Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/21/07 07:32 PM, bcdemon wrote:

At 3/21/07 04:17 PM, BocesPlayer wrote:

At 3/21/07 09:30 AM, bcdemon wrote: US invades Iraq using the "best intelligence at the time". Which is actually false. The US did not use the best intelligence at the time, in fact, they ignored the best intelligence, the UN inspectors. The inspectors would have come to the same conclusion that was established in 2005, that Iraq had no WMD, but Bushy couldn't wait.

Except that the UN found WMDs that Saddam was supposed to have destroyed. Hanz Blix:
The discovery of a number of 122-mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km [105 miles] southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. . . . They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.

Oh, and we've found approximately 500 weapons that were supposed to have been destroyed.

No, Bush called it right.

US claims it is "liberating Iraqis" Well fine, you did liberate them from Saddam Hussein, but as far as being "liberated" goes, you fail miserably. How can you possibly say you liberated the Iraqi people when in fact you plan on occupying their country for a long time? If 80% of Iraqis want you to leave their country, how liberating is it for them to know you're building huge permanent military bases so you can keep soldiers on their soil until you're removed?

Yup, we evil Americans are there trying to protect them from suicide bombers...exact same thing as murdering hordes of people.

You're done now.

Actually, you very smart and extremely informed intellectual, Saddam is dead and there are no WMD. The CIA concluded a long time ago there are no WMD to be found.

Yup, that's why we found over 500. Or why General George Sada (a high ranking Iraqi general) told us that Saddam sent the majority of his stuff into Syria.

At 3/21/07 09:55 PM, RedSkunk wrote: Well, nearly every single one. How about the US and the European nations? Personally I don't see the US "degenerating into totalitarianism," more than 200 years after its founding.. This is a pretty subjective claim in any case. Maybe you do see this decline.

John McCain's Campaign Finance Reform or the laws on how you can comment on Political Matters during a campaign. Almost all attacks on the first Amendment come from the liberals. 2nd Amendment rights at all?

The existence of positive rights does not automatically create a "socialist" state, in the modern sense of the word. The US acknowledges and protects positive rights, and I don't consider it to be particularly "socialist." I consider that a bit of a knee-jerk reaction, and being a reactionary isn't "intellectually honest" as far as I'm concerned.

The US is pretty socialistic. It may not be as bad as...let's say Europe. But it's still socialistic.
And when someone proposes the government forcing "fairness", all they're doing is advocating socialism.

Positive rights can protect negative rights as I've already noted. The creation of anti-discrimination law in the US has allowed black Americans increased job and property rights, for example.

Really? Is that why many economists originally considered the Minimum Wage one of the most anti-black laws in existance?
http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=356
No one has ever explained how forcing racists to hire black people helps the black people.

I can point to conditions in your typical factory in the 3rd world as a rebuttal for both of your points here. A factory owner there need not pay as much attention to livable wages or workplace safety as an equivalent in the US. The labor pool being drawn upon in a given area in China has little alternative, and less bargaining power with the owner. In terms of whether positive rights have a positive impact, it seems indisputable that they do. Compare the working conditions now (in the US, say) with what was common during the industrial revolution.

They're similar to the conditions in early America. And they are the start of an economy.
http://www.footprintsrecruiting.com/content.p hp?cat=506&abarcar_Session=6908db0653dbb43163 d305ad310741b7
China is also much cheaper than America. Many of the companies provide domiciles for their employees.

China is the perfect example. The more capitalistic they become the better the citizenry has it. Things are much better today than under...let's say...socialism.

And this is a heart-warming story but essentially irrelevant. I never disputed the fact that social mobility is possible in the US. It's a class system, not caste. Your "moral" of the story, that everyone's place in society is "deserved," is a commonly held but incorrect notion. If this was universally true, then the average CEO deserved 400% more in 2000 than they did in 1992. And the average worker apparently deserved less in the same time span. Odd. If our incomes were tied to what we deserved, then you'd be absolutely right, of course. But they're not, really. Income is based on many more factors than just "how hard you've tried."

The average CEO does deserve 400% more. The average CEO makes decisions that affect hundreds or thousands of people's employment. The average wage of workers has increased. But the average responsibility of workers hasn't.
Income is based on what your worth is to the economy. Which is why experience, education, supply of your brand of labor, skill...all affect the price you get for your services.

To your claim that liberalism doesn't mandate everything be oked by the government...I'm hard pressed to think of an example where the government isn't involved in a liberal solution. Not once.

And as to that touching story about the wife...she sounds remarkable.

At 3/21/07 04:40 PM, RedSkunk wrote: Libertarianism is centered around so-called 'negative' rights. These are rights that do not necessitate action from others, but simply lack of action. Examples are things such as the right of free speech, right of freedom from violence or coercion. and, chiefly, property rights. (Taxation, therefor, is illegitimate because it is coercive (there is no real choice presented – your property is taken by the government).) Negative rights are the yardstick when measuring the justness of a society.

Taxation is not illegitimate under the Libertarian worldview, because libertarianism acknowledges collective goods and services, and the responsibility of the government to protect its citizenry. Both of those things cost money and the libertarian doesn't expect it to materialize in thin air. This confusion is that the libertarian often objects to how the money is spent and the rate of taxes, not the fact that they are being taxed.

However, the libertarian is incorrect to only defend 'negative' rights. Today's "liberal" defends 'positive' rights, such as a minimum standard of living (the minimum wage), anti-discrimination laws, and taxation (particularly in the pursuit of redistributing wealth). The libertarian is short-sighted because these positive rights are required to protect the former negative rights. Consider the following example.

Today's liberal invents rights based on things that conservatives oppose. They do not so much promote rights as they react to conservative principals.
Promoting a higher minimum wage does not promote a higher standard of living. All it does is cause inflation. The minimum wage earner may have more money, but everything costs more. In a perfect world, raising the minimum wage is a null effect. In the real world it leaves the minimum wage earner (that is teenagers who live at home with parents) in the same position (or a slightly worse one) and screws everyone else...mainly the elderly, the disabled, and those on fixed incomes.
Anti-discrimination laws have a historic foundation in the Republican party. See: end of slavery, 13th-15th Amendment, Civil Rights Act of 1965, Affirmative Action, etc. Discrimination tends to foster in the Democratic Party. See: Jim Crow laws, KKK, opposition of the Civil Rights Act of 1965, etc.
And the liberal tends to tax the crap out of EVERYONE. The only people who didn't benefit from Bush's tax cuts were those who didn't work, as taxes were lowered on everyone. And the earned Income Tax Credit was expanded giving people more money back that they didn't pay in.

The reality of taxing hurting everyone is best shown by JFK's informed tax cuts and the loss of business from bigger cities every time they raise taxes.

A woman lives in an extremely depressed area. She has minimum job skills, and faces the "choice" of either starving or working for an employer who pays poorly and cares little for his employees. As with taxation, there is no choice presented here. The woman must, to survive, accept this job. This is economic coercion, and the libertarian ignores it.

You have to work for money to get food. This isn't coersion.
The libertarian recognizes that there's not a single city in the US that doesn't have some kind of charity to help keep people from starving. Most of them have crosses on them.

The woman will take the crappy job and gain job experience. Within a year, she will get a raise. She can either still work the job for more money or she can look for something new now that she has experience. Raising the minimum wage and forcing her employer to pay more to the bottom rung raises the possibility that he will:
a. not give anyone else raises (assuming he even falls under the umbrella and HAS to pay minimum wage), and return everyone to the minimum wage standard.
b. fire some employees to keep costs down (the least likely option)
c. cut hours
d. all of the above

There will be coercion in both models. The difference is that in the liberal model, human dignity is respected, and coercion is minimized. Prudent, progressive taxation allows even those most-taxed to live their lives as they see fit. In the libertarian model, economic, political, and social coercion is unrestricted by any controls, and those affected are disallowed to live their lives as they see fit. The libertarian ideal then is one that results in decreased liberty and freedom, and following this, an unjust society.

Meh. Bottom line, liberals tend to hurt those they claim to help. The unspoken goal of many liberals is to impose some sort of socialism which (in addition to not working) hurts the economy and tends to screw everyone. With the New Deal, while I believe Roosevelt had his heart in the right place, he began a system of government supported poverty.

Yea, I'll consider Bush Hitler when we find Cindy Sheehan in a shallow grave, Kennedy gassed in his home, Pelosi shot through the windshield of her SUV, Clinton set ablaze in a ditch, Al Franken with his throat slit....etc etc etc.

Until then, you sound like an idiot.

OK, sounds like some rationality needs to be introduced.

From Michael Moore's site about this:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/
index.php?id=8080

The survey was conducted between May 20 and July 10 by eight Iraqi physicians organized through Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. They visited 1,849 randomly selected households that had an average of seven members each. One person in each household was asked about deaths in the 14 months before the invasion and in the period after

Number one, this was a survey of less than 2000 households and then projecting it onto a national stage, which is NOT a reliable way to measure death count. 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.
A fictional example...after Hurricane Katrina, a scientific team went into New Orleans and took a survey of deaths with the same method used above. They then projected the results onto all of Louisiana. Is the death count accurate? Of course not...nowhere else in Louisiana suffered the same amount of damage.
Two, the Ministry of Health in Iraq (which is an accurate interior count...which is only off by the bodies they don't find) was 50,000 in June 2006, when the study was conducted. Their number is as close to correct as we're going to get., as it is a complete body count (with some discrepancies), whereas the Lancet study is based on 1,849 interviews in one city.
I'm lazy so here's the IBC discounting this. And since the IBC is firmly anti-war, there's no reason to doubt their words, especially as they're looking at the picture nation wide as opposed to a single city.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr14.php
That the "results came up the same" doesn't prove their case...it just means that they used the same method as last time. If the method is flawed, as it is here, their numbers are simply wrong. And let's not forget...their first study said that the death toll was "between 8,000 and 122,000", which is as good of a number as a 3rd grader could've given you.

And for those of you who are carping about the war being stupid and savage...how bad things are for the Iraqis:

Let's look at what we were hearing about Iraq BEFORE the war.
http://goliath.ecnext.com/comsite5/bin/pdinve ntory.pl?pdlanding=1&referid=2750&item_id=019 9-1747893
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/Middl eEast/Iraq/Sanctions.asp

I think the claims are bloated, but the left was claiming that 1/2 a million children alone died from starvation due to the sanctions.

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/Middl eEast/Iraq/Sanctions.asp
During the first Gulf War this was the estimate of deaths (and that war was insanely short)>
Beth Osborne Daponte estimates that 86,000 men, 40,000 women and 32,000 children died at the hands of American-led coalition forces, during the domestic rebellions that followed and from postwar deprivation.

Unicef reported that almost 5,000 kids UNDER FIVE were dying of starvation every month.

Iraq is now and has always been a mess. I'm sick of hearing anti-war buffoons talk about Iraq like before we invaded, stuff was all sunshine and roses. Saddam Hussein and his twisted little sons butchered the citizenry like cattle. With such lovely stories like this:
http://www.indict.org.uk/witnessdetails.php?t arget=Qusay
http://www.indict.org.uk/witnessdetails.php?t arget=Barzan
http://www.indict.org.uk/witnessdetails.php?t arget=Saddam
I'm quite sick of hearing how "stable" Iraq was before the war, and how bad the allies made the country.

Before the war, Iraqis lived in fear of the state, of being captured...then raped, tortured, and murdered. Now they live in fear (mostly in Baghdad and Anbar) of being blown up. The worst one can say is that we inadvertantly replaced one problem with another. We owe it to the Iraqis to stabilize their country, and that's not going to happen by withdrawing.

At 3/11/07 09:29 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Apparently one forgets the 80's.

I'm not aware of anywhere in the US where doing such thing was a crime. Much less punishable by death. You just don't get even your own arguments do you?

"At one time, some country made walking like an egyptian illegal, and punishable by death. therefore, the very fact that people walked like an egyptian in America, where it was perfectly legal, therefore proves that the death penalty deterred NO ONE from walking like an egyptian."

Yes, yes it did. Oh, and on the converse, laws proscibing death by stoning for adultery for women have done nothing to curb adultery by women in the US. Now, I'm sure this is confusing...but the laws of Afghanistan don't apply here in the US.

Debatable how many people stopped drinking since thier is no accurate numbers. And likewise with countries that have cruel and gruesume punishments, the numbers they provide of if they provide are questionable.

Bars shut down. Beer and liquor became ungodly expensive. For the most part people didn't have the money to, or the desire to go to jail, to drink liquor. Moreover, most average people didn't even have the connections to get liquor. The drop in drinking was pretty severe. When everyone talks about how prohibition failed, the standard by which it failed is not in the number of people who still drank...but the organized crime which filled the vacuum of alcohol.

Can you back this up? With stats from nations that still chop hands off, and theft rates for states that have more less gun restrictions.

See above links that show that Britain, which has more restrictive gun laws...has higher rates of theft than the US.

And even though it's not gun related. More evidence that not punishing crime produces more crime:
http://www.cathnews.com/news/701/120.php

Statisitcs, evidence. Speaking of generalizations is a very nice thing to a point.

I've produced plenty of evidence to back my case. You have produced...nothing.

Quite actually.

No, not at all. In fact, until recently, England was behind us in every single crime. Now they soar ahead of us in everything. England is becoming more and more lawless by the day.

Yet, from my earlier links, we've gone from being above Britain in every single category to being below them in all categories except murder and rape.

Depends. Selling them can get you a 100-1000 fine and/or one year in jail. Use of them can get you a 10-100 dollar fine for each use.

And that can be easily avoided by filling out a piece of paper and paying a 40 dollar fee. Moreover, fireworks laws are rarely inforced nationwide. Even when a cop catches offenders in liberal California...they usually get a warning.

OH NOES> NOT A WARNING!

And what have your proven, but generalizations with proofless infromation.

I'm not the one claiming that walking like an Egyptian was punishable by death without so much as a link. I wouldn't be claiming that I haven't proven my case if I was you.

I've provided plenty of proof. Just because you're putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "lalala" at the top of your lungs doesn't make it so. Your ridiculous reliance on the "walk like an egyptian" example shows that you either don't get it, or that you're trying desperately to string together examples that don't go together to make your case.

And you're the one making claims (same example) then not providing proof that such punishments were ineffectual in curbing said behavior.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/FaganTestimon y.pdf

"The tyranny of outlier states"...oh gimme a break.
Those who "have proved" that executions don't deter crimes kinda ignore the fact that we barely execute people in the US. Even Texas, which leades the nations in murders does a couple of dozen a year. Few people get sentenced to death. Even fewer actually see their sentence completed. Many die in jail while awaiting sentence. More see their sentence mitigated by appeals courts or their execution stayed by a governor.
Yet, despite this, death row convicts fight their sentence tooth and nail (showing that prisoners really would prefer theyre not executed).

But saying that the death penalty is not effective when we barely employ it, is like saying that castration for sex crimes doesn't work here either. We simply don't do it.

At 3/10/07 08:54 PM, Ravariel wrote: Lewinsky denied they had any relationship during the Jones trial. It was only afterwards, with Tripp's recording conversations, and saving dresses, and (most notably) an immunity deal for her own perjury charges, that she admitted it. This all happened WAY after the original trial.

Because perjury is only relevant if discovered during the course of the trial.
Rolls eyes.

I realize that, but it was the republican Senate, led by him, that was the architect of the impeachment.

And Nixon was impeached by Democrats. Therefore his conviction is overturned!

Now THAT is irony. Anyway, the Jones case WAS thrown out (in which Lewinsky denied any relationship). During the appeal, Clinton settled out-of-court and paid Jones like $850,000 or something. It was only later, when good ol' Linda Tripp recorded a conversation with Lewinsky, and handed that tape over to Ken Starr that the impeachment process really got rolling (they had been striking out trying to find any wrongdoing in the various "gates" they claimed he was in on).

Actually they hadn't. While the selling of the Lincoln bedroom was ridiculously against the rules, most Republicans let it go (to be fair, it wasn't that big of a deal, and most Republican politicians were probably involved in worse). The Chinese campaign contributions were enough to get him thrown out of office, but the administration basically told the Congress to get bent. low and behold, along comes Paula...and the issue of everything else he did wrong is gone.

Well, I definitely disagree with that. I follow no law I feel is immoral, or against my constitutional rights. And I encourage everyone to do the same. If we all follow every law without question, where IS our democracy?

And if we let every law be decided by what one individual person likes or dislikes...where does that leave us?

Moreover, where does it leave us, when said offender believes the law should be observes against everyone but him?

It WAS about sex. The perjury case was completely secondary to everything about the whole scandal. Allow me, if you will, a wiki (I know, I know...) link...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewinsky_scandal
wiki stuff

While I generally hold Wikipedia to be unreliable, I will completely agree with everything said here, because it mirrors what I said.
Which is: it was pundits and the media, NOT GINGRICH, who sold the whole "it's all about sex" bunk to the public. The trial was about perjury and the other crimes. That those crimes were made to hide a sexual relation, does not nullify the crimes.

You can keep talking in circles, but the bottom line stays the same.

And here is where his hypocrisy is in most evidence. He said this... being third in line for Presidency... while doing the exact same thing... and saying nothing about it (which is the same as lying about it).

Oh my God. He was THIRD? in line? Well, his ultimate goal was obviously to become President, which is why he was simulataneously targeting Gore! Oh wait...
Still no hypocracy. And no mad grab for the Presidency.
Because he DIDN'T do the exact same thing. Yawn. We keep playing a game. Where you say red is blue, and i remind you it isn't.

Perjury was the token charge they used to impeach him for being immoral. Last straw, my ass... it was the first thing they had a legal leg to stand on in order to go after him.

If they'd really wanted, they'd have gotten him on the Lincoln bedroom thing. If Clinton hadn't been refusing to comply with request for information. Convenient how the sex scandal came around just in time to save him...

Not JUST about sex... just MOSTLY about sex. Like I said, perjury was the first legal leg they had to stand on, so they jumped on it, plastered the Lewinsky scandal all over it to smear him in the court of public opinion...

Completely about breaking the law to cover his ass and not pay money to someone he sexually harassed.

And it worked; he was found guilty of perjury after coming clean in taped grand Jury testimony, can never again practice law, and is the liberal amoral boogeyman the right uses to smear the left.

Are you high?
Found INNOCENT of perjury (otherwise he'd have been removed as president.
Is allowed to practice law:
http://www.nysun.com/article/25965
Anyone else would've been banned for life.
And he's reviled on the right for many reasons, chief among them, his complete disdain for the law.

Of course he did. He attacked Clinton over and over for his relationship with Lewinsky. While having a similar relationship himself. Double-standard. Hypocrisy. That he ALSO mentioned the perjury does not erase the other attacks, nor make them somehow less hypocritical.

He attacked Clinton for breaking the law, while not breaking the law himself.
You can keep changing the dance, but the beat is still the same.

It should be said: I am not DEFENDING Clinton's actions in any way shape or form. His adultery is shameful, but not a public matter. His perjury was dealt with in the legal manner it should have been. That he didn't resign (BEFORE impeachment proceedings) like Nixon means nothing... only that he had a tougher skin when it came to scandal.

You're mitigating Clinton's actions. You are indeed defending him.
His adultry becomes public when he is sued for it.
And if he'd been anyone other than the president he'd STILL be in jail for the crimes he committed (in the Lewinsky trial alone).

Anyother interpretation is Democrat white washing.

At 3/10/07 09:00 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: And your sure of that how. I mean, I provide no data in the number of Egyptian walkings before or after x year(as in X is the year of the passed execution law). Likewise with today, with the theory that execution stops punishment, then if we looked towards the states that still execute, then there crime rates would ultimately be lower.

Because I'm an intelligent person who doesn't need numbers to know that people on a grand scale stopped walking like an Eqyptian (assuming there were even that many to begin with), because they didn't want to die.

Would that be the jist of the theory?

Prohibition came along, and people stopped drinking in droves. Parts of the world that have harsh (and certain) punishments, have less crime.

Yes, I agree with you on theft, but since theft is usually a non executable crime thats beyond the point.

It's not beyong the point. You say punishment doesn't deter. Yet in every society where thieves have their hands cut off, there is less theft. Wherever it is punished more harshly, there is less theft. Wherever people are allowed guns, there is less theft. Etc. Etc. Etc.
It aint just the death sentence.

Likewise with rape, since the intent was to rape.

In some cultures rape is an executable crime...in those cultures, there is much less rape. In America, most rapes aren't even reported.

But murder is a tricker subject.

Not really.

Better trade off.

Not really. But we'll get to that in a minute.

Likewise with the US.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?
AID=/20070309/NATION/703090421/1020

Yet, from my earlier links, we've gone from being above Britain in every single category to being below them in all categories except murder and rape.

Massachusetts illegalized fireworks. People still use fireworks. Since using fireworks isn't that private of a activity(considering that it gives off big fucking lights and sounds that could signal anyone,including law enforcement) one would think that this would nullify your rule or at least form an exception.

Now, what is the said penalty for use of fireworks? A fine you say?
Ignoring how little the police actually enforce this law (police say it's a waste of their time and couldn't care less), what can one do to circumvent the law? Fill out paperwork and pay a 40 dollar fee.

I know people who spend 1500 a year on fireworks...40 is just another drop in the hat.

If you can circumvent the law by paying 40 bucks then it's not a terribly strict law eh?

I'll take that idea from you.
You've used it well in your posting history.

I'm the one with thousands of years of history on my side, and you're the one throwing out nonsense like the above without even looking into it. (Yahoo search "Massachusetts firework", and the ordinances pop right up).

You can keep pretending you've poked holes in my theory, and can keep tossing up worthless examples (e.g. the wild west, where there was no law, the easily circumventable Mass ban on fireworks, and the criminals who continue to break the law), but you're just peeing in the wind. You could just give up and admit that you're wrong, cause you've got nothing.

At 3/10/07 04:30 PM, SirLebowski wrote: That's just Baghdad, though. Which was already somewhat secured anyway.

The majority of violence is within 30 miles of Baghdad and in the Anbar Province.

Secure those two areas (our new plan), and the situation improves.

At 3/8/07 06:52 PM, Sigma-Lambda wrote: Please explain to me what the hell makes you think that one person stands for all the beliefs of all liberals? By that logic, you conservatives hate American soldiers because Fred Phelps does.

Fred Phelps was a contributor to Al Gore.

Way to demonstrate political hack hypocrisy.

As opposed to assuming he's a conservative just cause he's Christian.

That was fun.

At 3/9/07 01:25 AM, Bolo wrote: He's about as conservative as they come, buddy.

Yet he votes democrat and is anti-military. Hmmm...

I think this quote from Al Gore pretty accurately sums up the nature of Fred Phelps as well as most of the Anti-Rights conservative interest groups:

"Any force that tries to make you feel shame for being who you are, and loving who you love, is a form of tyranny over your mind. And it must be rejected, resisted, and defeated."

Then Al Gore went out and denounced conservatives, and called global warming skeptics holocaust deniers.

Look, bottom line, what Coulter said wasn't that bad. It needs neither defending nor dissing. It's a word liberals use all the time. And considering one of Edwards bloggers uses it in conjunction with Jesus, and the other one uses it almost as often as the word fuck...I couldn't care less that liberals don't like Coulter's statements.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Pag e=/Commentary/archive/200703/COM20070309a.htm l

That says it all.

At 3/9/07 09:15 PM, Altarus wrote: Most likely, although if there were indications that such an increase was a temporary phase, then I would not consider it newsworthy.

But most of the media would.

I am not an apologist for the media. Why has Fox News not jumped on this? There are plenty of non-biased news outlets that are not reporting it, and I can understand why.

There is no such thing as an unbiased media. It's as real as unicorns.

At 3/10/07 12:34 PM, Begoner wrote: Your use of the term "communist media" to describe the prevalent right-wing propaganda establishment in this country that no one can deny is heavily corporatist and incontrovertibly capitalist reflects poorly on the rest of your post.

However, even though media may lean right in terms of economic issues, they are undeniable left leaning in social issues. And the full left tilt of CNN, NYT and several other outlets is not only noticible, they wave it like a flag.

Furthermore, your claim that the decrease in violence is "solely" due to the presence of a few thousand more American troops is not only egregious, but it is utterly unsubstantiated by any facts whatsoever. In no way to you bother to prove causation; you simply attribute a questionable statistic to coincidence. Currently, the policy employed by the major Shia militant sect seems to be one of "wait and see." According to a member, "'Whether we will reappear as a force on Baghdad's streets depends on the success of the security plan. If the bad people are arrested and punished, then that is fine. If not, then we will go back to the old ways.'"

But they're playing wait and see because of the increase in forces, and the change of the overall mission.
Oh, and the last time we had a surge, the same thing happened.
THAT is cause and effect.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,
,2026079,00.html

If you recall what happened the last time a surge was implemented, the violence decreased immediately. This news was splashed all over the TV screen as an impressive achievement. However, that mitigation was only temporary, as the violence steadily and inexorably rose over the long term. Currently, the same pattern is being seen again. Don't break out the champagne just yet; more likely than not, history will repeat itself.

Last time, the violence didn't peak again until the surge ended. Moreover, the first surge was not accompanied by a change in policy. While there were more troops, the game plan was the same.

The only question is: will we stick it out? If we will, it's a good thing. If Bush caves to the left and ends the surge again, it won't be.

At 3/10/07 03:42 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: That horrible vicous punishments somehow stop crime.

They do. Your silly bringing up of the execution for "walking like an egyptian" led immediately to people no longer doing it. Just wasn't worth it.

Most times when someone commits a crime, there usually not thinking, "Hmm, If I get angry and kill this man in the heat of passion, I could be potentially executed for this."

Most of the time, when someone commits a crime it is thought out. The "passion crime" is rare. Theft is always thought out and planned to try and avoid arrest (though some are too stupid to do it right). Rape is usually planned out. They may not have picked a target, but they usually intend to rape SOMEONE. Even rapes committed on people they know are done with the confidence that the victim will never tell, cause most dont. Etc.

Vigilante Justice usually was the only justice in that area, for quite a while actually.

Exactly. You are using a period of lawlessness to demonstrate your point that law and punishment don't work.

Yes, the ones with a 0.0140633 per 1,000 people. Compared to the US's 0.042802 per 1,000 people
So, when did the UK outlaw Capital Punishment again.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_per cap-crime-murders-per-capita

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001 /3/21/205139.shtml
http://www.reform.co.uk/website/crime/abetter way/imprisonmentandthecrimerate.aspx
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/cjusew9 6/crvs.htm

Hmm, so less murders...more violent crime. Hmmmm.
And, oh yes, crime rates are soaring in Europe. And punishments are dropping. Crime also soared after guns were banned (another source of risk for crime removed).

Of course, because no one acts foolish in life.

Even though that statement has nothing to do with ANYTHING....
Not if they know that the penalty for foolishness is death, no. The basic truth is that most people stop doing something when it is made illegal. Those who still do it, do it privately, and try not to get caught. Since you won't be able to show that some number people above 2 publically flouted the law and did this stupid act, ignoring that it would get them killed. It's a silly argument that hurts your case.

Will people break the law no matter what it is and what the punishments for it are? Yes. Does that in any way shape or form negate the undeniable conclusion that harsher punishments have always, without exception, cut crime rates. Not at all. And you showing me that crime still exists makes me question whether you even understand the debate.

It's ok, you don't have to support your conclusions. Just keep saying them over and over and soon enough they'll be true.

At 3/10/07 03:30 PM, Ravariel wrote: Except adultery became the issue while in the grand jury, when several questions not related to the Jones issue surfaced in a blatant attempt to smear his reputation (not that it needed it). And when an adulterous person leads the charge against that man for lying about the adultery... that screams hypocrisy to me.

The issues were related to the Jones case. It's called establishing a pattern, and it's extremely relevant to sexual harassment cases.

Also, Gingrich didn't prosecute the sexual harassment trial, so even if they asked him how many times he masturbated, it may be in poor taste...but that ain't Gingrich.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. I find the moral "ambiguity" of the trial in the first place, nevermind the introduction of the Lewinsky stuff, to easily morally couterbalance the lying it produced.

Honestly, I think we have common ground here. If the behavior offended her that much, she should've done something while he was still governor. It SHOULD'VE been thrown out due to statute of limitations or something. However, due to legislation that Clinton himself favored, it wasn't. The Lewinski stuff, however wasn't irrelevant to the case.
And committing a crime just because you find something distasteful is a poor excuse.

Except while the criminal case may have been about perjury... and the grand jury investigation about Jones... the case brought before the american public was "CLINTON GOT A HUMMER FROM LEWINSKY! HE'S A CHEATING SHITBAG AND SHOULD BE IMPEACHED!...ohyeahandhelied."

But the question then becomes...who sold this to the American people. While there were several Republicans languishing over the lack of morality of our President...the media was constantly seeking to downplay it. It's not about perjury, it's about sex.

A charge proudly spearheaded by a cheating shitbag.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/05/18/gin grich.clinton/
The administration's legal fight to shield the testimony of Secret Service agents in the Lewinsky case was "the last straw," Gingrich said.

The speaker once again pledged to say during every public appearance that Americans have the right to know the truth about the Lewinsky matter and that the president is not above the law.

"This is not about politics. I don't know -- and I don't care -- how this 'strategy' polls. This has nothing to do with vendettas or witch-hunts or partisan advantage," Gingrich wrote. "This is very simply about the rule of law, and the survival of the American system of justice. This is what the Constitution demands, and what Richard Nixon had to resign over."

The "tabloid headlines" are causing Americans to lose further trust in the government and the rule of law, Gingrich said.

Yes, Gingrich attacked Clinton as tawdry, but his constant focus was that the President was NOT above the law. And in an administration that was constantly embroiled in scandals, Clinton committing perjury was the last straw. You can call it however you want, but it was about perjury.

I'll agree that Gingrich is a scumbag, but there's still no moral equivalency.

Sorry... irony and hypocrisy, no matter how you spin the details. Had it happened to a repub pres by a dem congress, I'd think the same, so regardless what Memorize thinks, this isn't about sides of the aisle.

Irony yes. Hypocracy no.
And this is about sides of the aisle. It may not be for you, but this is very much a partisan issue for the left aisle. Just about sex, just about sex, ignore the perjury, just about sex.

And the fact of the matter is still simple, Gingrich didn't do any of the stuff that he attacked Clinton over.

At 3/10/07 03:25 AM, Ravariel wrote: Guy is aldulterous... 'nother guy brings him in front of a grand jury to investigate that (not only that, but right-wing spin aside, Lewinsky was part of the reason for the investigation)... while being equally adulterous. Sounds equal, hypocritical and highly ironic to me.

A gay man brings another gay man before a judge to prosecute him for murder. Both men are gay....HYPOCRACY!
But homosexuality isn't the issue, murder is.

Likewize, one adulterer brings another adulterer in front of a judge for multiple felonies, whereas the first adulterer committed no crime.
Since adultery isn't the issue, there is no hypocracy.

He said they were morally equal, not legally equal, you shit.

They're not morally equal either. Even on the issue of Jones vs. adultery alone, they're not equal. One's a scumbag, the other's a criminal, AND a scumbag.
No morally equal.

Well, considering the "clinton case" was the catalyst for the irony, he could hardly NOT mention it. But noone EVER said they were equally legally culpable. The only one claiming that is you.

But the bottom line is this:
For a charge of hypocracy to stick, one must be guilty of what they denounced (or in this case prosecuted for).
So when Gingrich commits perjury, then you'll have something. Until then: nothing.

At 3/10/07 09:40 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: So that explains why people still killed each other when we still hung them.

My god! People committed crimes? DESPITE punishment? AND laws to tell them they couldn't? Well, I'm stumped.
Of course people still commit crimes. Risk/Reward. There will always be people who feel the reward outweighs the risk. This doesn't negate the point.

I mean, the Wild West gives and accurate point to all this. They had lynching's for many crimes, yet they were still commited.

LOL. It was the Wild West for a REASON. The "law" in most cities consisted of one man. Kill that manb and you got away with the crime. They often had lynchings (lawless in themselves btw) because the citizenry decided to take revenge for some unpunished crime, or because there was no sheriff/law in that part.

On a side note, I'm almost speechless that you used lynchings to try and prove your point. Or even the mostly lawless wild west for that matter.

Hey, how about Great Britian in the 1800's.

As opposed to Great Britain today. Yawn.

The UK had the death sentence for many crimes, including acting like an egyptian.

I'm sure that it has stopped people.

I can guarantee you that anyone who walked like an Egyptian in public was mentally deficiant, with or without the death penalty attached.

Thatisall.

At 3/10/07 04:29 AM, fli wrote: I just finished watching Babel... wasn't aware 300 was out today.

Wow.
The past few years has been REALLY godd for Mexican cinema and all Latino directors... Crimen de Padre Amaro, 21 grams, AmoresPerros, Midaq Alley, Motorcycle Diaries, Y tu Mama Tambien...

And it's no wonder that all of them have the presence of Gael Garcia Bernal.

Wait...Y tu Mama Tambien...

"And Your Mother Too"

Wasn't That a Famous Porno?
I never would've suspected you watched that type of stuff Fli.

At 3/9/07 02:43 PM, Boltrig wrote: It took you 2 years! The UK doesnt have a "couldve done it without you" mentality, were just sick of YOUR "we did it all" mentality.

Eddie Ixxard...British Comedian

"And we're like 'Fuck, the Germans are invading! Mobilize the tanks. What do you mean we have no tanks? Break out the ice cream trucks then!' And we're out there serving up smoothies, then throwing them at the Germans. Finally the fucking Americans arrived. 'Here we are to save the day.' And we're like 'Where the fuck were you bastards? We've been waiting for two years over here! We didn't ask for your help for fucking nothing you know!' Then finally you all get off your asses and the war is over."

Another reason I love Eddie Izzard.

At 11/14/06 04:33 AM, Alphabit wrote: Americans have got to be the most arrogant people in the history of mankind.
I'm sick of hearing "We're the most powerful nation in the world," "our president is the most poweful man in the world," "our economy is the best in the world," "We have the best (insert word here)." Americans just can't stop boasting about how good they think they are.

That is because we do have the best economy in the world. We are the most powerful nation in the world. The President is the most powerful man in the world. Etc.
If i say my fence is higher than yours and it is...it ain't boasting.

This is partly why they are one of the most hated and isolated nations in the world.
They only have like 3 Major Allies; UK, Australia and Canada! LOL.

Our allies also include India. Our allies are the most powerful nations in the world.
We are the most hated because the other nations envy us, and/or hate that we stand up for what we believe in (as long as a Republican's in the big chair).

Compare that to Germany; France, Italy, UK, Russia, Spain, etc... (all Europan nations)

France is about to collapse under it's massive welfare state. Germany still uses laws that Hitler enacted. Russia kills journalists than disagree with party line. Spain forces women into prostetution if they're on the welfare roles for more than a year. ...Have nothing for Italy.

The US might be a powerful country, but they don't have many allies... In fact they have more enemies than Allies, even China has taken a dislike to the US.

China's a huge human rights violator. Yet they, and the rest of the world, would perish without us.

The fact is that the US is just one powerful ship sailing through rough seas... And if they continue to abuse their priviledges, they will sink. They might be greater than any one country, but they're nowhere near as great as the rest of the world. They should stop acting as if they were king of the world because there is no such thing.

The US is greater than the rest of the world combined. The only way the US will fall is through internal divison...but that's not a far off possibility.

The idea that some jokes from France and Germany will cripple us...you have a better chance of facing the US alone than does either of those countries.

Yawn.

At 3/10/07 03:53 AM, Togukawa wrote: Yeah! All this footage from BBC is photoshopped or something. Believe what the Israili army says about this issue. In a court case, people believe what the accused says, they don't look at the evidence. Why should this be any different? Silly 13 yeard old!

The AP (which almost all news services in the world look to for stories, including the BBC) has been caught up in several scandals over the past year where they have photoshopped (and then later been forced to admit to it) images dealing with Israeli issues, involving mainly the Israeli strikes in Lebanon and Palestinian issues.
Other news sources such as CNN have admitted to airing stories they knew were fake to be continued to have access to areas (Palestine and Iraq).

The issue of photoshopping and purposefully deceptive journalism is far from a fantasy for Israel..it's proven, and admitted to by quite a few newscasters.

At 3/10/07 03:50 AM, Togukawa wrote: WolvenBear, the problem is that there's two types of errors you can make. In a system like China's, you'll have very little murderers getting away, which means the probability of getting caught is very high, and hence apparently murder rates are very low.

There's a flip side however, namely that there's also a large percentage of innocents getting convicted. It's very hard to increase the percentage of guilty people getting caught and punished, and not lower the percentage of innocents. Type I and type II errors from statistics...

That's not the point however.
The fear of punishment curtails the crime rate. We can argue over whether or not the prosecution of the innocents they catch is worth the lower crime rate, but the inescapable fact is...there's is much lower, despite a population many times our own.
Our own justice system (while imperfect) sought to reduce the overall number of innocent people caught in the crosshairs, much less convicted. However, in the past couple of decades, certain groups have expanded small holes in the net (to allow the innocent to escape) into truly monstrous mile wide chasms (allowing anyone with a lawyer who speaks English to escape).
The common liberal nonsense is that "The Death Penalty is not a deterant", when the simple fact of the matter is that it very muc his a deterrant. All the evidence says it is, not a single factoid says it isn't.

Yet we constantly have people spouting off that punishment isn't a deterant. Sigh.

OK, reality check for people.

Not a single one of our founding fathers trusted any number of men or women to not screw them over. This is why they set out a system of government so ridiculously complicated, that not a single one of them could ever see it becoming as powerful as it is today. (Even the federalists who wanted a stronger federal government, didn't want it to be as powerful as it is today). They wanted our governments (local and state, state and federal, and between the branches) to argue and fight. The more conflict within government, the less power.

However, that said...they knew something could happen.
The 2nd Amendment is the fallback options.
It presents a collective right to have a militia to protect the states from the federal government. It also creates an individual right to own guns to protect the citizen from the state (and assumedly federal as well).
The 2nd Amendment was not for hunting, or even for protection from criminals(though those are both things they considered inalienable rights), but to provide the citizen with a trump card over the government. Consider some of the popular phrases we're taught in school:
A group of men here can take away our rights as easily as a king an ocean away.
Give me liberty or give me death.
Every 25 years the tree of liberty must be refreshed with rebellion.

And the fact that gun ownership used to be REQUIRED.

And we see where the founding fathers' heads were at.
The 2nd Amendment provides a collective AND an individual right.

At 3/8/07 07:26 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: History has shown that fear of punishments doesn't work to lower crime rates.

History shows exactly the opposite. Saudi Arabia's poverty level is much higher than ours but their rate of theft is much lower. Why? You get caught stealing...even if it's neccessary to live, and you lose a hand.
China has (or had) the law that you are guilty of murder til proven innocent. If you plead guilty to murder you get life...if you plead innocent and are found guilty , you die. Their murder rate is tiny.
Right after the 60's and 70s, as we made it harder to convict, and lowered the punishments even if caught and convicted...the crime rates soared.

Human beings operate under a cost/reward model. What will I get if I do this (benefit)? What will happen to me if I'm caught (cost)? If the cost outweighs the benefit, people won't do it (usually). This is why people in dictatorships don't talk against the government...they're terrified of it.

Yup, history shows us that fear of punishment is the ONLY thing that deters crime. Without a single exception.

OK, after reading Ravaziel, Boil, and even Mem, I realize none of you have the slightest clue what happened.

We'll ignore all of the other juicy stuff like White Water, and his other scandals, and jump straight to the sex affair.

Paula Jones came out of nowhere and claimed that Clinton had sexually harassed her by having state troopers bring her to a hotel where he dropped his pants, pointed to his junk and told her to kiss it. (While I am generally skeptical of people who come forward to claim harassment after a decade, in her case it was true.)She initially asked for an apology. When slandered by the Clinton camp, she sued him. During the course of the trial, she called Lewinski (among others) to establish a pattern of conduct (important in Sexual Harassment cases). To deny Jones, Clinton committed perjury repeatedly, asked Lewinski to commit perjury, tried to get Linda Tripp to destroy tapes that she had of Lewinski admitting the affair, had the Secret Service hide gifts Lewinski had given him, the list goes on. In seeking to deny Jones her day in court, he committed no less than 14 felonies.
AFTER, it came to light that he lied, in light of other scandals such as White Water, selling the Lincoln bedroom, illegal campaign contributions from the Chinese, etc, the President blatantly committing perjury and ignoring the rule of law in the court room was too much...the straw that broke the camel's back. Gingrich brought impeachment articles against the President for flouting the law.
On the facts, Clinton was guilty as sin. If it wasn't for every single liberal voting against the impeachment despite overwhelming evidence, he'd have been removed from office...rightfully so. Clinton was saved by partisan politics. (Similarly we see this with Harry Reid and William Jefferson today).

So all the BS that's been put forward in this post iis wrong.
1. Clinton was impeached for perjury not sex. The impeachment hearings happened AFTER the perjury, not before.
2. Clinton has committed a crime, Gingrich hasn't. Therefore no hypocracy.
3. The impeachment of Clinton wasn't about impeaching a President that the Repubs didn't like, but about a President that had no respect for the rule of law.
4. The original trial was about Paula Jones, not Lewinski.
5. And finally. Clinton's impeachment taints the Democrat party because they refused to vote to remove him despite overwhelming evidence, making them party to his taint. And all the major Democratic commentators (even the feminists) made it their priority to excuse Clinton's lawlessness, tainting all of them as well.

Gingrich may not be a good human being, who did a terrible thing to his wife, but he didn't compound that by breaking the law. While it's ironic that one adulterer was investigating another, adultery was not the matter at hand...therefore no hypocracy.

Sorry guys.

At 3/9/07 09:43 PM, Bolo wrote: It doesn't matter. I've already stated in the topical post that this is about Newt Gingrich, not former president Bill Clinton.

You're saying he's a hypocrite. He was going after a man who committed several felonies in this scandal alone (there were more scandals). Unless Newt was breaking some law by having his affair...there's no hypocracy.

THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT WAS NOT ABOUT SEX.
It's not a hard thing to get. Geez.

Wow. Way to blow this shit right off-topic. How is there no moral equivalence? These are two men who, while in public office, had sex with women who were not their wives. They both lied about it—Clinton in fromt of a jury, Gingrich by not revealing it until seven years after he'd left office.

I'd say that's pretty fucking equivalent, and therein lies the irony.

Because one's a crime and the other's not. I'm sure there are dozens of other politicians who cheat on their wives/husbands. Couldn't care less really. The more distracted they are...the less time they have to dick me over. It's. Not. The. Same. Thing.

At 3/9/07 10:54 PM, Bolo wrote: Huh. Another tangent. Can I remind everyone now this topic is about GINGRITCH, not CLINTON?

Dude, you can't have a convo about Gingrich being a hypocrite for going after Clinton, and declare Clinton off limits.

Anyways, "liberals," as you say, are not "going after him," as you suggest. Much unlike your own party, who put the president on trial for having sex. Now, before Clinton lied under oath, what he had done was not a crime,

SQUEELING BREAKS.
Hold on a minute here.
Sexual Harassment is against the law. Clinton was on trial because Paula Jones was suing him for sexual Harassment. He perjured himself, and was brought up on charges. Don't comment on the story if you don't know how it goes.

and the fact that Congressional Republicans were trying to capitalize on it as if having consentual sex with an office aid was akin to beating children, is a disturbing fact that is oft-overlooked, and tells volumes about the character of Republican in Congress.

Perjury and Obstruction of Justice are nothing to frown at. That the Republicans were willing to bring a criminal to justice who was the President, despite it not being popular with a large portion of the populous does speak to their character.
He should've been convicted. If not for partisan politics...if he'd been tried by a 12 person objective jury...he'd have been convicted.

Notice how I say "Republicans in Congress" and not "Republicans in General". This is because I know most Republicans aren't gun-toting rednecks who'll rape priests if it helped bring about the downfall of the Democratic Party.

That's stupid.

Ignorance of facts +6!

Says the man who thinks that he was on trial for Monica Lewinski...rolls eyes.

Again, characterizing an entire group of people by the actions of one person is not only grossly innaccurate, but wrong in the true sense of the word. It's a sad realization that a party must come to when it feels the need to lash out at the opposition in such a manner as was affected during the Lewsinski scandal.

No, we characterize the group by how they reacted to the event. That Clinton's multiple felonies aren't even to be discussed here says a lot for you.

If, as Congressional Republicans suggested when they indicted Clinton before he lied,

BRAKES AGAIN.
Clinton was indicted after he lied. Try again.

So yeah, both Clinton + Gingrich committed crimes. Both are equally guilty. Both would've done the same thing, if each other's roles had been reversed.

Except Gingrich HASN'T committed a crime. Clinton has. We don't know what Gingrich would've done because he wasn't in the situation. Clinton was confronted with it and lied. Gingrich came clean on his own volition. Again...not the same thing.

At 3/9/07 07:54 PM, Bolo wrote:

Not massaging your temples in exasperation, yet?

Not really.

Well, there's more;

I figured there had to be.

HE HAD THIS AFFAIR WHILE PURSUING CLINTON ON THE LEWINSKI SCANDAL.

I'm sure you have a point here somewhere...

Now, I realize that Clinton lied under oath about it, but, I mean, there's a serious double standard, here.

Not really. What one did was illegal, what the other did was immoral. If Clinton had just owned up to the whole Paula Jones thing and paid her her money, then no one would've given a damn. Just another stupid immoral politician. Great. We have hundreds of more of them in Congress. But he committed perjury, suborned perjury, tampered with witnesses, obstructed justice, withheld evidence, etc etc etc. And that's only that scandal.

If you want double standard: Clinton went free...Libby went to jail. Or: Sandy Berger went free...Scooter Libby went to jail.

At 10/16/06 04:25 PM, TheMason wrote: You are right that they were not a nationality per se; however the question becomes one of displacement. Pre-WWI there wasn't Jordan, Sudan, etc; there was the Ottoman Empire. However, post-WWI brought an unnatural division of tribes into artificial borders created by outside influences (UK and France mostly through secret treaties that were often contradictory.) So while you are correct that a Palestinian nation did not exist, there were people on the land who were displaced by outside powers.

I'll assume you mean pre-WW2. However, there was a Trans-Jordanian state founded in 1922, with British control lost over it in 1946, two years before the formation of israel. This state opposed the initial formation of Israel, and began to war against the new Israel. Whereas Jordan used to control the West Bank and Gaza, after it warred against Israel, it lost and had to lose the territories. In it's haste to destroy Israel the Arab alliance, led by Jordan, urged Palestinian citizens to flee Israel, which they did in droves.

To this day, Israel is a better place for Muslims to live than in any of the border Muslim countries.

Okay Wolvenbear I think I know the problem here. On many points we agree but are talking past each other. I say extremist and you respond back terrorist. For me there are people who are terrorists in the ME but are not Muslim extremists. An example: Yassir Arafat was a nationalist and the terrorism of the PLO falls in this catagory.

I have always looked at it this way. If you walk like a duck, quack like a duck, and look like a duck, you're a duck. I think you'd be hard pressed to find "Muslim terrorists" who aren't extremists.

So reading through the Pew study I don't place everyone in the ME who justifies terrorism against the US as religious extremists. Just because you are Muslim, live in the ME and think that suicide bombing is ok to use against Israel and the US does not mean this opinion is derived from religion (Jew, Christian or Muslim). So say 75% of people polled in Syria say Terrorism is okay; only 5% of that 75% may hold this view because a religious background. The majority may very well view it as the only way to effectively fight a technologically superior foe (which, in the past, more in-depth polling shows to be the case).

This is splitting hairs. If the majority of Christians think it is OK to kill every Muslim in sight because of the threat of OBL, then this is either a direct indictment against Christianity or against every religious leader who teaches the Christian faith. Take your pick. The fact that we can barely get a plurality of Americans (of all faiths) to say that we can even defend ourselves says something.

You know, I've made the comment repeatedly that I have little quarrel with collaterial damage. When one attacks a military foe, civilian casualities happen. Sad but true. When the "insurgency" has dozens of attacks that not only kill no military personal, but not even a civilian American, it becomes obvious that the "insurgency" is targeting only Iraqi civilians, and is dispicable. Any organization who DELIBERATELY targets women and children, should have it's members executed, without exception.

What I am saying is that there is about the same number of people who pervert Islam as there are people who pervert Christianity. I use the term Extremists to describe these individuals whether they are terrorists or just ideologues is beside the point. (Note that I am not making any suggestion of the number of Christian terrorists v. Islamic terrorists.)

Oh please. This is still ridiculous. Violence is violence. Hurt feelings are hurt feelings. There were more deaths via Muslim terrorists last year then there were hurt feelings over the Christian community's refusal to accept gay marriage (which they need to get over) period. There is no correlation. The Muslim extremist straps himself with dynamite and blows up a group of 20. The Christian "extremist" says gays shouldn't marry. The comparison is ridiculous.

My overarching point is that to simply claim that the violence in the ME is because of a violent religion called Islam is simplistic. It ignores historical truths and is counter-productive.

No, it's simplisatic to say that a religion made by a man who subjected himself to death on a cross and a religion started by a man who slaughtered any of his neighbors who disagreed with him are equal just because they're both religions is simplistic. And it's telling to me that the defeneders of Communism all rally behind islam.

At 10/11/06 08:07 AM, lapis wrote: Although your translation is mentioned as one of the translations falling short by the Middle East Quarterly, noting that "Abdel-Haleem has incorporated his doctrinal bias into his translation", it all depends on what you consider "corruption". If a Christian or Jew spreads corruption simply by not following Muhammad then so does a Muslim who doesn't perfectly observe Ramadan and yet you won’t see a call for his death in the Qur'an.

OK, I'm a fair person. If my translation falls short, then suggest to me one that is more acceptable. If my copy has included extra biased verses to suggest Islam is more violent than it is, I'll spend another 10-15 bucks to get the more accurate translation.

And I'll wait for your response on what guide is best before I address this point, or any other one from the Qur'an.

There is nothing more they can do than condemn, and they did it in the strongest terms. What the hell do you want them do? Mortify their flesh every time someone commits an atrocity they aren't personally responsible for? Do Christians apologise for the crimes of the "Lord's" Resistance Army simply because their leader uses biblical references? Your demands are absurd.

My demands aren't absurd. I want to see the text of his speech. I'm not asking for you to move mountains here. I'm not asking for you to bring the dead back to life...just a simple transcript. After Clinton told the American people he shouldn't have lied about Monica...the papers posted that he was contrite about his affair, and apologized for everything, when this is not what he had done. When the leader of Hamas spoke and said that Israel (more or less) got what was coming to it and that the attacks were justified, the papers printed that he had "condemned in the strongest terms" the attacks. But he instead SUPPORTED them. Under all of that, I feel that asking for a transcript of his "condemnation" is reasonable.

At 10/11/06 05:11 PM, TheMason wrote: Some could say that it was; there was propaganda leading up to the Holocaust depicting Jews as the killers of Christ. Plus Nazism was not the religion of Germany, it was their ideology. Many Germans, to include guards at the Concentration camps were proclaimed Christians. My point is even Christians can commit atrocities.

Of course they can. As can Buddhists...I think. The point is that Hitler persecuted the Christians as well as everyone else. Hitler and country worship and socialism were the order of the day. That they jailed bishops and clergymen not only from the Catholic church, but from the protestants as well is a matter of historical fact.

PC nonsense

Um, hmmm, who was it who told the Palestinians to flee Israel? Oh, right, the Arabs. And there were no Palestinians in the 40s. There was Jordan, Sudan, etc, but no Palestine. Considering most of the royal families in the ME ARE extremists, I'm not sure what the point is. The PLA was corrupt, the PLO was corrupt. And if it weren't for Israel more or less running the show for Hamas, things wouldn't be any better. I had to laugh at someone talking about the Palestinians pre 40s calling me a revisionist.

The point is suicide bombers are not Qur'anically based. Muslim extremists follow a standard bell curve and the religion is not more prone to extremist perversion than Christianity.

That's not only silly, it's easily disprovable.
http://pewglobal.org..lay.php?ReportID=253

Quite frankly, the fact that you're insisting that there are no more Muslim terrorists than Christian ones should be cause for you to be laughed out of the discourse.

There was problems and protest; it was not heard due to the Colonial mentality of the European powers and the isolationism of the US. And Jews haven't almost always controlled Jerusalem. Control of Jerusalem, just since the rise of Islam in the region, was fought over by the Islamic empires and the European colonial powers. Again, where do you get your history?

Hmmm, well, you got me here. The Crusaders and Muslims did fight over Jerusalem...but wait, the Jews were there the whole time! Which is one of the standard talking points when people say Crusaders were evil...because they slaughtered Jews in the Holy land.

My main point is that most Christians look at the Muslim faith as fundamentally evil and violent based on doctrinal problems, which our own OT faith has. And yes the OT does advocate violence. Just think about the overarching theme of "We are the choosen people, and if the people living there do not accept our dominion we will go to war...

Nonsense, most Christians look at islam as a religion of peace. If they didn't I wouldn't be so heavily denounced (nor would others) when they suggested anything otherwise. The common prevaling view is that Islam is a religion no more or less violent than lets say...Buddhism (where it is murder to accidently step on a bug), and all these attrocities committed in it's name are weird abburations that every religion has.

You know, the view you yourself are telling me. And a view that I myself bought until the Muhammid cartoon riots. As all of my old posts show, I used to quote the Qur'an to defend it. "Sure it says to do this...but....."

At 10/11/06 07:59 AM, lapis wrote: (edited for space) Stuff about the capture of the city...question about Muslim/Jewish Imagry.

However, Muslims, not Jews, were initiating violence against Christians. And while Muslims may have accepted Jesus as a prophet...I doubt the Church at the time knew that (I may be wrong on this count). Moreover, they were looking at their acts, and the practices at the time and proclaiming them pagan. Either way, while it may not say much for the jews, the common contention that the Pope called for their deaths is silly. That Byzantine Christians were also murdered shows that many Crusaders had little use for what the Pope wanted them to do.

Jew/Gentile vs Jew/Muslim distinctions

To harken back to one of your earlier arguments, it is the job of the religious leaders to proclaim why their religion is right and the others aren't. There's no doubt that there was a condescending attitude towards the Jews, but they tended to have it better in Europe under the Christians than under the Muslims.

Amalek references

Actually Christ's coming didn't invalidate the old Testiment, but instead fulfilled it, usually making the commands tougher than they were originally. And I won't dispute the who Amalek thing. The Pope called for the murder of the Muslims, no denying that.

When Hitler seized absolute power he did it as a response to Marius van der Lubbe torching the Reichstag. The only thing that's painfully obvious however is that the arson per se wasn't the direct cause but that it was used as a pretext to achieve ulterior goals. I think a somewhat similar line of reasoning applies here.

If the pretext is to get the Christians to stop fighting, then I agree. He wanted the infighting to stop. However, that far from invalidates the call to defend one's bretheren from foreign invaders.

If Muslims were pagans then so were Jews. They turned away from the light when they killed Jesus according to many Medieval clergymen and they were often the target of blood libels. The Abbot of Cluny was far from the only one who called the Jews the culprits of crimes against Christ.

Indeed. Jew/Christian relations weren't what they could be. But while there were those such as Little Peter, they were opposed along the way by Christian priests, some of which hid Jews in their churches. While there were hideous evil men who donned the cloak (and unfortunately in some cases were even cannonized by the church...such as Little Peter), there were also good honorable men who stodd up to defend the Jews, many of whom were hacked to death along with them.

That was hardly systematic and long after the death of Urban. The only reason why the sacking of Constantinople in the Fourth Crusade was worth mentioning was because of the irony. By then the Eastern Christians were already accused of haveing betrayed the Crusaders and a lot of geopolitics was involved on the account of the Venetians. Besides, while a Jew could easily qualify as a heathen according to Medieval Christians this reasoning does not apply to Eastern Christians. This act in the Thirteenth Century directly violated what Urban had called for, while the First Holocaust did not.

Actually the murder of Byzantine Christians happened during the first crusade, again by our beloved Little Peter. Since this attack was made by one of the same men who slaughtered Jews, it is not only insignificant, it sheds light on the blood thirsty greed that captured several Crusading leaders.

I talked about the slaughter of the Jews because you tried to mitigate the crimes against them by equating 12,000 corpses to a "person versus person dispute". And what "enemies of the state", there was no state. There was a religion and the Crusaders were called to fight the enemies of that religion. The pagans, the heathens. The fact that Urban couldn’t control the actions of every single Crusader is irrelevant, what’s relevant is that his speech was easy to see as justification for those actions.

No, I talked about the Crusades being called in part to end in-house squabbling. While there may not have been a state, the Church considered itself one, (and was moreover the best analogy I could come up with). and attacks on the Christian followers were seen much the same as America now sees warrentless attacks on their citizenry. The fact that Urban couldn't even control the very first Crusaders and stop them from committing attrocities against the Byzantines shows how limited his scope and control were. Little Peter and Walter attacked Christians in Belgrade (murdering 5000) and again at Nish (where 15000 of Peter's followers are killed). And at this point, the Crusade hasn't even really begun yet!

Only focusing on the earliest histories is incredibly short sighted. After a few centuries of Christian friendliness followed a millennium of violence and Christian-instigated persecution of religious minorities. Explain why the Spanish Jews were purged after the Reconquista, explain why the Spanish Christians had to "establish themselves as dominant" when they already were.

Why? It was a terrible attrocity. Why should I explain it? It's one of those lovely dark spots. However, the entirety of Islam has been one of violence. We have had periods of dark, and periods of light. Islam only has darkness.

There are many verses that are perfectly clear about unjust violence and the few violent verses can easily be placed into proper context.

Nonsense. Both Islam and Christianity have the same belief, that later revelations (for us Christ and for you the later Suras) can supplant the earlier ones. That the last sura declares that spreading corruption across the land is unacceptable and punishable by Jihad is full in its context. That those "believing women" can be taken from their husbands, impregnated, and then discarded (if one wishes) just because her husband is not a believer is full in it's context. That Christ said that "he who has anger in his heart has committed murder and is subject to the fires of hell" is completely different from "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them", even if it does say that even they repent God is forgiving.

At 10/7/06 09:53 AM, o-r-i-g-i-n-a-l wrote: lol, and i'm telling you, you don't know what you're talking about. It's a brilliant play (although i've never seen the movie adaptation, so you might be right there) about the evils of McCarthyism.

Quite frankly, I liked the play. But the "evils" of McCarthyism were a joke. McCarthy investigated governmental agents who had communist ties. No one was jailed. Several were demoted to non-classified clearance, and the Venona Cables proved most of McCarthy's case.

At 10/7/06 01:12 PM, Begoner wrote: It's called the Cold War. Prior to WWII, many Americans were extremely Communist. Nowadays, there's retribution coming to you if you declare yourself a communist.

Norm Chomsky is a communist (in theory) and makes millions.
Irony anyone?

At 10/8/06 02:47 AM, o-r-i-g-i-n-a-l wrote:

At 10/7/06 05:18 PM, BanditByte wrote: Jospeh McCarthy was an American hero who went overboard. There's my two cents.

McCarthy was a cowardly, paranoid, over-patriotic fool.

Who was also right

At 10/8/06 11:16 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: That people from capitalist countries emigrate to Europe and the US, for the same reason that the immigrants from the communist countries: money. Communism does not suck, period. Communism is an alternative to those countries which are not able to succeed under a capitalist regime, i.e. Cuba, Central america, etc. The poorest countries in the world are African, and they are not communist. The 1# source of immigrants of the US is Mexico, a capitalist country.

No one migrates to Cuba. Hell, in the US, most people don't migrate to...anywhere.

There are literally 100s of Millions of people who actually HAVE lived in Communist countries who would agree with that.

No one likes communism. Try again.

At 10/9/06 02:26 AM, Specusci wrote: Propaganda. Alot of immigrants will come to the United States only to find out that they can never achieve much more then basic service jobs, even when having a college or university degree.

Actually, the only immigrants who come to the US to find they can't "achieve much" are illegals. Period. Most legal immigrants graduate college, and go on to good jobs. There's not a single person in the US, who has a SS number who can't move ahead in life. In the past three years My family has jumpes up in the social standings, and I've jumped seperately. I more than doubled my income this last year alone. And I haven't even completed college yet.

Because there are over a billion people in China, and the bulk of its population is crammed on the coast...you can literally get trampled to death during a normal day in the city.

And cause of the perecution.

Once again, Communism is easily corruptible for those reasons. I would have to make Cuba an exception to that, though, and having visited the country personally I can say that although they live in moderate poverty and a moderatly suffocating government, the general populous is quite happy with their lives. Even the people who have (quite literally) never seen a white person before. Cuba would be my definition of a successful communist state, although it obviously could do better economically.

If they are sooo happy, why do they risk death to come to the US? The answer is simple...they hate their country.

Um, which one did the Republican committee suport?

Frigging Jefferson.

Heaven forbid the government have the right to investigate it's congressmen while they're in their taxpayer funded offices. The fact that (as far as I know) every DNC AND RNC congressman stood up for Jefferson's corrupt ass, means to me that we need to start over, throw out everyone in Congress and start over.

Foley was universally condemned.
Jefferson was universially defended.

You know what this means?
Politicians will always object when put to public scrutany.