2,321 Forum Posts by "Musician"
At 3/2/08 12:24 AM, TheMason wrote: how the bloody hell can people like Clinton and ObAma really think we can AFFORD the type of healtcare reform they are talking about?
Entertain me: what exactly do you think Obama's idea for health care reform is?
At 3/1/08 03:33 PM, Stonehell wrote: JFK had 8 years in the senate. From 1952-1960 when he declared his presidential campaign. According to wikipedia anyways.
At the time JFK was being elected, he was considered far too inexperienced and young too govern the US. The same complaints that are being raised against Obama.
At 3/1/08 02:48 PM, Musician wrote: and has cost millions of tax dollars to do so.
*billions
At 3/1/08 01:53 PM, Gwarfan wrote:
Would you rather have a man who speaks a good game, but really can't back up any of his claims and doesn't even have a full term on any other major political scale.
Or
A man who has had 20+ years in Washington, is a war hero, has proven again and again that most of his policies are good for the American people, and has had a hands-on approach to the current Leader
What exactly makes you think Obama can't back up his claims? Inexperience never stopped JFK, one of the greatest diplomats in presidential history. Obama has in fact been incredibly productive in his years in the senate, much more so that both McCain and Clinton comparatively in their recent years.
A Brief Review on Obama's success':
S.AMDT.1041 to S.1082 To improve the safety and efficacy of genetic tests.
S.AMDT.3073 to H.R.1585 To provide for transparency and accountability in military and security contracting.
S.AMDT.3078 to H.R.1585 Relating to administrative separations of members of the Armed Forces for personality disorder.
S.AMDT.41 to S.1 To require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership PACs, or political parties for whom they collect or arrange contributions, and the aggregate amount of the contributions collected or arranged.
S.AMDT.524 to S.CON.RES.21 To provide $100 million for the Summer Term Education Program supporting summer learning opportunities for low-income students in the early grades to lessen summer learning losses that contribute to the achievement gaps separating low-income students from their middle-class peers.
S.AMDT.599 to S.CON.RES.21 To add $200 million for Function 270 (Energy) for the demonstration and monitoring of carbon capture and sequestration technology by the Department of Energy.
S.AMDT.905 to S.761 To require the Director of Mathematics, Science, and Engineering Education to establish a program to recruit and provide mentors for women and underrepresented minorities who are interested in careers in mathematics, science, and engineering.
S.AMDT.923 to S.761 To expand the pipeline of individuals entering the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields to support United States innovation and competitiveness.
S.AMDT.924 to S.761 To establish summer term education programs.
S.AMDT.2519 to H.R.2638 To provide that one of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5 million or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee certifies in writing to the agency awarding the contract or grant that the contractor or grantee owes no past due Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.2588 to H.R.976 To provide certain employment protections for family members who are caring for members of the Armed Forces recovering from illnesses and injuries incurred on active duty.
S.AMDT.2658 to H.R.2642 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.2692 to H.R.2764 To require a comprehensive nuclear threat reduction and security plan.
S.AMDT.2799 to H.R.3074 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.3137 to H.R.3222 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.3234 to H.R.3093 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.3331 to H.R.3043 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
Senate Resolutions Passed:
S.RES.133 : A resolution celebrating the life of Bishop Gilbert Earl Patterson.
S.RES.268 : A resolution designating July 12, 2007, as "National Summer Learning Day".
Secondly: How exactly is an extension of the Iraq war good for the American people? last time I checked this devastating war has INCREASED our risk of being attacked by terrorist forces, and has cost millions of tax dollars to do so. How exactly is a full ban on abortion good for the American people, seeing as it would cause a 50% increase in crime? McCain hasn't proven anything.
At 2/29/08 06:52 PM, Gwarfan wrote: JMHX back on the forums? I'll be damned.
Obama is too inexperienced for the presidency at such a critical time in our country. We need someone with experience.
Who ever could that be?
McCain
Obama may be inexperienced, but man, heres something that McCain can never claim to have done: Not taking money from lobbyists on he campaign trail. really, experience doesn't mean anything if you're going to put it towards policies that go against the wishes of the American people, and quite frankly, McCain can't win because he holds unpopular views.
At 2/29/08 08:07 PM, poxpower wrote: I didn't say "war".
Ok, then I'd disagree with your statement. I think humans have been killing each other only since they've developed technology. Rape is different from killing by the way, seeing as it actually is a survival instict (the need to spread ones genes).
You're saying that people who never have sex ever still have sexual instinct, I'm saying people who are never violent still have violent instincts.
First of all, just what violent instincts are you referring to? Are you implying that a human must every once in a while instinctually perform a violent act? Sex is a basic human need, even if you're a priest, you have to have some sort of sexual outlet (like masturbation), if you don't have a sexual outlet, you're body will force you to (nocturnal emissions). So if violence really is performed instictively, what exactly is the outlet of a Buddhist priest in India?
Viet-Nam?
Clever, but I'm not talking about war as a whole, I was reffering to the individual situations in a war. When the lions fight, they fight for dominance. When the soldiers fight, they fight to kill, and therefore won't let their enemy escape in the way that a lion might.
People in a war don't want to kill the other dudes, that's stupid.
Doesn't that contradict saying that contradict your assumption that violence is instinctual?
People want to gain political powers, religious territories, or whatever. There is a way because the other dudes don't want to give it to them for free.
Yes, those are all ideological issues. Wars spawn from intelligence, and not instinct.
99,9% of people don't want to see other people die if they can avoid it. That puts us way above animals, who don't give two shits wether or not other animals die and how their die.
I don't think animals are really capable of caring. I doubt they understand the concept of death. So when they don't kill each other, it's not because they don't understand: "hey we shouldn't kill each other, this way we can benefit our own race", it's because they are instinctually inclined not to.
so "infanticide" doesn't count?
haha I see how it works now
No, infanticide does not count because it's not an act of violence for the sake of violence. It has another driving reason behind it, that one being the need to spread their genes.
like humans
Lol, last time I checked we kill off our own species more than any other species in the world. Personally I hold the belief that humans aren't inclined in one way or another, and that society makes them lead towards or away from war.
What don't you understand? It's plain english. Animals don't fight each other when they don't have to.
What do you mean "when they don't have to"? I don't think an animal needs to be the leader of the pack, that doesn't mean there aren't squabbles over who should be the leader.
At 2/27/08 02:23 AM, poxpower wrote: Are you shitting me?
There hasn't been a place and a time when humans haven't been raping and murdering other humans. How learned could it be? From any corner of globe, you'll find this.
Except maybe Eskimos, because they couldn't afford to be attacking each other that much. Damn it must be hard as balls living there, not like some coconut tropical paradise where you just lean down and gather some crabs and mangos.
I actually addressed this:
"- According to studies, there have been a total of 292 years of total world peace in the last 5,600 years - this statistic threw me off at first, but even though this study is true, the fact is that war is still a relatively rare occurrence. Sure, it's true that there's usually a war happening somewhere in the world, but that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of states are at peace during this time. So we can really say that humans throughout history have been dominantly peaceful."
Did you ever hear of Priests and Monks?
Um. Just because they swear of sex doesn't mean they lose the sexual instinct. Ever heard of priests raping little boys?
And even before you apply the argument that "well they would totally go for the sex", then I get to say "well they would totally go for the violence".
Would some random guy you take out of the woods just want to bang Pamela Anderson just like that? Maybe he'd be just as likely to fuck a girl than to whack her. I dunno.
I don't understand what you're saying here.
One good bite from a weak tiger can kill any strong tiger. The difference in strenght for wild healthy animals of the same species is probably not really relevant since the really weak ones just die on their own without even competing for dominance.
But when it does come time to fight for a territory or some poon, then animals get really really vicious and sometimes injure each other pretty badly. They're just usually smart enough to quit before they get seriously hurt :o
Yeah but there is no "quitting" in war. Most carnivorous animals show submission to their opponent when they lose (example: dogs show their stomachs), or run away. The idea of war is to kill the opposing side (at least on one side, some times the other side is being purely defensive, but if this was the case with animals then there would be more examples of animals killing animals).
But yeah, if a lion had a gun, I'm pretty sure he would kill way more food than he needs and would also probably shoot at the other male lions constantly.
I disagree, I think lions and other carnivours have a natural instinct against habitually killing their own species (infanticide excluded, that's a different subject).
I'm not really sure they would know the difference.
maybe not consciously, but their instinct probably subconsciously guides them not to kill one another.
Usually they tactics will involve intimidation rather than fighting because actual fighting just for some territory would be really suicidal.
They can't afford to fight seriously with each other unless it's a life or death scenario.
I'm having a hard time understanding what you're saying here. could you please clarify.
And animals live in colonies.. newsflash to you?
I always imagined most carnivores to be nomadic, not sedentary.
Well that didn't work as planned.
¿spuno%u0279%u0183%u028D%u01DDu %u028Dou %u0287%u0250%u0265%u028D
Look at his post history
At 2/27/08 12:20 AM, Idiot-Finder wrote: If it was that easy.
It WAS that easy. The reason it didn't end up like that was because Bush didn't want to resolve the WMD conflict. He had his own agenda.
Then assuming Iraq falls into chaos after the departure, what do you think should've been done? Also keep in mind the Middle East have problems with war on Afghanistan as well when it really is justified enough for both of us to agree ( under the assumption that you are for that war ).
What's the alternative? Staying in Iraq? Increasing hatred of the US? Trying to install a democracy that will never work? Want to know a fact that history has proven?
People prefer thier own bad governments to a good government of another country. In oher words, the approval rating of the US in muslim countries is dangling at 10%. The chances of us installing a democracy that WONT be overthrown after we leave: low.
On the other hand we do leave, and Iraq erupts into chaos, eventually a dictatorship is put in place (worst case scenario), at least the power is back in the hands of Iraq. I think with time, Iraq will form its own stable democracy, I mean look at Pakistan, they're on their way to becoming one right now.
At 2/27/08 12:03 AM, Idiot-Finder wrote: Elaborate.
Uh, how about continuing weapons inspections and surveillance until either:
A) enough evidence is found to get UN approval
B) enough evidence is found to prove Iraq has no WMDs
Since, B turned out to be true, obviously Iraq could have been solved diplomatically.
Then how do you think leaving Iraq now will stop the terrorists?
Well for one, it's a step forward in repairing our relationship with the middle east. The US occupation is currently only increasing support for groups like Al Quaeda
Like what I said before, in the perfect world it can happen since as long no countries are willing to cooperate, that's the way it is unfortunately.
Maybe, but I won't "support" a man who decides to make a living off of a democratic crusade like Iraq.
At 2/27/08 12:01 AM, LordJaric wrote: Musician, so you think a soldier killing one terrorist is no better then one terrorist killing a lot of people?
Why doesn't that make sense to me.
I think sometimes Terrorist tactics are more loathsome than US military tactics. That doesn't make the US the "good guys".
At 2/26/08 11:46 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote:
In a perfect world.
No, it could have been solved diplomatically in this, imperfect world.
When the terrorists came in, who do you think should fight them?
Just how exactly do you think being in Iraq is going to stop the terrorists? and how exactly do you think a military is going to stop terrorists either?
Also remember if the people don't join the army, then who will? When situation like this occurs, there'll always be a huge gray spot to wander.
Nobody will join, thats the point. There won't be an army on either side, thus all problems will be solved diplomatic. Now I know that in the real world, sometimes you have to disarm dangerous countries, but Iraq wasn't one of those countries, and what was supposed to have been a disarmament, has become a democratic crusade. And yes, I know that a world without militarys is overly optimistic, but heres the thing: If everyone had the same philosophy of war that I have, the world would be a better place.
At 2/26/08 11:19 PM, therealsylvos wrote: So our best buddies Russia and china didn't agree with us? wow.
And we couldn't convince the french to fight? those bloodthirsty maniacs? Double wow.
Wow, that's a wonderfully legitimate argument. Let's just ignore the fact that all 3 of those countries are far from brainless and have their own intelligence agencies that didn't come to the same conclusions that we did. Let's just ignore the fact that they turned out to be right.
No for the WMDS ours and their intelligence agencies thought were there.
"their" intelligence agencies being the British Intelligence agencies? What about the fact that these intelligence agencies went before the UN with all this intelligence and still couldn't convince the security council to make OIF a UN operation?
So he invaded Iraq for a military base? considering the trillions spent on the war wouldn't it have been simpler to buy it?
Considering Saddam was in charge? No.
And yet we don't own it! wow he sure is incompetent.
I'd like to know exactly what you mean by "we don't own it". Cause son, we own their country right now.
Even assuming he lied about some evidence, doesn't mean he lied about it all.
He lied because he thought that without lying about the Niger yellow cakes, and the aluminum tubes, that he wouldn't be able to receive approval from congress.
If he saw enough to convince him that the U.S. was in danger it would have been criminal not to do all in your power to avert it.
It's not up to bush to enter Iraq, it's up to him to get approval from congress and the UN through the presentation of legitimate facts, which he did not do.
Of course all this is irrelevant since we're talking about the troops here and it is they who would've been misled.
And when I refer to the troops, I refer to the troops on both sides, in which I mean, I don't support the Iraqi or American troops killing one another, Iraq could have been solved diplomatically.
He let them in, what does this imply? That up till this point they weren't allowed in. So he kicks them out, for no reason at all apparently right? because he had no wmds, then when he lets them in due to lots of pressure, lets them back in, only we see pictures of trucks leaving the plant moments before inspectors come. Not suspicious?
Suspicious maybe, not enough to enter a war. Oh and also, he was allowing weapons inspections before we decided to enter Iraq, so it looks like we COULD have solved Iraq diplomatically, or at the very least have waited for UN approval (which would have never been recieved if we had continued to investigate)
Lol, we tried, were met with resistance so we had to do what we thought was neccessary for the protection of our nation.
WHAT RESISTANCE?
At 2/26/08 11:01 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote: Then the military will be needed for the war that you would agree is justified.
In a situation like Iraq, I think everything could have been solved diplomatically. And I don't expect the US to completely dismantle it's army alone either.
You're all making the assumption that I'm only applying this policy to the US, like it's some sort of legislation I would impose if I were president. What I say goes for both sides. The people who join the army in the US, and the people who join the "Terrorists" in Iraq, they're both part of the problem.
At 2/26/08 09:52 PM, poxpower wrote: Well we're pretty violent in the sense that our entertainment is usually stuff like stoning people to death and watching Monster Trucks crush shit.
Yeah but is that a learned or instinctual behavior? I mean, are people generally partial towards violence, or is it just culture and social pressure that lead us to watch violent media? I think it must be learned behavior personally. You don't see nearly as much violence in eastern culture.
Is war any different than an execution? Because there probably hasn't been one year ever where one guy wasn't executed for a "crime" in some horrible and violent way while the peasants cheered.
Yeah, I'd consider an execution to be the same as war. But how many countries nowadays still have the death penalty? not many civilized ones. And the same argument as before holds true, there are people who go through their entire lives without being exposed to (or seeking out) violent media, and yet they don't feel unsatisfied with life (as one would if they gave up an actual instinctual act, like sex).
I'd say that makes us way more violent than a war, which is much more impersonal; you just go out and kill "the enemy" i.e. some random guy who you've never met and who wants to also kill you.
I agree thats part of why humans are violent (I put that in my post). I believe dehumanizing "the enemy" also plays a part in it (see picture).
Not for lack of trying.
All animals are insanely territorial and they fight all the fucking time, but they're just so evenly matched that a fight to the death would kill both parties in most cases.
But they do fight each other really viciously.
That's not true at all, obviously there are some tigers that are stronger than other tigers, some dogs stronger than other dogs. In fact, dogs function in a social hierarchy, where the leader is the strongest dog in the pack. The fact is, even though animals are aggressive to each other, they are not lethally aggressive towards each other (despite being capable of killing each other) like humans are.
Well you can't be hardwired for way since war is way too recent for animals to have ever adapted to. What animals do is stick together in clans and viciously fend off other clans, sort of like... exactly what we do basically.
Well I'm not sure what you mean by animal clans, I've never really heard of them (I'm not denying that they exist just saying), but the big thing here is, they don't kill each other (atleast not often, nor do they intend to kill one another).
At 2/26/08 10:32 PM, therealsylvos wrote: Didn't we have this conversation? I pulled out the S.W.A.T. sniper card and you shut up?
Seriously, you're the "There is no moral absolute" guy, yet you are flat out refusing to look at circumstances, and just saying "killing is bad"
Perhaps you're Emerson quote should be
"Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."\
lulz.
Killing is bad, that doesn't mean that sometimes it isn't necessary. I agree that we do need police, a national guard, and sometimes it is neccesary to use peace keeping armies. But an invasion force, especially in a situation like Iraq? that isn't necessary.
At 2/26/08 10:18 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote: So what do you expect them to do, throw flowers at their enemies?
I expect them not to join the military.
At 2/26/08 09:56 PM, SuperDeagle wrote: And soldiers protect, and police officers kill. The discussion never ends.
Only they don't. in fact, the occupation of Iraq has made us less safe.
And self defense is murder, car accidents are all murders, hunting accidents, all accidents, all murders, all deaths.
Who said anything about self defense? or accidents? Did you even read my argument? Either way, anyone who willingly joins the US army to join in on the killing of his fellow man, as in the PREMEDITATED killing of a fellow man, isn't worthy of my support. At all.
At 2/26/08 09:50 PM, LordJaric wrote:At 2/26/08 09:47 PM, Musician wrote: No, police officers protect. Soldiers kill. End of discussion.Cops kill to and soldiers protect to.
Maybe the national guard does, maybe a peacekeeping force like the ones that the UN issues does, but an invasion force on a democratic crusade? <-- no, that's not killing to protect.
At 2/26/08 09:41 PM, Christopherr wrote: If the troops weren't fighting the war, they'd just be sitting around. Why would someone want to support a person doing nothing?
Why should you sit around when you could be KILLING PEOPLE! I mean seriously, lets invade a country (france has been asking for it) so our troops will have something to do.
At 2/26/08 09:05 PM, fahrenheit wrote: I guess police officers are demons to you.
No, police officers protect. Soldiers kill. End of discussion.
Do you envision the entire US as one giant suburb?
There are scholarships for everyone everywhere, even out of the suburbs.
Really, are you that ignorant to label the US soldiers as murderers because they shoot terrorists?
Does being a terrorist make you any less human? By todays definition, the son's of liberty would DEFINITELY be considered terrorists (I don't agree with the son's of liberty either, we could have achieved peaceful revolution). From my perspective, the troops aren't any better than the terrorists. They're both part of the problem.
They're both acting like idiots, and both of them could have defused the conflict, but I have to side with the kid. Not because I think she was right, but because the bus driver manhandled a student, and that wasn't called for in this situation. As the adult in the situation she should have been the one to diffuse it (and punching a student isn't diffusing the situation), she shouldn't have escalated the situation by taking her cell phone.
At 2/26/08 05:14 PM, The-evil-bucket wrote: And what about people who pay for college through military programs? They are getting an education in college so they can get a good job, help the economy, make advances in technology, and become good, productive citizens.
They are serving our country on two fronts. When they come home, they'll be educated in more ways than most people will ever be. You'll be glad when they come home and change the world.
Now go back in your hole and understand the predicament of not having enough money to pay for college.
Wait, are you Pro-Life? I hope you realize that I could make the same argument most people make against abortions here. Is it alright to kill someone just because it's convenient to you? because if you decide to kill someone you'll be able to pay for an education and live a better life?
Besides, unlike abortion, there are other legitimate ways to pay your way through college, like part-time/summer jobs and scholarships, in fact, in some communities the school board will pay for you to go to community college. honestly nobody NEEDS to enter the military to get an education.
Uh, weird, I can't seem to post links.
By the way, here's the study by the US military
Well it's been interesting hearing all of your opinions, I figure it's about time I shared mine.
I've actually been studying this subject for some time, and the ultimate conclusion I have come to is: no, humans are not hardwired for war.
Let's look at the facts:
- According to studies, there have been a total of 292 years of total world peace in the last 5,600 years - this statistic threw me off at first, but even though this study is true, the fact is that war is still a relatively rare occurrence. Sure, it's true that there's usually a war happening somewhere in the world, but that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of states are at peace during this time. So we can really say that humans throughout history have been dominantly peaceful.
"With the exception of certain rodents, no other vertebrate habitually destroys members of his own species. No other animal takes positive pleasure in the exercise of cruelty upon another of their own kind" - This fact struck me as odd. Humans are like animals in most respects are they not? We both have insticts to survive, we both need to eat, sleep, and reproduce. But then there are some things we don't have in common, like the "habitual murder of our own species".
I've concluded there are 2 reasons why animals don't kill each other:
1. Physical Inability - animals like rabbits, zebras, horses, sheep, ect. all don't have the physical ability to kill one another. Thier flat teeth and claws make it incredibly hard for them to kill one of their own.
2. Evolved Instict - It's pretty basic to assume that a species that kills itself is destined to drive itself extinct, which is why those animals that DO have the physical ability to kill one another (lions, tigers, and bears - OH MY!), have to evolve an instict not to kill one another in order to preserve thier species. This explains why carniverous animals don't kill one another.
Humans fall into the former category, being physically unable to kill one another. Humans are not biologically built to kill. For example: 2 naked humans would find it very difficult to kill one another. This is why humans have developed technology, and it's probably why humans kill each other much more often than other species.
You see, unlike natural carnivores that have the instict not to kill another one of thier species, humans until the development of weapons, didn't need such a trait, and as such have no instinct (unlike dangerous animals) to not kill one of their own species. The effect of this is worsened by our technology as we develop it.
While with melee weapons the fighting is close and personal, with a gun you can shoot from meters, with artillery you can fire from miles away, and with a missile you can fire from around the world. A man can push a button and not have to see one speck of the devastation he has caused. Modern weapons have made killing impersonal, and thus easier to commit.
Next. There is no drive to kill within a human being - let's compare killing to a well known physical drive: sex. Sex is everywhere, there is no such thing in the world as a sexless society, the same thing cannot be said about war. There a plenty of people who die without killing a person, and die without regretting never killing a man, the same thing cannot be said about sex. Overall it's pretty easy to see that killing is not an instinctual, and in fact there has been a study conducted that I'd like to present to further prove my point:
The US military conducted a study, under the direction of General S.L.A. Marshall, soldiers were asked what they did in combat situations. The result of this study, found that only 15 to 20 percent actually fired their weapons at the enemy. Although not running from the battle, soldiers would either simply not fire, or fire in such a way as to intentionally miss the enemy, even if they felt that their lives were threatened.
My conclusion: War is a comparatively rare event, and in fact there i havn't found much to support that humans are instinctually hardwired for war. What do I believe? Humans aren't voilent or peaceful by nature. We are born into this world completely impartial, and who we are is shaped by society, and not instinct.
What's your opinion? do you think that the concept of war is built into humans? do you think war is a learned and that humans can give up war altogether?
I'm interested in hearing your opinions.
If you go back far enough, every animal, plant, and monocell organism is related.
Obama and Cheney's link only goes back 4 generations though I believe.
