The US will have to do this alone. So what if France and other countries say that they won't support us. Who cares? We don't need their help or their permission. We've gotten into this "global community" mindset so much that the common thinking is that a country can't take action without the approval of all the others. The european countries are important but not that important. France has never even won a war without foreign help and twice we had to save them.
