1,987 Forum Posts by "WolvenBear"
At 4/6/07 11:28 PM, JoS wrote: The US could not torture Arar so they sent him to Syria (outsourcing torture) to be tortured for intelligence for the US to then get abck and use (get intelligence from Syria), but its not okay for Nancy to go to Syria herself(for your leaders to talk to them).
Yet Gonzales said he was assured by Syrian officials that he wouldn't be tortured.
I think I'm gonna pull a you here and say we were as shocked and outraged over this as the Canadians were. After all, our response was the same, no one punished (although we lacked the promotions of the people involved that you guys had, but you know).
At 4/4/07 02:12 AM, CBBrooklyn wrote: Be sure to check out the scientific evidence for directed energy weapon usage at the WTC in former mechanical engineering professor Dr Judy Wood's RFC. (This 43 page PDF is the last link given in the government site linked in the press release above.)
I am well acquainted with the subject matter above and will be happy to answer any intelligent questions regarding it.
COOL! The Energy Tranfusion Phaser Hand of God brought down tower 7! Let's come up with something no one has ever heard of so that they can't argue against it!
I love when people say shit like "We're a non-partisan group that wants to expose the President for the lying murderous shitbag he is, in doing 9/11 then blaming it on that peaceful Osama guy.
Yea, no underhand motivation here...
At 4/6/07 10:55 PM, CBBrooklyn wrote: The 9/11 truth movement has been infiltrated and is being controlled by the 9/11 coverup perps. They've been distracting people with nonsense such as molten metal. There was no molten metal. It was a fabrication to distract the Truth Movement from what really happened. See here for evidence of molten metal fabrication: http://www.911researchers.com/node/147
THEY'RE EVERyWHERE! I THINK ONE IS HIDING IN MY CLOSET! CONTROLLING MY BRAIN WITH A MAGNETIC PENCIL.
Loose Change is being used as a government tool to distract from the real evidence. Ever wonder why LC was mentioned on network news?
No, it's maker is quite serious. He's a prick.
There is absolutely nothing deceptive about the animation here: http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/HTR/web-content/
Pages/HTRHome.html
No we fully believe you're not lying to us. We just think you're a moron. You believe everything you're telling us...you're just wrong.
The proportions of the buildings are correct. (If you disagree, feel free to try to prove me wrong:-) ) The last picture (of the rubble) is confirmed by the all other available photos.
Meh, go to popular mechanics. They've already proven you wrong.
At 4/6/07 10:00 PM, EndGameOmega wrote: If dinosaurs lived when Noah was alive, then yes they had to be on board, according to Genesis. As for historical evidence, your right there is none, about ether about Noah or the arc (at lest not on the global scale as is suggested). As for the retarded site, I just point out what most creationist point to so, take what ever way you wish.
However, there's nothing biblically to suggest they did. And just because you can find some biblical scholor that I've never heard of far from "shows what most creationists believe". He rightly points out ON THE SITE, that that is not what most creationists believe. Cmon now.
The enclosures in zoos are all thermo regulated at around freezing. The average life expectancy in zoos is about 35 years vs 25-30 in the wild (Ref: http://www.sfzoo.org/cgi-bin/animals.py?ID=18 ) . Not quite as big a difference as you make it out to be. Additional most if not all animals will live longer in captivity then in the wild; where they can get veterinary care, constant food, and a nice environmentally controlled habitats.
However -5C is below freezing. Most Polar Bear environments at zoos are open air, which are impossible to keep at "just about freezing" during the summer. The water is never frozen at the one here in St. Louis.
And according to the sites I've looked at, the average age for wild polar bears is 15-18 years.
According to Sea World as a back up to my earlier info:
http://www.seaworld.org/infobooks/PolarBears/
pblongevity.html
The average age in the wild is 15-18, while in captivity the average is in the early to mid 30s.
Well your certainly right about the sciences part, and I'll even give you the biblical part, but most creationist believe that there where dinosaurs on board so that's how I usually argue. And like I said, even if there weren't there's still not enough room on board.
No they don't. The very site you used says that Creationists have no idea how to work Dinosaurs into the bible. You're taking one person that no one's ever heard of and using his opinion to paint a bunch of people as idiots.
You people are still missing my reasonings for bring them up in the first place, some animals need specialized environments in order to live, with out them they would die. Noah, would have had to plan for this by some how building both the habitats and the equipment for controlling it. This would have further taken up arc space, but seeing as how he couldn't even fit them all on the boat to begin with I suppose it is a mute point.
But here's where this is silly. Noah didn't travel to the arctic, nor did he go to the Congo. He simply would've gathered the animals from the region. No habitat problems there. And if we wanna just get into it, it's borderline silly to believe that God could flood the entire Earth, but not make a couple of animal provisions.
Gathering the animals of the region in pairs and fitting them inside a boat the size of a football stadium is completely plausible.
As a side note, I don't really care if you take Noah's story as a metaphor for redemption, or life, or what ever, I simply trying to point out the scientific impossibility of the whole damn thing being a real event.
And in doing so, you're purposely misstating the views of Creationists, including Dinosaurs, which aren't mentioned, and padding your case with a lot of nonsense. I'm calling you on all of the above.
At 4/6/07 08:14 PM, Begoner wrote: They are coercive methods of "interrogation" whose intent is to subject the victim to such poor conditions that he is compelled to divulge whatever he knows. You can argue semantics all you want: the point of such treatment is to hurt the detainee, either mentally or physically.
But it doesn't hurt the detainee. You can argue that it does all you want, but discomfort does not equal torture. The point of it is to get information. And it causes discomfort, not lasting damage, therefore it is not torture. Period. Sorry, you can cry all you want, but it stil lain't torture.
International human rights apply to all. We can't just apprehend a suspect in Afghanistan, drag him over to the US, and proceed to shoot him in the head because "the Constitution does not apply." There are standards that must be met -- giving a fair trial to all detainees is one of them.
We're not rounding people up and shooting them in the back of the head. Giving a "fair trial to detainees" is an extremely subjective term. We're giving people trials, and releasing most of them. Again, your assertion fails on its face.
He appeared quite proud of it. If I had been exposed to such heinous conditions for a protracted period of time, I would seriously consider doing whatever the Americans told me to do in order for it to be over. The real monsters here are the interrogators -- grow up.
Bullshit. The real monster is the guy who planned the murders of thousands, not the guys who made him confess. He's still alive...his victims aint. I'm sure they told him to gloat. He looked pretty damn good on TV. He was fat, and healthy. Looked a sight better than when we captured him. Do you realize how stupid you sound sometimes?
Actually, it is not a "charge" but rather a "fact." Many detainees have been held at the naval base without a fair trial for years, no matter how you slice it.
No. They've been held while the military processes them. There is no set timeline for our processing them. So it's not a fact, but a charge. How long did the world court hold Slobodon Milosevich before he died again? Years and years? That's right, you have nothing.
What's your point? Do you think that after being wrongly apprehended by US forces and thrown in a prison without a trial for years, not to mention tortured (or whatever you want to call water-boarding and sleep deprivation), the prisoners wouldn't resent the US even a tiny bit? Hell, they'd probably be so furious that they would try to fuck up their captors as much as possible. It's only natural.
We picked them up on a battlefield, and released them. And then we found them on a battle field again. It shows they were bad guys.
Because when we release innocent people from jail, the first thing they do is commit a crime to "show society"....Bunk.
I only know of one reporter who has gone through it (the FOX one mentioned earlier), and he described his experience as "torture." Can you name any others who had something better to say about it?
He also hasn't had any negative consequences. He still is able to do his job, still able to live a normal life. So, no physical damage...no emotional damage. Not torture.
I am not referring to the terrorists borne of our actions (ie, sectarian militias in Iraq), but rather groups such as Al-Qaeda (which admittedly does have a role in ethnic killings in Iraq). Al-Qaeda managed to kill 3000 Americans on 9/11. We have killed tens of thousands of people in Iraq and Afghanistan. We're worse.
There are no terrorists borne of our actions, so moving on.
And the thousands dead in Iraq are due to militias and al Quida.
No, they're worse.
And you're an idiot.
It's not a "ridiculous" story just because a government official decides that it's better not to let the public know that.
It's a ridiculous story because it's not physically possible to flush a Quran.
Some people are so stupid they'll believe anything, no matter how ridiculous, as long as it'll fit their bias.
At 4/6/07 08:28 PM, JoS wrote: At 4/6/07 08:28 PM, JoS wrote:At 4/6/07 08:11 PM, WolvenBear wrote:When did I say we did not expect him to be arrested. i want you to show me where I said this, otherwise stop making this shit up. I said we did not expect you to ship him to Syria.
"Actually we did not give him to you. we gave you intel which we believed at the time to be reliable. What we did not expect was him to be arrested at JFK and then sent to Syria. However thats the shitty thing about being a dual citizen though."
That to me sounds like "We just gave you intel...we didn't expect you to do anything with it."
Apparently it is okay for the US to outsource torture and get intelligence from Syria, but its not okay for your leaders to talk to them.
Honestly, I don't know what the hell you're talking about, but hell if it makes Pelosi's action ok.
Gotta whine about something about the US i suppose.
At 4/4/07 10:49 PM, Menace2Sobriety wrote: 1) (and most importantly) Lining their pockets with the money of the people they are supposedly representing
That's what politicians do. Liberals just use more money. See: William Jefferson.
2) Keeping poorly run near-monopoly corporations in power. And getting money for doing so
Such as? The only monopolies in this country are government run, and it's usually the liberals fighting against changing them.
3) Spend every weekend laughing at people who are not in the wealthy one percent.
Yea, cause the majority of people who voted for Bush are in the top 1%.
I believe that about sums it up. Ass.
Idiot.
At 4/6/07 12:49 AM, buckle1 wrote: 2. we only vote for rebuplicans because they dont giv such harsh taxes (democratic flaw)
And they protect us from terrorists and criminals, both of which liberals love to hug.
3. republicans give us fake smiles and loose handshakes, then go in their ova office and say, 'spend more money! start semi-pointless war!'
They're politicians.
At 3/29/07 06:43 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: 1) You don’t know the difference between socialist democracy and a communist state.
It's just a matter of degrees.
2) You somehow think that tax cuts, when the US is importing more than it is exporting, is good for the economy.
Wait, making it cheaper for businesses so they stay is a bad thing?
3) You think that all liberals are atheists and support abortion.
Trying to think of a liberal candidate who doesn't support abortion.
4) You think that liberals are out to get your money and kill christmas.
All liberals ARE out to get my money. That's why they always raise taxes.
5) You think that gun control laws impede on your rights to hunt dears and communists with a machine gun.
I prefer a chain gun for communists.
6) You don’t know what the populist party was.
Or you don't care.
7) Locating everyone for your class reunion took less than a hour.
8) Your the head of a railroad oligarchy.
The last two are just stupid.
At 3/29/07 07:18 PM, xineph wrote: 1. You have to be against a woman’s right to choose, but support the murder of thousands by air strike.
Lots of good has come from liberating countries from murderous dictators. Good from abortion...oh right, there is none.
2. You have to believe that a shopping mall is better than a backyard, as long as it’s not YOUR backyard.
What are you talking about?
3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of drug dealers and gang-bangers are less of a threat than countries that have never fired a weapon at Americans here in America.
Yea, that doesn't make sense either. We put criminals in jail and urge the law abiding to have guns.
4. You have to believe that there were no airlines before Federal funding, tax breaks and kickbacks.
Conservatives are against the funding of private business.
5. You have to believe that global temperatures are more permanently affected by natural changes in the earth's climate than billions of tons of waste gasses pumped into the atmosphere by coal and natural gas power plants.
It's kinda hardto believe that an SUV has more effect on the atmosphere than a huge burning ball of gases or a volcano explosion....
6. You have to believe that the sex of someone else’s spouse is actually your business, but your adultery isn’t anyone else’s business.
Hmmm?
7. You have to believe that the AIDS epidemic cannot be slowed with the assistance of the Federal government.
Well, hell, it's done such a great job so far...
8. You have to believe that the teacher who can't teach 4th-graders how to read is doing a great job.
Um, conservatives are the ones trying to get that teacher fired...
9. You have to believe that hunters care about nature because the 10-point rack on the wall shows their commitment to it.
Overpopulation of deers is such a great thin for the environment after all...All the starvation.
11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson made The Passion Of The Christ because Christ died for our sins and not to gain notoriety.
Because no one had ever heard of Gibson before passion of the Christ...
13. You have to believe that taxes are too high and the deficit, trade gap and unemployment levels are too low.
Lowering taxes lowers unemployment, so don't know what you're going for here...
14. You have to believe that Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, John F. Kennedy, and Thomas Edison.
Yea, THATS a common conservative belief. Idiot.
15. You have to believe that standardized tests are not racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are.
Finally something I can agree with. There is nothing more racist than "Find the square root of 6000" or "Find the pronoun in this sentence..."
17. You have to believe that a representative democratic republic will work for everyone, regardless of belief, history or ideology and that it’s okay to kill a considerable percentage of them to bring it to them.
As opposed to the idiotic belief that people would prefer to live under a cruel dictatorship where they are systematically murdered by their gov't.
18. You have to believe that a President having consensual sex with another adult is far worse than a President who’s eager to send our children off to get killed in a war that isn’t a war to find weapons that didn’t exist.
Yea, breaking the law is worse than liberating millions of people...Your point?
20. You have to believe that changing the rules of the Senate and the Ethics Committee to protect Republican Senators is somehow in the best interest to the United States.
Yea, huh? Last I checked Scooter Libby's in jail for nothing and Sandy Berger is free after stealing and destroying confidential documents, and Jefferson is on the committy of Homeland Security after being caught taking bribes. Damn good point man.
23. You have to believe Bill Clinton getting a blowjob in the Oval Office is appalling, but Newt Gingrich serving his wife with divorce papers on her deathbed is A-OK.
Or you have to believe that the President committing no less than two dozen felonies to cover up his blowjob is criminal and Newt is just scum. Damn you're spot on today!
24. You have to believe in defending the sanctity of marriage except when it’s a husband trying to fulfill his wife’s wish in ending her life.
Yea, and you have to be pretty for killing people to not admit that it was questionable.
25. You have to feel that marriage is sacrosanct and inviolate while ignoring the fact that 61% of Catholics get divorced and another 7% get their marriages annulled.
Really? I'd like a source on this since the average is that 50% of marriages end in divorce (annulment is included).
27. You have to believe that this message was authored by a left-wing pinko socialist bleeding heart liberal.
Not an unreasonable belief...
This is what happens when liberals try to think.
At 4/6/07 07:26 PM, JoS wrote: I am pretty sure that only Congress can declare war, but increasingly the executive has been taking that over.
And Bush is the first Pres in quite some time to ask Congress' permission (authorization to use force)
And to the statement of did we expect you to get him a puppy. No we did not expect you to give him a puppy, but we did not expect you to deport him to Syria so he could be tortured. Are you saying your country bares no responsibilty for what happend?
No,m but I'm mocking your nonsense: "We didn't expect him to be arrested." Uh, yes, you did. You don't say "Hi, a terrorist is coming into your country" and not expect them to get arrested. Saying otherwise is ridiculous.
At 4/6/07 07:30 PM, Memorize wrote: Well, the Bible did not have the word Dinosuar. And in places like Job, it mentions creatures like the Leviathan, and in another, the Behemoth. Could have just been special names, I have no idea.
Much speculation has been given to what those were. However, it doesn't specify whether those are current things or animals from the past.
My mockery was more because he argues that we HAVE to believe that Noah had dinosaurs on the ark...but there's nothing to back that up, either scientifically or biblically.
At 4/6/07 07:26 PM, EndGameOmega wrote: Bullshit, if you take the Genesis account literally they where. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/hot /dinosaurs/default.asp
Wow, that site is ironclad. Thanks.
There's nothing in Genesis to suggest that he had Veloci Raptors and T-Rexs on the boat. Try again. There's no reason to believe that Noah had dinosaurs on his boat. Neither biblical or historical. And some retarded site isn't going to change that.
Yes they will. It may not be over night, but there bodys can't sustain them at temperature above freezing; Read, the links I posted. Also I said ~5*C indicating approximately.
Polar bears in captivity outlive polar bears in the wild. In the wild they live between 15-20 years, but in captivity in the Zoo they have lasted as long as 41 years (that's double), and they are not kept in freezing temperatures. The reality is that Polar Bears all across the US do just fine in temps WELL ABOVE -5C.
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/faq/
At 4/6/07 07:19 PM, LardLord wrote: Fun fact: Republican senators Frank Wolf, Robert Aderholt, and Joseph Pitts went to Syria mere days before Pelosi herself went. Have we heard the administration make a stink about them, too? Eh?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070405/ap_on_go_
co/republicans_syria
You mean these guys? The ones who "pated with the President" and "don't care what he thinks about Syria"? Well, hell, that sure supports your case...
The administration has spoken out against everyone who's gone over there, but Pelosi is the 3rd most powerful person in the government, and the leader of an entire party...she is more visible and more denouncable than 3 republicans no ones heard of and don't care about.
“This is an area where we would disagree with the administration,” Aderholt said. “None of us in the Congress work for the president. We have to cast our own votes and ultimately answer to our own constituents. ... I think there's room that we can try to work with them as long as they know where we draw the line.”
No, they don't work for the President, but they also don't set foreign policy. That's the President's responsibility.
If she had not done this, Assad would not have agreed to meet with her. It was a prerequisite of the visit, and it shows that we are willing to talk with them as equals, and not dictate terms, as much of the Middle East has viewes us as doing in Iraq and other places.
Yes, going in a position of submission shows we are equals. Pleeease.
They demanded that her worthless womanly hide cover herself because her kind are supposed to be covered. Yup, sounds equal to me. Yawn.
"OK, we can talk, but here are my demands first..."
Which is why he needs to look towards the future, and not stay stuck in the present. Peace, and a mutual agreement with Syria is in everybody's best interests. What if we are eventually able to convince them to lay down their arms, and stop supporting terrorism? We have to AT LEAST try...
This is what happens when children discuss politics.
"Well, we should all try to get along." Or not. He's helping kill our soldiers, trying to over throw the Lebanese government and supporting terrorism. There is no compelling reason to talk to him. Even Pelosi says nothing's going to come of this. Except that, he will be emboldened and feel legitimized. It gives him more clout that the Speaker is defying the President to speak to him and be submissive. It makes us look weak.
If there;s a way to side with anyone other than America...Begoner will do it!
At 4/6/07 06:54 PM, Begoner wrote: No, I said I couldn't prove that such travesties occur daily, troll. Even the US government admits that it has tortured (ahem, "forcefully interrogated") detainees and numerous human rights reports (such as the one I linked to) catalogue the human rights abuses that frequently occur.
Sleep deprivation, isolation, uncomfortable temperatures...et. al. are not torture. Period.
Oh, gee, what happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? What about the right to a fair trial? You know, the whole Constitution thing. Furthermore, insurgents are not killing innocent men, women and children; that task is delegated to sectarian militias and assorted other groups.
Non-American citizens are not guaranteed American constitutional rights. Especially enemy combatants captured in war zones in other countries.
The British soldiers admitted on TV that they crossed into Iranian waters after being detained for a week. Mohammed was held for a much longer period of time. His admission is completely worthless, as was that of the British soldiers. He was given a military tribunal only after he was held for such an extended period of time that he was willing to say anything to end it all.
Except that he was quite proud of it. Khalid Shiekh Mohammid is a monster. Grow up.
Lol, "eventually"? Some have been in there for years without being given a trial (and those that have been given a trial have not been given a fair one, as set forth in the Constitution). The guy I mentioned was held for 5 years and then allowed to go free. Can you imagine being confined to the same cell for 5 years of your life because of an unfounded suspicion -- in the US, no less? It's abhorrent.
The Constitution doesn't apply. We have released quite a lot of people. Sorry, your charge of no fair trial fails.
Human rights apply to everybody. Unless they're extraterrestrials, they have the right to a trial and to better conditions.
No, they don't.
You're beginning to sound like a broken record with that "innocent men, women, and children" bit. Who the fuck knows whether they did it or not? Many so-called "terrorists" have been released because it was discovered that they were innocent. Also, they probably did enter Iranian waters, but there's insufficient information to back up either side of that issue.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles /A52670-2004Oct21.html
Try again.
Chopping off hands is efficient. Sticking needles in eyes is efficient. Should we do that to innocent people, too?
Chopping off hands is perminent and is torture. It cause perminent injury and long term psychological damage. Water boarding's "damage" (loss of breath) rectifies itself in 2 minutes. And that dozens of reporters have gone through it and have no problems...yea, it's not torture.
Terrorists aren't a developed nation which claims to have "liberty and justice for all." The terrorists haven't subjugated other nations. We all know that beheading and killing innocent civilians is wrong, yet the US pretends that it's the "good guy," even though it has killed a hell of a lot more innocent civilians than the terrorists have and it has used some cruel and brutal methods to extract confessions, just as the terrorists have.
Yeah, bunk. The terrorists have killed more people than we have. You're so full of shit Begoner it's not even funny. We are the good guys. They are the bad guys.
Also, media reporters have actually been to Gitmo, such as Bill `O Reilly, and he did not note any abuses at Gitmo at all.
I don't consider torture a "minor case of abuse"; nor do I consider violating the Constitution (and blatantly, too) a small matter.
There's no Constitutional violation, nor is there torture.
We're supposed to believe everything bad we hear out of Guantanimo, even though the same people who tell us about the electrocutions, and genital cuttings were the same one's who told us the ridiculous story about the Quran being flushed. And while that wouldn't have been torture anyway...it simply wasn't a believable story. The whole thing is bullshit, and people like you who can't wait to find a reason to hate America and the military, like yourself, jump all over it.
At 4/6/07 06:20 PM, LardLord wrote: There is no proof that the President of Syria harbors / supports terrorists. Do have any quotes to back up this claim? Bolo was comparing the nonsensical nature of cellardoor6's argument to another nonsensical argument:
There's plenty of proof. Such as Assad himself admitting that he provides funds to Hezbollah and Hamas, which are both terrorist groups. He's quite proud of his donations.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9368/
Of course George Bush doesn't support terrorism. I know this, You know this. Hamid Karzai doesn't support terrorism, either. Neither does Maliki. The two prime ministers DO have terrorists in their respective countries, though. IF anyone is going to claim that Pelosi is a "terrorist supporter" because she wants to make peace with a country that has terrorists within its borders, then by default, you must also call George Bush a "terrorist supporter" because he does exactly the same thing on a daily basis.
Except it's not equivalent. Maliki and Karzai are both actively seeking to destroy the terrorist elements in their respective countries. Assad is not only NOT trying to get rid of terrorism, he's directly funding it. So, since Assad is not the same as the other two, nor are Pelosi and Bush equivalent. His argument was stupid, cellardoor's may not have been spectacular, but his was much better than Bolo's.
So you can't call her a traitor without calling Bush one, too. That would be hypocrisy.
Of course I can. Here's how:
1. Bush sets foreign policy, not Congress. Right wrong or indifferent, he can name someone our enemies or our allies.
2. Pelosi defied Bush's wishes and went to a country he had labeled our enemy and provided them comfort and aid.
3. Furthermore, Pelosi let Assad set the terms by showing submission in covering herself, not wearing makeup, etc.
4. Even if Iraq and Syria were morally equivalent (they're not, but if they were), it is Bush's perogative to decide who's our ally and who's our enemy.
And while I don't believe Pelosi's a traitor...just stupid, there could be a case made for her, and it wouldn't be hypocritical at all to call her one and not Bush one.
When 62% of America believes that George Bush's decisions are counterproductive to American progression, who are you to claim that Nancy Pelosi doesn't represent the best interests of America? In Bush's eyes, as well as 35% of America, Pelosi is a "traitor". In Pelosi's eyes, and 62% of america, George Bush is the treasonous one.
Everybody else agrees! Therefore she must be right!
Only 41% of America feels that Congress is doing a good job. So the majority don't! Hmm...That kinda hurts your theory.
Treason is not a popular vote type thing. Pelosi is circumventing the interests of the US, ignoring the government, and checks and balances to go to our enemy Syria, who is killing our soldiers.
When GB himself irresponsibly refuses to go, and someone needs to at least try to negotiate, Who must is be to the one to do it?
No one. If the President won't and won't send someone else to do it, then it won't get done.
Not only is it his perogative, it's far from irresponsible.
And you'll be hard pressed to explain how it's "responsible" to make our government look weak and divided to go negotiate with an enemy who is helping kill our soldiers.
At 4/5/07 06:35 PM, Drakim wrote: The Bible explanation, however, that God made all kinds of plants. (and if you don't belive in evolution) poses a problem though. If one plan survived, then ONLY that plant would inhabit the earth. Not may different plants like we have today.
What are you talking about?
It makes a lot more sense than the Biblical explanation for different colors of skins in diffrent parts of the world. All the black people just decided to live in Africa? And all the Indians with red skin just happened to move to America? And all japanice just decided to live in Japan? If Noah and his family was the only one to survive, and they breed and became more, wouldn't you see an large mix all over the world?
Wait, I know that part! Genesis 0:-89? And God said "All of you black people can have Africa, and all of you Asians can have Asia, etc."
Yeah, but it is just about the only part of the story that is remotely plausible. And it still requires many acts of God. (making the animals not panic in storm, making meat eaters not eat other animals, ect). There are still several other thousand problems with the story of the flood as the Bible describes it. And there is NO other sources for such as global flood. I mean, we found out about ice ages and dry periods and comet crashes with our methods, yet, we can't find anything about a global flood.
So, let me get this straight, the diety who can flood the world can't make animals not panic in a storm? You're kidding right?
And most religions have a flood methos.
The only reason I can see for somebody to be arguing that there was a possibility for the global flood is to avoid that the Bible might having directly false claims.
Actually many of us believe that Genesis is not literal, but is oral history. It is what the Jews told their children. Each story had morals. This is why the Catholic bible has TWO creation stories.
If you start arguing about how it is all symbolic and stuff like that, then I ask you. Cannot the story of Jesus be symbolic too? If the story of Noah was some kind of hardship on the people magnified up, or a guiding story for enduring hardships when they come to you, why can't the story of Jesus be only symbolic and be about how God is with us all the time? How when man act good, God is in them?
No, we know that Jesus existed. There are historical records backing that up. It doesn't prove him as divine of course, but he's not a figment of our imagination.
At 4/6/07 06:55 AM, EndGameOmega wrote: No it isn't. I mean, damn, I don't even know where to start on this, it's just so impossible. You can't fit all the animals in the world on to the arc, and I'm ignoring the fact that Noah would have to take every animal on the plant including the currently extinct ones(Yes this even includes dinosaurs as they would have been alive at the time of Noah).
DUDE, I remember that part of the Bible too! Genesis P:000 AndGod told Noah to take the Dinosaurs...
Dinosaurs would not have been alive at the time of Noah.
Damn near ever animal would require some specialized housing and environmental controls. For instance you can't take a polar bare and put it in any temperature condition above ~5*C, or it will die. Like wise you can't take some animal use to extreme heats, like a cheetah or elephant or something of that ilk and have it survive near freezing temperatures. So you would need some kind of environmental regulation system, which didn't even exist, hell it wasn't until the late 19th century that we came up with A/C.
Polar bears sit outside in zoos during the summer and don't die. And it sure as hell isn't -5C God, you suck at this.
At 4/5/07 03:39 AM, Bolo wrote: Oh, enough with the theatrics. By negotiating with Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan, You could argue that George Bush negotiates with terrorist-harboring states. And the Same with Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki of Iraq. There are tens of thousands of terrorists in the streets of Baghdad—effectively, that counts as harboring terrorists.
However, Maliki is assisting the U.S. in trying to get rid of those terrorists. You comparison is flawed. Detroit has criminals that aren't being arrested (for whatever reason), therefore the mayor of Detroit is harboring fugitives. Make that case and you'll be laughed out of the room.So, no, you can't say Bush is negotiating with terror supporters in those cases.
Just stop, your argument makes no sense, and is based in a flawed belief that anyone whose political philosophy is opposite yours is involved in some great "terrorist-conspiracy-theory". It makes you look ignorant, and to be honest, it lends little credence to any future arguments you make regarding this subject.
The official policy of the US is that Syria is ourt enemy. By ignoring a Presidental order not to go, breaking American policy to negotiate with our allies, Pelosi is, at least, working against the interests of the American government. A pretty strong case could be made for treason. But the case for stupid is rock solid.
Nancy Pelosi, as all politicians do, has to be proactive in the events of the world. What, exactly, gave you the indication that she supports terrorism? How do you know she wasn't trying to convince the president of Syria to abandon all terrorist ties?
Not her place.
Here, I'll answer for you; You don't. Don't try to assume that you speak for everybody, and have some all-seeing eye that predicts all events and actions. So, unless you have access to some EXPLICIT EVIDENCE(and by that I mean a signed affidavit from Nancy Pelosi, herself, that states "I support terrorism"), then your arguments are rendered absolutely false.
Have a nice day, cellardoor.
So the only evidence is admission of guilt? That's pretty damn dumb, no matter how you look at it.
At 4/5/07 11:23 AM, JoS wrote: You talk about Syria being a state sponsor of terrorism. Might I remind you the US has been convicted of terrorism by the World Court. While I am very well aware of the fact your country does nto recognize its legitamacy the vast majority of the world does.
Who cares? Really?
At 4/6/07 04:32 PM, JoS wrote: Wait, did you just argue that the legislative is erroding the executive? If anything it is the other way around.
The legislative is trying to usurp the powers of the President as the commander in chief. The judiciary has been gaining power since Marbury vs Madison and has usurped both the Leg And Exec powers. Bush, while a schmuck, has been alright in staying within his Constitutional boundries, compared to other Presidents.
There is a difference between staging a coup on a democratically elected leader, or instituting regime change when you do not liek the government after having worked with them previously and stopping a genocide. For some odd reason though you allwo genocides and civil wars to rage,and do nothing, but you do institute regime change when it suits you. You prop up ruthless dictators in some aprts of the world, or even bring them to power, and bring down democratically elected governments or mild mannered dictators who stop towing the party line.
This is the whiny crap conservatives hate about liberals. Invading Iraq and stopping the murder of innocents is illegal, because we have no interests there, but not invading Darfur to save innocents when we REALLY have no interests there is illegal. I don't see anyone else doing anything about Darfur either.
The rest of the world pisses and moans that the US doesn't do enough to help the rest of the world, or stop genocide, but when we do something, the rest of the world calls us criminals and thugs. Piss off all around.
At 4/6/07 04:39 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Strictly from the article i can decude that it's the white houses fault that lebanon and syria hate eachother, for not trying to open peace talks like nancy pelosi did, she's a smart woman who deserves america's respect.
Yea, it's the white house's fault that Syria had several Democratically elected leaders of Lebanon assassinated...yea, you're right, you don't know what you're talking about.
At 4/5/07 01:20 AM, JoS wrote: Actually we did not give him to you. we gave you intel which we believed at the time to be reliable. What we did not expect was him to be arrested at JFK and then sent to Syria. However thats the shitty thing about being a dual citizen though.
"We didn't give him to you. We just told you he was a terrorist, gave you intel that supported that assumption and told you where he was landing. We so totally didn't expect you to arrest someone we told you was a terrorist. We thought youd give him a puppy or something."
Please. That's like the little kid saying to his mom "But mom, I just punched him...I didn';t expect it to hurt."
At 3/28/07 12:38 AM, Ravariel wrote: I agree it's not perfect, but at the moment it's the best we have. It's also something we need. Private charities will not cover what SS, Medicare and Welfare do. Without them we'll see a boom in the lowest class, and a striking increase in the poverty level in this country... especially among the Elderly, who, without the care that Medicare offers will die earlier and lead more painful lives. This WILL happen if SS, MC, and Welfare are eliminated.
This is a matter of faith, not evidence. Before the New Deal, the local community covered everything that SS does now. (Medicare was unheard of.) And welfare was covered, as long as teh applicant was looking to get back on their feet.
How, then, does the libertarian answer this issue?
By going back to the previous system if charity which worked just fine.
But we're not saying that government should be central in regulating human behavior, so your point is moot. We're saying that only the government has the ability to guarantee the positive rights nearly all sane people believe we should have. It's not just there to build highways and shoot bad guys.
That's all it SHOULD be there for though. To protect the citizen from physical threats from OUTSIDE forces, and to barter collective goods and services.
I don't dispute that, but nothing can solve all of society's ills, not even the near-anarchy that a purely libertarian state would give us. However, the government is best suited for the big-picture things like SS, Welfare and Medicare. Again, just because they aren't perfect doesn't mean they're not better than nothing.
But the previous picture was NOT nothing. Families (supported by churches) took care of the elderly. In. Every. Single. Instance. The mentally ill were also taken care of. Those who fell upon hard times were helped back to their feet. It wasn't until the New Deal that poverty became an industry.
The safety net of welfare, Social Security and medicare, mostly... I think it should be the State governments that do public education. They need to butt the fuck out of religion, speech (I'm looking at YOU Hillary), marriage, morality. Also, the FCC needs to be eliminated, Riders on bills shouldn't be allowed... I'm sure there's more, but it's been a long day.
Marriage is a public issue. If the government butts out, it will be left to the relgious concensus (i.e. gay marriage bad). And since the government gives taxes breaks for marriage, telling them to butt out is dumb,
Education had always been left to the cities, and exclusion was unheard of.
Since there's never been a bill in existance that wasn't based on morality, we'll ignore the stupidity of telling the gov't to stay out of that.
And since the gov't helps fund the free airwaves that public channels, they have a right to decide what's on them. So unless you want them to stop paying all the money they do to ensure the airwaves stay free, we'll pretend you didn't make that arguement.
And they suck at welfare...as the successful Republican welfare cuts showed.
Who else can? Private charities? If they could do the job, they WOULD be doing the job.
In most cases they are.
Ad absurdum is the logic you're trying to use... but it's merging into the slippery slope logical fallacy. The protection of some positive rights does not logically lead to overwhelming government control of daily life. Nevermind, none of those socialist regimes started out as a constitutional democracy.
No, but all of those regimes started out as "fighting for the rights of the people". In germany that meant unionizing everything. In russia it meant state control of all the industry. Etc. Much of what the liberals in America clamour for now.
Of course. If someone wrongs you, injures you, destroys your property, you DO have a right to make them pay (as in expense, not revenge) for the damage they have caused. Again, what recourse is set in libertarian thought, for those who have been injured, or removed of property, through others negligence, indifference or deliberate action?
Recourse for wrongs is libertarian in nature. You burn mycrop you pay me. Etc. Libertarian thought is based in "You can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt me or others. As soon as it does, you are liable." No exceptions.
At 3/24/07 01:08 PM, Begoner wrote: Hey, I didn't say that. I simply stated that conservatism, as an ideology, is apathetic to the plight of those who cannot provide for themselves. It asserts that the government should not aid those who are in such a condition; thus, the logical extension of this stance is that those who cannot provide for themselves will die while the government idly stands by but does not intervene.
"Hey, I didn't say conservatives wanted people to die...(despite the debate being on libertarianism...way to go), I just said they supported a murderous idea that would leave anyone who wasn't a rocket scientist to starve.
That about cover it?
That said, there are many conservatives who believe this yet nonetheless donate to private charities to help out the less fortunate. They certainly don't want such people to die. However, the ideology that they advocate does take such a position.
Because they believe it is the responsibility of the individual to help the needy.
At 3/24/07 11:36 PM, Ravariel wrote: That's all well and good, and yet those charitable folk weren't able to do what Social Security, Welfare and Medicare were able to... and yet those very people think that such charity WOULD do that now, if we removed those systems.
Isn't one definition of insanity repeating an action and expecting a different outcome?
Charities out perform the government in every single area of giving. Local non-profit food shelters do more to allieviate hunger than any government program has ever done. Without the boy scouts (scourage of those giving liberals), most food banks would go out of business. The majority of all aid in the US is provided by Catholic charitiies, not the feds' programs. The reason for this is simple: Catholic chairites want to help people get back on their fet. Gummints just hand out a check.
After the Great Society, the government saw a pattern. Those who were on welfare, tended to stay on welfare. They tended to not ween themselves of the teet, and the government didn't force them to. The more welfare was expanded, the less people on the dole became self sufficient. After the Republican welfare cuts, unemploymeny plummeted and those on welfare tended to get jobs.
If history shows us anything...it's that limitless gov't intervention (socialism) doesn't work.
Ever.
At 3/25/07 04:25 PM, RedSkunk wrote: I neither dodged nor assumed anything. Poor people choose poverty just as much as the rich "choose" being rich.
This is a very foolish analogy. if you look at many of the rich, they pull themselves out of obscurity. Rush Limbaugh, Oprah (by HER definition), the guy from Pursuit of Happiness, etc. Yes. You do choose where you live in life. Even Oprah (on her socialistic "We can help everyone" tripe) found this when she offered some homeless guy an absurd amount of money nad in the end he remained homless. (On full disclosure, my family went through great hardships...my fault...because we boarded some homeless losers and followed the liberla, i.e. socialistic methos...again my fault...to boarding them. We gave them ever chance and only 1 out of the 6 of them tried to better their situation).
You know what the number one indicator of whether or not someone attends college? Whether or not their parents did. It's not if they were read to, or abused, or any sort of parenting style. I look at "free will" as a sort of falsehood that we nonetheless have to believe in, to hold people accountable to their actions (and therefor to keep a structured society). But what we do in our lives is entirely a result of what our lives have been. Economic mobility is real, and people born poor can change their lot in life. This is especially true today, as a result of things that you acknowledge as useful, student aid, unemployment, etc.
People will always live "at the fringe," if for no other reason than because a certain amount of unemployment minimizes inflation and is a "good" thing for the economy.
Most unemployment is college students looking for jobs, those between jobs and those uninterested in finding jobs. It has nothing to do with "a certain amount being denied employment for the good of the economy".
Bunk about someone's wife.
Talking about what might've happened 200 years ago is about as pertinent as what might've happened 3000 years ago. It doesn't matter. His wife pulled herself from nothing with no help from anyone else. She struggled to make something of herself despite having nothing. And America is full of those stories. Unfortunatley, it's also full of losers who lived off the government dole and never did anything to help society.
Hmm, work is, as usual, the deterimining factor
At 3/27/07 12:14 AM, Ravariel wrote: Well, they certainly did a bang-up job before the New Deal... SS Brought millions of elderly out of poverty, Medicare made them healthier, and Welfare helped the worst off (and a few lazy bums, I admit, but every policy, public or private will have its freeloaders).
Before the New Deal, poverty was unheard of. The family, and society took care of those down on their luck.
Though there was that whole stock market crash thing. If there hadn't been that, there wouldn't have been the elderly in crisis...Try again.
What makes you think that private charities can and will do everything our public systems do? Do you actually believe the only reason they don't/can't help everyone already is because we pay 20-50% of our income to taxes?
Because charities do everything better than the government now. Without a single solitary exception. Christian ophanages> government funded ones. Non-profit food pantries outdo government ones. Etc...
Again, what is stopping the charities from making welfare, SS, and Medicare obsolete already? Removing those costs from everyone's taxes will cut them maybe 10%...
Cuase they're gov't monopolies.
We SHOULD limit what the government can do... but we should also give them the ability to do what they can do best: social security, medicare, welfare. There are no real private answers to the problems that those systems fix. Eliminating them will only make things worse not better.
Yet, the evidence shows that charity is now, and has always served it's uders better than the federal government.
All rulers rule at the will of their subjects, no matter how hard they try to suppress that will. Thus everything is, in fact, a democracy, when looked at that way. But that's not what democracy really is... and using a relatively obscure definition of a commonly-held term in order to gain an upper hand in a debate is intellectually dishonest, and I expect better from you.
Twice the public tried to rise up under Saddam and failed. Governments don't always serve at the liesure of the populous.
At 3/23/07 03:35 AM, Ravariel wrote: I think you're mistaking liberalISM with liberALS. Not everyone who slants left is for all of the things you accuse liberalISM of advocating. F'rinstance:
Oh that's silly. That's like saying "You're mistaking Christians with Christianity". Sure not everybody agrees with everything, but there's some basic assumptions all Christians have (Christ was divine) or they're not Christian.
And I'll take your first three replies to mean you agree with me. Hope I'm not wrong.
On a national scale, maybe, but even on a State level, the Unions would be pushing for these rights, and would eventually get it as high as the State constitution/law books. Thus a federal minimum that is (FAR) below the actual lower end of income (I made more than minimum wage as a high schooler working at MickeyDee's one summer) isn't nearly as detrimental as you make it seem. The market already has its bottom end marked out, and at around $6-7.00/hr, that's still enormously above the federal minimum wage.
I didn't make them out to be that terrible. Minimum wage=inflation. It hurts a lot of families, but people manage to survive. That still doesn't mean they're a good idea however. Nor does it even remotely contradict the idea that the minimum wage is paternalistic in nature.
It needs reform, yes, but the idea is sound. Don't forget that it almost single handedly pulled the elderly out of poverty... I'd be sorely disappointed if they didn't have the same protections... especially in 50 years or so when I might need it.
Social Security was brought about due to the stock market crash when many saw their entire investments go up in smoke. It is an inherently unstable system that no amount of reform is going to fix. Unfortunately, to kill it will also cost our federal gov'ment a pretty penny. We backed ourselves into a hole here.
Eh, I'm on the fence about that... but I've done the math, we pay 1.45% of our income on Medicare to cover 16% of the population... to cover the other 84% would increase our percentage to 36.25%. That's a hefty chunk, yes, but it would be mitigated by the fact that the elderly (the 16% it covers) are the most costly age group to cover...
Anyway, is it really so bad an idea to provide adequate medical care to everyone who needs it? I'm not saying it doesn't have its problems, but it is something to strive for.
Univeral health care has not worked one place it's been tried. That alone should scrap it.
Libertarians ultimate problem with UHC is (like everything else) government interference prevents market forces from hitting the health care industry. While the prices for everything else go down, health care costs go up for even the simplest thing. One only needs to look at the VA (those of you who think the Walter Reed nonsense is an isolated incident haven't been paying attention or haven't care) to see the ineptitude of handing over our care to the gummit.
Only the Feds have enough oomph to do the kind of bullying that will get a huge corporation like the Telecoms, Oil, Automotive, Microsoft, to play fair. Without them, it would take an IMMENSE amount of personal cost and sacrifice in even the broadest of class action suits to make any company with that much influence change anything.
Please.
Federal interference in oil is responsible for 1/3 of our bill at the pump. During the $3+ gas crunch, Bush suggested the feds cutting their tax rate on gas. The dems wouldn't hear of it. Involving the telecoms...the feds broke one semi-monopoly into several real monopolies. And the entire time the feds were attacking Gates he didn't have a monopoly in anything.
All the feds ever do is drive up our cost of living.
Does it get out of hand? Of course, but that's not the fault of liberalism itself, but rather the retards in charge... and that's more of a case of public ignorance and apathy, but that's a whole other thread... (2 or 3, in fact, if my count of the front page is correct)
Of course it's not the fault of liberalism (socialism), which is why everywhere it's tried, we get variations of the same result.
But again, I don't think this is a problem OF liberalism, but rather the people associated with it.
Or the feminism movement which is a huge part of liberalism to begin with.
I could do the same with the Right, talking about how the neo-con republican agenda includes a big-brother like militaristic society answerable to no one but themselves. It wouldn't be fair to paint conservatism with that brush, only those who do the bitchery themselves.
The fun part of that is that the "Neo-cons" are liberals who want a strong military. But whatever. That's another debate (or 2 or 3).
At 3/23/07 02:32 PM, Drakim wrote: I agree that having a paternalistic government is something we must avoid at all times, but, everything isn't as black and white. For example, the police is just like one of those things you mentioned, yet, most people would agree that having a police close at hand is vital for a society.
However, Police were not on my list of paternalistic governmental functions. They were on my list of collective goods and services (one of the two ACTUAL functions of the gummint) along with military, sewage, fire department and roads.
At 3/24/07 12:54 PM, Begoner wrote: I generally understand a liberal to be one who advocates personal freedom, even if that necessitates state intervention. This is true in both economic and social matters. A conservative, on the other hand, is one who disavows government entry into economic matters but supports stringent laws regulating social interaction.
"Liberals believe in freedom even if they have to take that freedom away." Gotcha.
Oh, and just for the record: conservatives supported economic social change (affirmative actions, CivilRights Act of 1964) while liberals sat on the side doing nothing.
A liberal, on the other hand, might advocate higher taxation and nationalization of industry (although American liberals don't generally argue for this, liberals and socialists in most other countries do).
There's not an American liberali politician who doesn't...moving on...
Socialist bunk
Oh please. Not getting into the crap that statement entails.
Liberalism generally assumes that an individual has a right to the most fundamental necessities, even if he is unable to provide them for himself; conservatism assumes that if an individual cannot, through his own work, obtain those necessities, he is unworthy of life and the government should let him die.
Conservatives believe that the family (and if not them the community) should help the individual get back on their feet. The liberal believes they should be entitled to endless handouts, whether they hava any desire to get back on their feet or not.
Our way worked pretty well pre-New Deal.
It is patently clear that government entrance into the business sector is essential for preventing exploitation and protecting the rights of the people; liberals recognize this. As you put it, an individual cannot "do what he wants to do with his life" if he works in deplorable conditions for exiguous wages on which he can barely survive. He only has two options: either to continue working at that despicable job or to die. That's not freedom.
Not really. Most liberals deplore Wal-Mart's entrance into China, for instance, and want it stopped. However, Wal-Mart is kick starting China's infrastructure and providing them with commerce. If Wal-Mart and similar "sweat shop" inudstries were to pull out, China would collapse. And those who complain about the Chinese not having a union would have jack to say about them being unemployed.
At 3/24/07 10:59 PM, Proteas wrote:
Oh what the hell, I love playing Devil's Advocate.
A friend of mine sent me this recently, the author (who chose to remain annonymous) seems to have hit the nail on the head on a lot of things...
9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.
Everyone loves animals. Bambi is adorable. It's not a hard case to argue that the useless liberal who doesn't understand his own arguement cares more abouty the cute defenseless animals that does the hunter who cuts off the head as a trophy and leaves the meat to rot.
11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make The Passion of the Christ for financial gain only.
Conversely, you have to be pretty hardheaded to believe that monetary gain was not a primary factor in his decision to make the movie. Movies about Jesus are ALWAYS (unless they're bashing him like Last Temptation of Christ) HUGE money makers. I have no doubt that Gibson is a devouted Christian, but if he didn't think the movie was going to make money...he wouldn't have made it. The man is a businessman and he's pretty good at his craft.
13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.
To defend my leftist bretheren, the majority only want tax increased that will affect the rich. That they don't understand economics enough to understand that that affects the poor far more than ATM fees doesn't mean that their heart isn't in the right place.
At 3/27/07 10:28 PM, BlisteringFreakachuu wrote: "Did One Degree Celsius Really Rise?" - The Truth At Last!
People who compare people who are uncertain about global warming to holocaust deniers are absolute idiots.
Plus theres that whole issue that if GW advocates are wrong, they will kill the world economy causing all kinds of lovely joys for the poor.
Hooray! Starvation and homelessness for everyone!
At 3/22/07 06:45 AM, Mollart wrote: World war 2 was fought because there was no other choice, your point is invalid.
We never had to enter World War 2. There was plenty of choice. The only justification for WW2 that's missing in Iraq, was the CURRENT invading of it's neighbors. The comparison is valid.
Its okay going to war if there is a reason and a forseable end.
Britian and USA were saying Iraq had WMDS, the UN said they didn't, US and UK were proven wrong.
The UN said Saddam had weapons. It was Hanz Blix himself who pushed the theory that Saddam had reconstituted his weapons. Every single member state of the UN agreed that he did. The UN far from disagreeing (and later being "proved right") acknowledged he had WMDs, but didn't want to invade.
Now 4 years on, they are not fighting Saddam, they are fighting Insergents. It's poor planning if you ask me, the fact that they did not prepare for this, knowing what the political climate is in the middle east.
Agreed. Our biggest failing was in not planning for an inevitable insurgency.
US and UK casued 655,000 deaths that were preventable, fact.
Except for the fact that no one agrees with the figure. Somewhere between 65-90 thousand people have died of violence. And most of that is due to extremists targeting civilians...not Americans.
At 3/22/07 10:27 AM, RedSkunk wrote: Obviously all of the violence isn't directed solely at the US occupying forces. I never said that. I just said that all of this violence is a result of the invasion. Do you disagree?
But that fact is irrelevant.
Germans had an insurgency after we crushed Hitler...as there was in Japan. Does that make either of the insurgencies our fault? Of course not.
At 3/22/07 07:02 PM, Korriken wrote: so much for your credibility, woo there it goes right out the window. Michael Moore is one of the most liberal agenda driven people ever born, everything on his website leans so far left im amazed it doesn't fall over and hurt itself.
And I'm arguing a conservative position. Before your head explodes:
Michael Moore doesn't really write much of anything on his website. He just posts articles from other sources (and usually doesn't credit them). Therefore posting an article from a source I knew where it was to establish the fact that this study is poorly done (Moore doesn't usually check to see if there's anything in the articles that goes against his position), does not alter my credibility in the slightest.
The main problem I have is that asserting that liberalism believes in free markets and isn't a paternalistic form of governing.
One need only look at the standard laundry list of liberal ideas to see the opposite:
Anti-smoking laws.
Trans-fat bans.
Hate Speech laws.
Minimum Wage and Overtime laws.
Social Security
Universal Medical Care
Regulation of the (Insert Name Here) Industry
Sexual Harassment Laws (Started as a Good Thing and Have gotten out of hand)
The list goes on, but the basic point of liberalism is that the populous cannot be trusted with their own affairs, and must be taken care of by the government. In some cases I can actually agree with the goal being sought after, but in the end it's still teh government trying to be paternalistic.
At 3/22/07 09:53 PM, Bolo wrote: I could say the same thing if positions were reversed, and a democrat was in the White House instead of a Republican. What you regard as unwarranted criticism, many others regard as an opportunity to express their beliefs, which have long been ignored by an out-of-touch exectutive branch, that has tried to squelch the opposing party's opinions,
And has failed miserably. Anyone who thinks Bush is "squelching anti-Bush opinion" is very foolish indeed.
Well, I guess you have a point. Look at Pelosi and Sheehan.
For criticizing the President, Pelosi became Speaker of th House and Sheehan became a celebrity. Damn that Bush for squashing their freedom of speech.
as evidenced in the recent scandal involving the firing of eight Attorneys that were, not "Pro-Bush" in the eyes of the administration.
Except it's not a scandal. The President is allowed to get rid of attorneys at a whim, because they serve at the pleasure of the President. This is why when Clinton released 92 attorneys, no one complained. His perogative and all.
At 3/23/07 12:22 AM, Tancrisism wrote: The recent happenings with him allegedly (and this is over-simplifying it, of course) firing 8 officials because they weren't loyal enough seems rather fishy. Let me think of others who did that in the past... Hitler comes to mind, and so does Stalin. Of course, when people weren't thought to have been loyal enough to Stalin they lost their lives, not just their jobs, so he's the greater of two evils in this case.
OH NOES! Comparison to HITLER AND STALIN.
Who else did it? Try Clinton.
At 3/22/07 09:36 AM, bcdemon wrote: Actually yeah. Or no, ahh hell, just read it.
Hmm, 2004 totally trumps 2006. But whatever.
Even Ignoring all the other evidence that Saddam hid his WMDs...If there was "evidence" that WMD were hidden, why didn't they use that "evidence" to find them?
We tapped danced around the UN presenting our evidence for a year. That's why we didn't find more.
You're right, he had some old shit laying around the desert. It's not like he had brand for shiny new WMD, straight out of his mobile biological weapons facility (ROFL that was good).
Which completely justifies the case for the war. Saddam had WMDs. Still functional, though degraded.
I seriously don't need to.
Yeah, you're right, you really haven't tried so far.
"He didn't have WMDs, And the WMDs he DID have were old."
I'm sure it sounds smart to you.
Building schools? Protecting people? Where, when? Maybe you should read up on the US companies that are screwing your government out of your tax dollars in Iraq. In fact, just get yourself updated on the whole situation will ya?
Yup, no schools built.
No people protected either.
This is what happens when the debate is polarized by people who have no desire to be correct...just anti-war.
ROFL, are you mad? If, and that's a big IF, terrorists got a hold of the country, they wouldn't have it for long, like a day or two tops. And no, they would not be able to sell oil to fund thier terror plans.
Really? And whys that? I mean, I know the Shah was successful in Iraq of keeping Kholmeni from gaining power. Oh wait...
Wow, you are a very scared person. Your government as accomplished something, scaring the fuck out of its civis. They don't hate your freedom, they hate your foreign policy.
That's why they threatened to kill anyone who went out to vote in the elections in Iraq. Because they hate American policy...
A 'chemical warhead' means it can hold a chemical as opposed to an explosive. It's only a WMD if it is filled. Here read.
Touche. I missed that point. I however am able to admit when I get something wrong.
However, the fact that he had chemical warheads certainly adds credence to him building weapons.
Bush also said Saddam had ONGOING WMD programs. Hmm wrong. Bush (through Powell) said that Iraq had mobile chemical and biological weapons facilities so they could make thier WMD anywhere they wish, ummm nope, wrong again. The weapons found pre-date the first gulf war, they were unable to be fired, and extremlely degraded. The fact that they found 500 old shells scattered around a desert country that was involved in a 8 year war with its neighbor really means nothing when you listen (or read) to what Powell had to say at the UN.
And? As Hanz Blix himself even said "Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense."
To believe that Saddam was not making new weapons, one has to believe that Saddam was refusing access to weapons storage facilities until he could completely empty them, refusing to provide evidence of destruction of his weapons, telling the UN throughout the 90s that he was making Sarin and Mustard gas, seeking uranium, and a variety of other actionable causes, all with completely innocent intentions. This is a ridiculous belief system, but going off it, all of the above listed events are justification for war. Simple non-compliance with the terms of the ceasefire nullified it and allowed us to invade.
Some pictures of trucks at some factory, them some pictures of the trucks not there, well that obviously means they are moving their WMD to Syria.
Yea, some trucks in a convoy fleeing a weapons site that is about to be inspected by the UN is completely non-sucpicious.
So how come you haven't flown over to Syria and gathered these WMD up, shit you even have a map of where they are. You head on over, scoop em up (or get someone else to), and then I will believe your link.
Damn, you got me there. I totally have the disposable income and the political clout to get the military (despite the anti-war party now controlling Congress) to invade a hostile country and search for weapons. That's completely in my power.
You're right. But finding old shells doesn't mean he had ongoing WMD programs, mobile units, and/or nuclear weapons ready to fire in 45 minutes.
There was quite a bit of disagreement over whether or not Saddam had nukes. The strongest Bush pushed his case on the nuclear front is "The British government has informed us that Saddam has tried to acquire enriched uranium."
Saddam maintained the capacity to make WMDs, (from the CIA's report). We have the word of one of his top generals that he moved the weapons to Syria, corroborated not only by a journalist who fled Syria, but satelite footage, and enough guilty behavior of Saddam and the backing of every single intelligence agency in the world to back up the case that he had weapons.
Let's go over undisputed fact:
Saddam was supposed to destroy his WMDs and didn't.
Saddam told the UN in a series of proclaimations that he was making sarin.
UN inspectors were either blocked access to weapons shelters, OR arrived to find them completely cleaned out, with a convoy of trucks fleeing the scene still visible.
Saddam sent agents to Niger, a country who's only real export is uranium.
Prior to the invasion, even the french and Hanz Blix pushed the idea that Saddam was rebuilding his arsenal. Every agency in the world agreed. This was due in part to the niger visit and history, but also to the construction of new weapons bunkers, and the discovery of new chemical shells (which he wasn't supposed to have anyway).
Given the evidence above, it is not a rational conclusion to believe that every single world agency got it wrong and that Saddam was not constructing weapons.
At 3/22/07 01:01 AM, Demosthenez wrote:Most of the violence in Iraq is centered in Baghdad and the Anbar Province. Every family was from Baghdad. The violence is much worse, and the death count much higher.I dont think this is true. I think they cluster sampled from across the country.
You are correct. I misread. 12 out of the 47 clusters were in Baghdad. I apologize for my error.
It does however slant the study. 20 of the 47 clusters were in the most violent parts of Iraq...Baghdad, Anbar and Ninewa. And as I explained later on, in my ramblings, the study is indeed tainted by that. The majority of violence is in three provinces. Almost half of the survey participants are in those provinces. They ignored the two most peaceful provinces.
At 3/22/07 01:46 AM, bcdemon wrote: So what did those 122mm rockets turn out to be? The article you quoted also had this line attached to it "The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding." You don't even know what those 122mm rockets were all about and here you are demanding they're WMD?
The article says that they are chemical shells. That makes them WMDs.
Ohhh yeah that's right. You mean those 500 or so 25 year old serin gas shells that are absolutely fucking useless? Those ones right?
Degraded sarin gas is still dangerous. I'm sure you'd be more than happy for them to be used on you correct? The bottom line is that they were still viable shells.
And you don't get the whole idea do you? A HUGE reason we invaded Iraq was because Bush went to the American people andtold us that Saddam hadn't destroyed his munitions and was therefore defying UN resolution. The fact that we found said munitions completely negates your "Bush ignore teh bestest advice eever" tripe and prove Bush's case.
"Saddam didn't follow UN resolutions and destroy the WMDS like he was supposed to!"
"Why you say that?"
"Cause yea, we found 500 of them."
Is that what he said? Wow, all that AND no proof?
Yea, no proof. Not like we have satelite footage of convoys leaving bunkers before UN inspectors arrived or anything.
And not that there are Syrians backing up his claims or anything.
But hey, what difference does all that make. Finding WMDs doesn't prove that Saddam broke the resolution to destroy his WMDs, right?
At 3/22/07 02:13 AM, Bolo wrote: No one is denying that he had them created. What is in contention is the fact that Nuclear and other types of weapons were not discovered upon the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Well, weapons were found. Even the New York times acknowledged it (if only to mock it).
Moreover, you were saying that he created no new weapons after 91. He HIMSELF told the UN differently.
It takes an almost religious faith to believe Saddam had no WMDs after 91. And that he wasn't making them. He refused the UN access to every weapons facility until after he wiped it clean. There were thousands upon thousands of missing WMDs never accounted for. We have satelite footage of vehicles fleeing sites right before the UN convoys came. He sought Uranium in Niger (by Joe Wilson's original report). All of this says that if he didn't have WMDs that he was at least TRYING to rebuild his arsenal. During the last two years of the Clinton administration, this was not a contested argument. Hell, Clinton STILL says Saddam had the WMDs.
If I gave you 100 bucks, you could most likely get a WMD out of the country in a week (max). And yet, in the year before the invasion, we're to believe that Saddam, a man with the resources of an entire country at his disposal, couldn't. That is sheer lunacy.
We know that he had them. We told him to destroy them after Desert Storm, and periodically through the nineties.
He did.
"Experts agree that the WMD discussed in the report are older weapons, not new ones generated in the late 1990s"
But this completely negates your point that he destroyed them all.
And again, if they had been from 445 BC, he was in violation of UN resolutions by having them, and the war is justified.
Try again.Sorry, opinion pieces really can't count towards credible sources.
It details pretty well the pre-war intelligence. The UN thought he had weapons. Britain told us he tried to get nukes. France said the tubes Saddam had were for uranium enrichment centrifuges.
The ENTIRE WORLD agreed. Every single agency, including the UN said he had nukes. Based on decades of experience, and the discovery of new munitions which he was not, by resolution, allowed to make, and satelite evidence of him clearing out bunkers with an hours notice, Bush made the case that he had weapons. The only dispute among anyone was whether or not he had nukes. Even Al Franken, in his book "The Truth with Jokes" has documented how the military failed to secure some weapon sites, and how the weapons (some chemical in nature) have been used against our troops. Given the fact that we know for fact that Saddam had WMDs (though old) that he was supposed to destroy, making the case that he had no weapons in impossible. Even if he had made no new ones (which is ridiculously unlikely), Bush was absolutely correct and the war is justified.
Even Ignoring all the other evidence that Saddam hid his WMDs...
...and the absurdity of the argument that he had no WMDs period.
At 3/22/07 01:28 AM, Bolo wrote: *sneezes*
Oh, sorry, I'm allergic to people who say the exact same thing in every thread, while happily listening to their favorite Ann Coulter commentary about supposed "liberal catchphrases", when in reality, the "catchphrase" that they point out is one created within the recesses of their own small and stubborn mind, that has never been uttered by a "liberal" before. All of this is compounded by the fact that as they descend further into their own independent, alternate, universal plane, their grip on the true reality of existance starts to falter, and their sanity suffers a blow irreperable by any modern medicine.
But hey, at least they got their jollies out of posting incoherent nonsense in a thread on the Politics forum!
That doesn't make any sense.
That Capital punishment should be outlawed is very much a liberal catchphrase, uttered by quite a few liberals. If you're asserting otherwize, I don't know what you can add to the convo.
From the CNN story:
The case was brought by Angel Raich, an Oakland mother of two who suffers from scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea and other ailments. On her doctor's advice, she eats or smokes marijuana every couple of hours to ease her pain and bolster a nonexistent appetite as conventional drugs did not work.
The marijuana relieves her pain and bolsters her appetite. It's not "keeping her alive". People are commenting like the weed is reversing or retarding the growth of the tumor.
I feel for the lady...I do. Stories like this are part of the reason I'm for legalizing marijuana, but stop misstating the case. The pot keeps her comfortable...nothing more.
