1,987 Forum Posts by "WolvenBear"
At 3/12/06 06:18 PM, Begoner wrote: The bombing of the Tylenol building or the country we went to war with? Iraq had no connection to 9/11 or Al-Qaeda.
Let us assume for a second that you're right, you're not, but let's assume. Al Quida is not the only terrorist organization out there. And all of them hate us. So even if you were right, your point is irrelevant. However, onto al Quida. Have you ever read the list of Osama's demands after 9/11? One of them is the removal of sanctions on Iraq. After the first WTC attack, the bomber fled to Iraq where he was housed as a guest of the state until shortly before Saddam's overthrow. So, you're wrong on both counts. Again, not that someone HAS to be involved with 9/11 to be a threat to us. Was North Korea involved? No, but many want us to attack them.
It's outdated because civilians can no longer take on a modern army. Back in the good ol' days they could. Now they have planes, tanks, etc., and civilians are powerless to stop it.
Individual civilians could NEVER take on the army, even back then. The intent of the law was to make sure citizens were armed so that governments or other forces wouldn't try and push them around. Read the federalist papers which quite clearly espouse the intent of the Founding Fathers.
At 3/12/06 07:22 PM, mjairlax wrote: What about bacteria developing immunities were did they get that? Did god magically give then immunities to penisillion so that they could kill more human?
Did he say any of that? No. He was debating ID vs Evolution. At least try to stay REMOTELY on topic.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
At 3/12/06 07:55 PM, mackid wrote: Kerry VOLUNTEERED for Vietnam after going to, of all places, Yale, and recieved 3, count 'em, 3 purple hearts, along with a SILVER STAR (awarded for "while serving in any capacity with the United States Armed Forces, is cited for gallantry in action against an enemy of the United States while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force" according to Wikipedia.) and a BRONZE STAR. Bush, on the other hand, was suspended from flight status on August 1st, 1972 (http://www.awolbush...BushGuardaugust1.pd
f).
We've went over how reliable Wikipedia is. And one of Kerry's hearts was self initiated.
Proof?
He supported abortion in letters to different interest groups. Then he said as a Catholic that he was opposed to abortion. Later he said he couldn't promise he wouldn't use federal funds to help pay for abortions. That's just one topic of many. How bout the war too? Support, against, support again, then finally against.
Actually, it was a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory...But you knew that. Iraq never harbored terrorists, but Afghanistan, where noone opposed going into with military force, did.
Iraq harbored terrorists. See above. PLUS:
http://www.slate.com/id/2102723/
True, true. Moore, at least, substantiates his arguments.
Actually, both of Coulter's later books are pretty right on. As is her first book. Most of Michael Moore's stuff is nonsense, lies, and double talk.
:Wiretapping constitutes an invasion of privacy, except in cases where other evidence can be provided.
Or in cases where they're calling numbers associated with al Quida.
Israel does not commit horrible murders, and most conservatives would agree with me. It's the rare liberal who supports israel.
It is the rare liberal. Tho we disagree on seemingly everything else, I gotta give you some respect for that. It has completely changed my tone towards you.
Because escaping from a tyrranous foreign power that taxed without representation is legitimate, while trying to leave our nation because the south loves slavery is despicable. Most conservatives would agree with me, I believe.
Yea, yea, somehow I missed that south point the first time I read his thread. The Civil War and Revolutionary War were two different animals altogether.
At 3/12/06 06:10 PM, -MuTe_EcHo- wrote: C'mon what is so hard?
Have a gun in your hands in a combat zone. Your perspective changes.
What did they do?
They have already refused peace talks with Israel.
They can still change their policies If the Palestinians want it.And as soon as the Israeli Military can stop antagonizing and subjugating many Palestinians and can actually listen to International critiscism including the US about Its 20 foot high barrier wall that cuts into Palestinian territory thats supposed to be apart of the palestinian state then progress will be made.
See, we're back to this. Israel DOES listen to international criticism. Palestine doesn't. The arab world hates Israel. Look at the history of the Palestine/Israel conflict. Palestine does not want Israel to exist. It was said that once Israel gave up Gaza and the West Bank that Palestine would be sated. But what's going on now? They want MORE land? Ridiculous. They have no desire to peacefully co-exist.
At 3/12/06 05:58 PM, Begoner wrote: Usually you get a purple heart when you get shot. Not when you ride out the war in a faraway place drinking and partying because of Daddy.
One of Kerry's hearts is debatable to whether he deserves it or not, but regardless, you didn't address his point.
Damn straight. Killing thousands of Americans and 10 times as many Iraqis is something to flip-flop on, but minor issues aren't. In fact, being stubborn and unwilling to change your opinion when you are obviously wrong and the majority of the population disagrees is a commendable affront to democracy.
Kerry agreed with the war until he realised that he could go against it to win votes. War is not and SHOULD NOT BE a democratic process. The civilian populous shouldn't have any more say once the war has actually started.
Afghanistan is a terrorist country? There are terrorists in the US, too, and the US has sponsored many terrorists (including Afghani ones in the anti-USSR liberation movement). Is going to war with it right?
He was talking about Iraq, but yes, Afghanistan is a terrorist country. They harbored terrorists.
Britain is just about the only country we have good foreign relations with. That's whats disgusting.
Not it's not.
Damnit, is this a joke or not? I hate internet sarcasm because some people actually believe this stuff.
Another good point.
The 2nd Amendment is outdated and does not clearly specify that any citizen is allowed to own a gun. It could be interpreted to say that only those in the militia may own guns. Guns lead to deaths while wiretapping leads to authoritarianism.
Yet it's still constitutional law. And yes, it does refer to individuals having the right to own guns. As for being outdated, what, because you say so? Screw that. Let's over ride the first so I don't have to hear that stupid bs anymore.
...When Bush Sr. Meets up with middle eastern dictators whom we later go to war with it makes you sick, but when a Democrate does it it's, once again, "Good foreign relations"He tells them doing one thing is OK, then turns around and invades them. That's not really building good foreign relations, which is an admirable goal.
Bush Sr didn't do that. Bush Sr met with them, Jr. invaded them. It's stupid to say it's wrong because another guy just talked to them a decade ago.
At 3/12/06 05:34 PM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote: However, I agree, you are correct to say many political opponents of the Iraq war are demanding a tough stance on Iran.
My bad. I meant politicians mostly. But theres a huge group of anti-Bush d-bags who have jumped on that wagon.
If there were an award for stupid posts, I'd nominate this one. What a douchebag.
You can't refute creationism. That's why it's not a scientific theory.
At 3/12/06 05:48 PM, -MuTe_EcHo- wrote: This policy may have some mistakes and may need to be overlooked.And it may also not be the policy as the problem.but the people who refuse to follow military guidelines.do you want to know what I would do?Well If the girl was walking dead straight toward me and had a large bookbag I would be firing warning shots and screaming at her.I would make it extremely obvious that the girl didnt belong there.If I felt that she was out to kill me and my other men felt that way I would have to take action.
But the moment she turned around I would lower my gun and continue to watch her just to make sure nothing else would happen.
Granted. But it's easy to say "this is what I'd do in a situation". But when you're in it, it's not as easy. Hindsight is always 20/20
Well,now that Hamas has great responsibilities they will have to decide what Is good for the millions of Palestinians,and they will have to determine the best way to help their people.
That'd be nice. I don't see it happening. They're already off to a piss poor start.
If there was someone expressing hate towards some other group and saying that they would eradicate that said group If elected,then there would be a problem there.But the reason why Palestinians wanted Hamas was because Hamas unlike previous governments took action,listened to the Palestinians and actually helped them.I really think violenece can end If Hamas Is serious and the Israeli military is serious about Its enemy.
And that's Hamas. They want Israel gone. It was one of their campaign promises. They got elected. Draw your own conclusions.
At 3/12/06 05:33 PM, Ravariel wrote: Eh? Care to elaborate?
I did above. But hell, why not. Border security. The war, somewhat. Spending. More.
AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!...you believe that all Americans compete on a level playing fieldThey do.
Oh, that's a good one. Tell more, tell more!
Oh, I'm sorry, you must be one of those people who can't differenciate between equal opportunity and equal results. Two guys go in. Ones dressed in a suit and talks lik he has an education. The other guy walks in with saggy jeans on and call the boss-to-be a motherfucker. Guy A gets the job. The system must be biased.
At 3/12/06 05:39 PM, Ravariel wrote:At 3/12/06 05:11 PM, WolvenBear wrote:News to me, and I try to keep up on evolutionary science. Source, plz.Exactly, you believe, others don't. Science has proven the beginning of the theory "life out of lifelessness" to be bull.
Have you taken science classes? Life does not come from lifelessness. Basic tenet. For example: people used to believe rats came from trash. That section was in our science book right before evolution. "Weren't these people stupid? They thought rats spontaneously came from trash. NOW, we're going to learn about how single celled organisms came from nothing.
At 3/12/06 03:49 PM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:At 3/12/06 03:47 PM, WolvenBear wrote: The irony is most of the people bitching at Bush over Iraq are demanding he do something about Iran.Proof please
Hillary Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, etc all bitched about how Bush isn't doing enough about Iran, yet they keep calling for the complete withdrawl of troops from Iraq.
Even though it's more or less the same situation as Iraq.
At 3/12/06 04:55 PM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote: I have some questions I'd like an answer to - not arguments, although they might seem that way.
Fair nough. I asked questions, so I need to answer some.
Firstly, how can someone claim 'Life is sacred' also support the death penalty (I've been asked the opposite of this by WolvenBear)
That's a really damned good question. I look at those on death row as rabid animals. To be put down for the good of the community. I don't know if I necessarily believe life is sacred, BUT I believe people have a right to life that supercedes convenience. If you kill someone however, I believe you forfeit those rights. Everybody believes that, tho not to the extent that they should be put to death.
Secondly, why do most people who are anti-abortion also oppose the welfare system - surely it makes no sense to force a woman to have a child and then not provide for them?
This one's much easier. One: there used to be a massive incentive to have as many kids as possible. Two: it provides an incentive NOT to work. When welfare was cut back, employment increased.
Thirdly, are abortions acceptable before the zygote becomes 'alive' (or more formally 'concious'), whenever you believe that occurs.
My personal belief is: I don't know when life actually begins, so better safe than sorry.
Gotta tell ya Toad, out of all the silly Liberals on this board, you're probably my fav. I think it's cause you have that logic thing that most others lack.
Lol, pretty damned funny. I agree with almost all of it.
At 3/12/06 04:33 PM, Grazo_the_Hedgehog wrote: Honestly, I do believe in abortion, as long as the couple can prove they can't financially afford the child. As for the double homicide issue, I don't know what "batting an eye" means. :\
Batting an eye means not caring basically. As for "not being able to afford it", why is that a good reason for abortion? Should that be a good reason for killing you kid too?
Um... I do believe that there should be a giant wall in between the US and Mexico.
However, a lot of liberals bitch and moan when we try to deport illegals.
.... you believe President Bush to be a blooming idiot, yet your party lost two different times to him.Dude, he IS an idiot.
Dude, he was a C student at YALE. He's pretty smart. Disagree with the man's politics. But he's not an idiot.
... you saw absolutely nothing odd about Ted Kennedy's self-righteous indignation at Alito's belonging to an exclusive club in college that was biased against women and minorities.What you talkin' about, Willis?
Why'd you comment if you didn't understand. Ted Kennedy kills women and hates minorities.
... you honestly believe that Martin Luther King Jr. would have been just fine with the way people carried on at his wife's funeral a month or so ago....
Same as above. You don't understand.
.... your elected lawmakers TURNED DOWN a chance to withdraw from Iraq, and then they denounced the oppotunity as "unfair."I do not understand the question. Please redial and try again.
That was a pretty big news story. Not understanding is on you, not him.
.... you regularly piss off and alienate potential constituents by going on TV and making dumb comments, and then wonder why you can't win elections.I ain't no political dude, dude.
He was talking about politicians not you.
.... you believe the concepts of creationism and God to be mere fantasy, yet expect people to believe that BILLIONS and TRILLIONS of years ago life errupted out of absolutely nothing on it's own for no reason.I do believe in the Big Bang and evolution, jack ass.
Exactly, you believe, others don't. Science has proven the beginning of the theory "life out of lifelessness" to be bull.
.... you respond to this post angrily for my calling you out on your bullshit.Wow, you just proved yourself to be a complete bastard.
Yet you replied without understanding a single thing he said except for abortion. You have proven yourself completely ignorant.
At 3/12/06 04:11 PM, -MuTe_EcHo- wrote: When have children carried bombs in their backpacks?The kid was making no effort to get close to the soldiers she was just on her way to school or something.the soldiers shot at her she was scared so she was on her way leaving the area.Its ok for soldiers to be suspicious but not when their target is a little girl who attempts to get away.dont you know that after the soldiers shot at her she understood and decided to leave.The Palestinian people are more fearful to what Israels soldiers could do to them.did you know israeli soldiers can raid Palestinian homes without reason even if the people in the house didnt do anything wrong?Israelis can do whatever they want to Palestinians and thats the problem everybody overlooks.
It's terribly unfortunate. And as I said earlier, it was one person carrying a policy too far. Once she fled out of range they should've let her go, not shoot her. However, the policy is STILL not hard to understand. And no Israelies cannot do "whatever they want" to Palestinians. And children have been used as walking bombs for decades.
the IRA was a terrorist group and they became more peaceful with their rivals.The PLO did crap with helping Palestinians.they were corrupt and took the Palestinian money and they did little.Hamas was acvtually helping the citisenz when nobody cared or when nobody understood the Palestinian problem.
The IRA became more peaceful and eventually (more or less) went away. Hamas is still calling for the violent overthrow of Israel and the death of it's people.
What?
Same situation. Someone is elected who expresses a goal to hurt a group of people. He gets elected and hurts those people. Wouldn't a logical person condemn those who voted for him? The hypothetical was not that hard to understand.
At 3/12/06 01:44 PM, mackid wrote: Only McCain, to my knowledge.
See: all libertarians. Coulter.
I don't know about that...
Hate crime legislation is a damn good example. Government regulation of business. Etc.
But why, the REAL QUESTION is, was he investigated about being adulterous?
Yes. He was sued by Paula Jones for sexual harassment. As part of their case they tried to set up a pattern of behavior. That pattern included Monica. Instead of just owning up to his screw-up like a man, and paying her the money she was due (which would've been covered by our taxes btw), he did all of the previously mentioned stuff. I too used to hold the "Hell, it's just about sex" mantra. Then I actually researched it. Clinton was in the wrong BIG TIME. But regardless, as a lawyer and THE PRESIDENT it is unacceptable for him to commit perjury, a felony, even if it was "only about sex".
Bush increased spending for schools.
By spending more on schools period.
Results? What results? The United States is near the bottom of the industrialized world for testing performance and ability...so you want to get rid of what chance we have to improve?
Those would be the results I was talking of. So let me ask you, you admit the schools are shit, why not try to change them? My plan is far different from Bush's but SOMETHING has to be done. And the unfortunate truth of it is: things will get much worse with any plan that works before they improve.
It does cause inflation. And causes more unemployment. Among other things.Source.
Economics 101. Raising the minimum wage is, by definition, inflation.
...you support the rights of a fetus, but if a baby is born to a poor person, you don’t believe the mother or the baby has the right to food, shelter or financial supportWIC.
Women, infants and children. My sister was on it. Besides, we believe (rightly) that if the government got out of it, private charity would more effectively do their job. Catholics (as much as I mock them) do a LOT of charity not only for new mothers, but for mothers who had abortions.
Just immigration.
Border control in general. The port deals. Political Correctness. Etc.
We were attacked, as Bush said, for being free.
Yes. I agree. They hate us, they attacked.
SOURCE!??!
You can't see it, but it's a little printout I got from the zoo on my bday (friday). I'm 23. Since my birth, the average temperature has gone up .065 degrees feirenheit. Not even a tenth of a degree in two decades. Yikes. We're all going to die. Stem cell research. DDT. There's a whole list o' stuff. Read the Politically Incorrect Guide to Science. It's written by a right winger. But he makes a good case for DDT, even if you disgree with the rest. Oh yes, and AIDS. Forgot bout Aids.
Hmm...source? And CORPORATE welfare? Address that, please.
Corporations get more money, they spend more money. Corporate welfare is just tax cuts. Not the best idea, but not the worst.
Global warming doesn't exist.Again, source?
Cited above.
GLBT and other gay organizations believe people can be turned gay. So why not turned straight?Source? You cannot be turned to any orientation.
Tammy Bruce (liberal) wrote a beautiful book called the Death of Right and Wrong, in which she documented the campaign by certain gay groups to try and indoctrinate children to homosexual acts. She's also gay btw.
Just to play devils advocate. We know that sexual abuse scars people and warps their sexuality. Many gay men have been sexually abused. Maybe that warped their sexuality at a young age.
Yes, I understand that. But it's proven innefectual. The New Yorker ran an article about this recently. Read it.
Actually, here in STL, they had an article on how it was working. The news is about as reliable as polical analysts. They're all biased. And since the formation of FOX, they don't even try and hide it anymore.
The ACLU IS bad. They support child pornography, help to cover up for statutory rape, waste millions of dollars of money to sue over a picture of Jesus, need I go on?SOURCE
I don't need to provide a source for the suing over Jesus. Watch the news at Christmas. There's dozens of stories every year.
While I'm starting to get lazy, with school and trying to research to write a politics book, I will provide the links for teh ACLU, because it's a VERY important subject.
Kiddy porn legalization:
http://stoptheaclu.c..d-porn-distribution/
Defending Nambla:
http://www.operation..to_defend_nambla.htm
I'm talking about the conservative supposition that Regan destroyed communism by running up the debt.
OK, let's look at facts. The USSR was in trouble financially. They were hurting bad, but barely holding together. Reagan put them into an arms race, where they spent enormous amounts of money trying to continue to keep us with us. And he thwarted several attempts at expansion like in Afghanistan (though that unfortunately created Osama bin Ladin). They had money problems, he forced them to spend more money. They went broke. It would've happened anyways, but Reagan sped it up. To say otherwise is stupid.
NY Times and other news outlets recounted. Gore won.
Even in the NY times recount Gore lost. Gore didn't win a single recount. And he still wished to violate the law.
All prayers are religious by nature.
That's not the issue. Non-denominational prayers, by definition, do not violate the seperation of Church and state. You said force Jesus. But most school prayers that were objected to were non-denominational. A prayer to God covers Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
At 3/9/06 06:55 PM, Begoner wrote: blah
Yea, the term "biologically living" still doesn't exist. That article was crap. A fetus is not comparable to dandruff and it's intellectually dishonest to say it is. It's nonsense. Dandruff, for instance, is dead skin cells. A fetus/embryo/zygote/whatnot is living. Since this article was so blatantly stupid that it hurt my head, I am drinking to relieve the pain as I write this. Putting zygotes on the same scientific level as sperm and eggs is stupid, as neither an egg nor sperm has the number of chromosomes necessary to make human life. Nor must one even believe that the baby is human to argue against abortion. The harm is does to women and how it is oft used as a means for men to subjugate women has made the lists of why some feminists oppose it.
And his argument that: even if it is human, it is equally right to keep it or destroy it is absolutely moronic. I have read some pro-choice arguments that have made me think before. This, however, was not one of them.
Unfortunately, I don't have a good article against it. But I have a good book. The Cost of "Choice": Women Evaluate the Impact of Abortion. It's a collection of essays by both pro-choice and pro-life women who all look at specific areas of the debate. It was fascinating. There are three essays that are fascinating: Three Decades of Empty Promises by Candace C Crandall, The Feminist Case Against Abortion by Serrin M Foster, and Abortion: A War on Women by Elizabeth Fox-Genovese. Maybe some of those essays will by online. Check it out at the library.
At 3/9/06 08:42 PM, mackid wrote: A fetus is inside a mother. It is the MOTHER'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE. Not yours, not anyones. Only hers. Let a woman choose. We are pro-CHOICE, whereas you are ANTI-CHOICE.
A man's penis is inside the mothers body too during the "process", does that make it hers (legally, not realistically)? Yes, you are right. I am anti-choice. That's because I see the fetus as a lifeform. If it is a lifeform, you do not have the right to choose to destroy it. Kinda like as a mother you don't have the right to choose to drown your kid. Until you can wrap your head around that and incorporate that into your debate, you'll continue to be viewed as a moron by pro-lifers/anti-choicers.
At 3/9/06 06:34 PM, mackid wrote:At 3/9/06 06:12 PM, Zero_X5213 wrote:Think about the women who get rapedThey're republicans, they only think about their "morals." How moral is letting a fully formed human DIE?!
He said rape douchebag, not death. What is the line in those new "anti-choice" laws? Oh yes, a mother may still have an abortion if her life is in danger.
(clenches fist)
Damn those Republicans for not caring about the mother dying! ....Oh wait.
The irony is most of the people bitching at Bush over Iraq are demanding he do something about Iran. The will of the people is being worn down by the constant thunder of anti-war voices. After a while of hearing things like "Bush lied kids died", people come to believe it, especially if they don't really understand it.
As odd as it sounds, the anti-war protest is fueling the insurgents. They see it as "just one more bomb and the detractors will have the troops removed".
For the most part, those who hate the war hate it because it is Bush leading it. If it was a liberal, they'd love it. No matter what the President does they will oppose it and then claim he should've done "this" or "that", and then if he does, they'll say he shouldn't have done that either, but something completely different. It's a lose/lose situation.
At 3/12/06 02:14 PM, seventy-one wrote: They call themselves zionists. Even if it was a "ridiculous term" why do Jews call themselves that?
It is normally used as a derogatory term. As in the link provided above. It is almost always used to compare the Jews to the Nazis.
At 3/12/06 02:20 PM, -MuTe_EcHo- wrote: Oh but a Zionist is just the person who would constitute attacks on Palestinians who were not a threat.
Are you retarded? Palestinians strap kids with bombs or have them carry them in their backpacks. Therefore, a kid coming towards a military compound is considered an enemy threat since she had a backpack and all. You may be too dense to understand that, being as you've probably never been in danger before, and CERTAINLY haven't lived in fear of daily terrorist attacks, but that's the life they live.
Hamas provided for the Palestinians,protected them spoke out for them.Apparently the Palestinians thought Hamas was doing a great job so they DEMOCRATICALLY voted for Hamas.
And? Again, what the hell does that to do with the price of tea in China. Hamas is a TERRORIST ORGANIZATION, and one of their main goals is the EXTERMINATION OF ISRAEL. Maybe it just says something about the Palestinians that they'd elect Hamas. The PLO lost power after Arafat died, even though it was faltering anyway (he was being seen as becoming soft), so they elected another extreme group committed to genocide. To put it in perspective let's offer a hypothetical.
David Duke runs for President. One of his campaign goals is to eliminate black suffrage. The American people overwhelmingly vote him in. A reasonable person would assume that the American people support his goal and would condemn us. A supporter of his says "Yea, but he promised to reform the post office." Would that change anything?
At 3/12/06 01:53 PM, -MuTe_EcHo- wrote: It still makes no sense.Ok the girl was wanting to LEAVE the area.Her bag was on the ground after It was shot off her.she wanted to get the heck out of there and back into friendly territory.But the Israelis decided that they should kill her anyways because even though she was leaving,meaning she was moving AWAY from them they should shoot her anyways?
Your rules of engagement need to be reviewed by real military advisors instead of hardcore Zionists then.
Don't say Zionists idiot. It's a ridiculous term coined by anti-Israeli arabs. Rules of engagement: Any person in a combat zone who is believed to be a threat will be treated as one.
That's a BASIC rule of engagement. Due to the Israelis history, they had a reason to believe she was a threat.
but I'm saying not as an entire population.Sure the Palestinians support Hamas but only because Hamas provided for the people when the Fatah or PLO didnt and when they were corrupted.Hamas has truly worked for the Palestinian cause,they have fought for the them when no one else would.
Hamas was elected because they promised to wipe Israel off the face of the map. Across much of the arab lands, that is a promise they'd love to believe in. Let's stop pretending otherwise.
At 3/11/06 10:52 PM, gooze_bump wrote: Ive just been thinking what is your defintion of a "War on Terrorism." How do you define terrorism in this day and age? Say, i on my own accord can straped a bomb to myself , walk into a Surburban American mall and blew myself up. Would the US instill Martial Law? Would the politicans say we need a Patriot Act III with more freedoms taken away becuase I (jsut one person) decided to harm civilians? Bin Landen spent like what, a little over a million dollars carrying out the Sept. 11th attacks. How much money in "vengeance" did we spend? Over 300+ Billion carryong out two wars...You cant have war on an Adjective. Youc anw age war agaisnt a certain specific entity/place but I tell you right now no matter how much money u spend, u can never win a war on "Terror."
Number one, the "war on an adjective" drap is idiocy. You sound stupid for saying that. You can't criticize with validity so you throw out stupid shit like that. We have no clue how much monsy Osama spent, and it certainly wasn't an isolated act. You're making dumb conparisons. We didn't spend money in "Vengence", we spent money to track down these monsters so it doesn't happen again. Of course we can win a war on terror.
Also, this is OT but the difference from what i see between Repub. + Democrats is, Dems tend to see things from all Variables. They tend to try and understand the whole , more thinkers than doers. Dems have nationalism but they also see that there are part of this huge world and think logically. For example foriegn policy wise dems realize that its not jsut "me vs. u" but what can we get from each other. Dems tend to understand somone elses point of view than their own. Now Republicans, think more in Black and White. There is no gray. Its "me against you." I am right and everyone else is wrong.
You have little to no understanding of politics if you make such general baseless statments. Democrats backed the war in Iraq originally. Politicians in general are back stabbing little weasles who will lie and turn on each other for a nickle. Dems are just a small tad worse. And then there's Hillary and Kerry who are just downright pathetic.
Primitive human thinking of survival. When they watch the news and hear about another"Muslim" insurgent, freedom fighter, whatver label u want blowing themselves up. In their mind they lump all muslims in that category. Even though there is about 1.2 BILLION muslims in the world the vast majority jsut regular people goiing about their lives caring for their families, worshipping their god and jsut trying to do the right thing. I hate when i hear some republicans say "kill all those muslims over there." Who knows maybe that guy who jsut blew himself up did it becuase your occupying his land. For example, i hate bush but if soemone was to invade America I would be out in the street gun in hand. Not fighting for Bush but becuase someone invaded my home. Or what if he blew hismelf up becuase his wife and kids were Killed by Coalition forces accidentally or not. What do u expect him to say? "Well its ok it was only an accident."
Actually the people we are fighting now are basically the Iraqi version of our Republicans.
You're an idiot. They are not the middle east version of Republicans. They're monsters who kill their own people for no good damn reason. Show me a Republican saying we need to "kill all those muslims" and I'll give you a cookie.
Its hard for republicans to phantom different cultures. Republicans hate change and dont deny it. If soemthign is different instead of trying to udnerstand it republcians try to get the simplist solution without doing much work.
The simplest solution usually is the best. We understand different cultures. We just don't pretend all cultures are equal like Democrats.
And dont say im anti-american. my dad right now is currently serving as a quarter master in Afghanistan and im enlisting when i get out of college.
Ok my rant is over peace :-)
Your rant is over idiocy.
At 3/12/06 08:21 AM, -MuTe_EcHo- wrote: So even If the girl made all attempts to leave which she did the soldiers still had a right to shoot her in the back?
Unfortunately yes. As described earlier, the palestinians use children as bombs.
Just saying that Israelis need to have a positive view of palestinians so peace can succeed.Same thing with Palestinians.
The Israelies have given up Gaza and the West Bank, whereas Palestine has elected HAMAS as their leadership. Doesn't take much to see who's striving for peace.
Of course the Palestinians commit terrorism. For once, Mackid and I are on the same page.
At 3/10/06 02:30 PM, -MuTe_EcHo- wrote: Give me some articles showing shias being heavily persecuted during the Saddam regime.Saddam did some awfuk things but It wasnt a holocaust for the shias.
You're kidding right? Doesn't have to be a holocaust. It was bad. Anyone who has even remotely kept up on it knows that.
Sure It was our plan.After America invaded Araq and found no WMD part of Americas cover up plan was to say that Ahias were being persecuted and that they needed to rule the Government.So America plans to have the Shia dominate Iraqi politics.
No, we held free elections. And due to the fact Sunnis are in the minority, they don't have as big of a say as when Saddam ruled. You have no clue what you're talking about.
they dont enjoy killing civilians just like Its not human extinct to kill for fun,or else there wouldnt be six billion plus people living.They kill to further their beliefs.
Well, gee that makes it all better doesn't it? They target innocent civilians, in hopes of starting a civil war. And yes, there are humans who kill for fun.
You think that throughout Iraqs existance Saddam was the worst.How about you live through a couple of foreign occupations and many sackings of your cities then tell me what was the worst that happened to Iraqis.Get YOUR history staright.
Well, considering a lot of Iraqis were born during Saddam's reign, they hadn't lived through a couple of sackings. Saddam would be the worst thing that happened to them. That's why the Iraqis are some of the most optimistic people on the planet. And it doesn't have to be THE WORST. Things in America aren't THE WORST they've ever been. Do a lot of people want to change them though? Of course. Why not change horrible conditions?
At 3/12/06 09:45 AM, mackid wrote:
OH JOY. Another Mackid right wing bashing post.
"...you believe Bush’s tax cuts, a larger government, spending billions of dollars in wars and nation building have nothing to do with the deficit
Yea, cause no conservatives have bitched at Bush for spending more money. Do you even try to look things up before you post anymore? Besides, liberals love big government too.
...you believe that lying about sex is impeachable, but it is a fine thing to lie about the reasons American boys and girls are dying and being dismembered in an illegal war
Yea, I believe lying about sex UNDER OATH is impeachable. That and: subourning perjury, witness tampering, obstruction of justice, etc. Yea, he deserved to be impeached for all that. Bush didn't lie and the war's not illegal. Only morons spout this line.
...you believe spending money to build schools in America is a waste, but you support spending money to build schools in Iraq and Afghanistan
Bush increased spending for schools.
...you believe spending $40 billion a year for the Department of Education is too much, but spending $87 billion to rebuild the country we just spent billions of dollars bombing is good foreign policy
I believe that the Department of education is damn near useless. Results tell me that. As for rebuilding the country we just bombed, yea we should. Moron.
...you believe it’s patriotic and supportive of the military that Bush loves sending our troops into wars, and simultaneously cuts veteran’s benefits, military hazard pay and military family services.
No. Been horribly against that.
...you believe raising the minimum wage to give more money to the working poor will cause inflation, but giving billions of dollars to the richest 5% of Americans will boost the economy
It does cause inflation. And causes more unemployment. Among other things.
...you support the rights of a fetus, but if a baby is born to a poor person, you don’t believe the mother or the baby has the right to food, shelter or financial support
WIC.
...you call anyone with opinions to the left of George W. Bush a "communist"
Dude Bush is VERY very left on some issues.
...you believe we deserved to be attacked on 9/11 because we have homosexuals, feminists and liberals in this country
As opposed to we just deserved it for being us? The mantra of the liberal?
...you believe that people without scientific training are qualified to determine the content of biology texts
Both sides love to ignore science when it suits their cause. See: global warming. Liberals love it. Doesn't exist.
...you believe that federal welfare weakens people, but corporate welfare strengthens business
Yet when welfare was reduced employment went up. Hmmmm.
...you believe that global temperatures are affected by cyclical, documented changes in the earth's climate that occur in cycles exceeding 10,000 years, even though you don't believe that the earth is that old
Global warming doesn't exist.
...you believe that while you could never be homosexual yourself, other heterosexuals could easily be converted to homosexuality just by being in the presence of a homosexual
GLBT and other gay organizations believe people can be turned gay. So why not turned straight?
...you believe that power wielded by business is good but power wielded by government or the people is dangerous
Who uses courts to advance their agenda and hates putting things to a vote? Oh right. Liberals.
...you believe that youths won't have sex if they're never taught about birth control
You have no clue what abstinence only ed is do you?
...you believe that the ACLU is bad, because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the NRA is good, because it supports certain parts of the Constitution
The ACLU IS bad. They support child pornography, help to cover up for statutory rape, waste millions of dollars of money to sue over a picture of Jesus, need I go on?
...you believe that inheritance doesn't breed the same type of slothfulness that other forms of entitlement do
Right. That's why Ann Coulter constantly makes fun of Kerry for never earning his money.
...you believe that communism was not a viable system while simultaneously believing that only the "genius" of Ronald Reagan was able to defeat it
Show me where Communism worked.
...you believe that all Americans compete on a level playing field
They do.
...you believe that not examining ballots and appealing to judges is the best way to determine the outcome of an election
I assume you're referring to 2000, where Gore was going to flagrantly break the law to continue the recounts.
...you believe in state-sponsored public prayer in schools, as long as the children aren’t praying to any gods other than your god
As opposed to suing a school over a non-denominational prayer.
And lots of other tripe not even worth responding to.
Seriously. You didn't even make one good point. Not one. You've never met an indoctrinated liberal you say? look in the mirror.
At 3/9/06 05:42 AM, 2good2b4goten wrote: I think its a moral thing I guess, Im not christian, I dont beleive in anything. But when you masturbate you potentially kill youroffsprings...
Nonsense. When you don't masturbate you kill your potential offspring too. They don't last forever you know. Even when you actually procreate you kill your potential offspring. Only one, maybe two of the milliions of sperm you release actually becomes a baby, if that.
At 3/9/06 10:11 AM, Velocitom wrote: When women have periods they kill their unborn baby.
They should be out slumming the night before, because if they arent well then how can their unborn baby become a real one?
I guess you mean potential baby, not unborn. Cause having a period is far from killing an unborn baby.
At 3/9/06 08:30 AM, SIMPLYB wrote: No I was replying to -lazydrunk-. I tend to not read anything you have to say because you are an idiot.
Coming from you I take that to be a compliment.
One more thought. While we're judging an entire group of people by the actions of one man....
There was this guy named OJ. He savagely murdered his ex-wife and her boyfriend. Absolutely savage. A black jury let him off. Therefore, all black people want to murder white women, especially if they were married to them.....
Gee, judging an entire group of people based on the actions of one person sure is fair!
At 3/7/06 08:43 PM, -MuTe_EcHo- wrote: America may have helped ignite this war when America shoved the Sunnis out of any real governmental positions.They said"Ok you Shiites havent been in a very confortable position for awhile so we will give you Shiites all or most of the power and make Sunnis rather weak.
Not very comfortable position. Including: getting raped, tortured, gassed, having your wives and daughters used as blow up dolls and then murdered by teh crown princes and guard, etc.
Anyways the Sunnis hear that America plans to piss them out of the government and make shia law the law of the land.
Hmmm, interesting. Cause that wasn't our plan. And it's not what we've been doing. Who could've told them that? Could it have been....erm SATAN? I mean Saddam?
A Sunni runs into a Mosque full of Shittes,explodes killing 67 people.the fighting between Sunni and Shia start from there.Now this is what is happening right now,theres probaly no hope for real peace.
And they did that because they like killing civilians. Had jack nothing to do with America. They don't want a democracy that favors everyone, they want a dictatorship that favors only them.
And also Bagdad was a very influential city.Now fill in the gap of that 1,400 years what happened between those years?
A lot. Including a dictator who murdered his own people by bombing, gassing and other lovely measures.
Who FUCKED that region up ,carved all those countries up told the Arabs what they were to do and how they were to do?Maybe that has something to do with the problems in Iraq.
Oh yeah and the Mongols totaly sacking Bagdad.
Thanks for answering your own question! :)
At 3/7/06 09:16 PM, seventy-one wrote: They could stop the insurgency or something from happening in the first place, until Iraq gets an adequate police force to protect their own citizens. But even if they had no power to thwart the first bombings, they could help to prevent the retaliation.
Stop the insurgency. There's a new idea. Pray tell, though HOW? They can't be everywhere. Shit happens. This conflict is a century old and we're going to solve it overnight? Be realistic.
At 3/8/06 03:39 PM, -MuTe_EcHo- wrote: Either way even when america tries to help they dont make much progress as the progress that they did make is blown back in their faces.
We've set up a government which is getting more and more stable everyday. That is the very definition of progress.
I think its pretty dumb of America to tell the Iraqis what is good for them.I mean America and Iraq are in 2 totaly different places in the world,and totaly different cultures.America should actually identify and learn about the culture and give the iraqis the solution in a way they can understand it.
That's why we have Iraqi consultants. What you think it never dawned on anyone but you that we were different? Most Iraqis agree with us by the way and think we're doing a half decent job over there. That's why they are currently the most optimistic people in the world.
and It was european Countries especially Great Britain who carved the middle East.some European countries even had colonies there.
Please, by the time Britain got over there the Middle East had been carved so many times by invading forces and from within that it was business as usual. Like Africa. You have no grasp of history.
European practises also were in Africa where when some African colonies wanted independence the European nation who owned the colony would usually cut the colony in half so the Africans would fight over the seperated halfs.Great Britain was notorious for doing these things.
And they got the ideas from the natives usually. Again, no grasp of history. Everything was fine and dandy til the white man came along......
At 2/21/06 07:11 PM, Mighty_Genghis wrote: An Israeli army officer who fired the entire magazine of his automatic rifle into a 13-year-old Palestinian girl and then said he would have done the same even if she had been three years old was acquitted on all charges by a military court yesterday.
http://www.guardian...2763,1643573,00.html
Sounds like to me one person operating one standard procedure who took it WAAAAAY too far.
[ Oh, but wait a minute, the Israelis have to look like good guys and the Muslims have to appear to be evil - better disregard this article then! ]
You do realize that there is a long history of the Palestinians using children as either weapons (strap them with bombs) or as lures against the Israelies right? Wait to go with your history.
Yup absolutely everything you say is racist.
At 2/21/06 07:39 PM, Mighty_Genghis wrote:At 2/21/06 07:27 PM, ThinksWithBrain wrote: Thats in every conflict.That would mean that the Germans weren't any more evil than the Allies in the Second World War.....but that can't be true because the mainstream media says the Nazis r teh evil, and if most people say its true then that must be the case then. So although your theory sounds good, it can't be right because most people in this region of the world say that the "radical Muslims" are evil and the Jews are just victims fighting for peace, love, and chocolate.
Piss off, the Nazis were evil, through and through. The radical muslims are pretty bad too.
Therefore,
Jews > Muslims (because TV and peer-pressure say so god danmit!)
Wow, you never watch TV, I can tell. The News, like most liberals, paints Israel in a MUCH worse light than Palestine. This despite the fact that Palestine elected a terrorist group to eradicate the "evil" Jews. Despite the fact that they, along with much of the Muslim world really don't want Israel to exist. The Palestinians are clearly the aggressors. And guess what, they have the world, minus us, on their side. Israel is fighting for survival, not pace love and chocolate. Grow up.
At 3/9/06 01:24 AM, PharaohRamsesII wrote:Or never.LOL?
You think America is going to stay on top forever? Wow you are fucking pathetic.
WOW, you don't know how to read. Congrats. Cause I didn't say that.
But I'm certainly more realistic than nay saying idiots who think we'll be gone in ten years. Or even tomorrow. Have a nice tall glass of piss off.
At 3/8/06 09:38 PM, Captn_ wrote: And one who believes in the opposite of your opinions have a better opinion. See? I can do that too. Saying it doesn't prove anything. Your opinions are not submittable fact, don't act like they are.
Oh, I thought that's what we were doing here. Regardless, right to life opinions are superior to right to kill arguments. Not only do they have science on their side, but one who sticks up for another is better than one who supports the killing. Don't care if you agree, that's the way it is.
And you're last sentence was complete bullshit. In the times of slavory, people justified with Genesis 9:20-25, for just one of many examples disproving your lies.
I'm sorry, don't have my bible in front of me. Please quote it. And I never lie. I'm occasionally mistaken. But I never lie.
I didn't say they can't, I said they wouldn't.
And you have nothing behind that. The very facts prove you wrong. The fact that most companes pay above minimum wage shoots down your argument.
I also didn't say that people should always be paid more than minimum wage. Minimum wage is simply an established specification ensuring satisfactory pay for the prolatariate.
And most economists still say it is the most anti-poor anti-black law on the books. If it didn't exist the standard would be lower. Satisfactory pay would be lower
Though I don't advocate minimum wages being higher than they need to be, that is; enough to feed and shelter yourself. I support it for being a basic standard for pay. I realize that increased minimum wage creates a sort of barrier for youth in getting a job because employers expect a certain level of excellence for a certain pay, and economists have argued about the benifits of a minimum wage since it's introduction, mostly leaning to the "it's bad" side, but ultimately it comes down to whether social aspects are more important than economic ones.
What? That doesn't make any sense. It keeps youth the poor and the black from getting jobs, but maybe it's social concerns are more important? Those are the social concerns. It's bad both socially and economically.
Where a lack of minimum wage could possibly (it's been disputed for hundreds of years) improve the economy in the same way as China, it would damage quality of life, like in China.
Yea, it's not the communism. Or the lack of human rights. It's the lack of minimum wage. You don't know enough about China to comment really.
Not only is minimum wage a corner stone of labor laws, it ensures that those with the initiative to get jobs don't starve and can house themselves properly.
No it doesn't. If all you have is a minimum wage job, you've got monetary problems if you live alone.
If you havn't noticed, areas with dismal labor laws are the same areas with poverty rates on the rise and life spans are shorter.
If you'll notice, most areas with poverty rates on the rise have high unemployment levels and people on welfare.
So much are you willing to spend on keeping your rights intact as an American citizen? Having a house and a car of your own apparently costs economic prowess.
Minimum wage jobs don't support families. They are entry level jobs. You can't support a family with them.
If you don't like minimum wage so much, why not move to a country without it? It might be an enlightening experience.
As shown above you have little knowledge of minimum wage laws. Most countries that don't have them, the lack of that law is NOT their problem. Give me one example to the contrary please.
You idiot, I did read it, both when he posted it, and when I was arguing against the idiot he "pwned." All it proved was that businesses CAN rise above it. Are you so naive to think that people, including the people who run that business, aren't greedy? Yes, raising it irresponsibly could hurt the economy, as anything overdone could do, but I'm for a minimum wage which people can feed themselves on. Who ever said that I was for raising it?
Are you so dumb as to think that all that we need to do is have minimum wage and everything is ok? If we have greedy businessmen, minimum wage means nothing, cause they can still make the poor poorer. Raising it PERIOD hurts the economy. People on minimum wage are mostly teenagers on part time jobs. Raising minimum wage reduces the job pool and raises unemployment.
nonsense
Wow, that shows you don't know what you're talking about.
Keep in mind that I considered your point; that increased wages increases costs, but consider that the two cancel each other.
No they don't. In a perfect closed economy they do. In the real world they don't. BUT, even if they did, what's the point. You yourself just admited, under the best circumstances it is a null effect.
:more nonsense
Addressed above. You're dead wrong. Less money to pay everyone means either a: people get less money ot b: less people get teh same amount of money.
It doesn't benefit society period. Try again.
At 3/8/06 10:34 PM, altanese_mistress wrote: In a month? Pfft. In ten years? Maybe. 50? Definatly. 100? America will be a distant memory for the world.
People have been saying it for at least a hundred years. Your grandkids will say it in a hundred more.
Basically, unless the dollar took a plunge in the global market due to inflation, or no real alternative for the US when the oil market dries up, etc. then its going to happen over years, not months.
Or never.
At 3/8/06 05:13 PM, mackid wrote:
Fine. 24 weeks, then, because 56% of babies survive premature birth at 24 weeks (24 weeks - 56% of babies survive premature birth.*
There is never a reason to have an abortion past 18 weeks, which is where other countries are taking abortion laws. Rarely do health concerns come up past that time, and when they do can mostly be corrected without abortion.
At 3/8/06 09:49 PM, mackid wrote: That's a highly intellectual generalization.
Though to what I've seen, it's really accurate.
It's pretty accurate to say that most of them have little concern for it.
Hmmm, what was that about baseless generalizations? No it's not safe to say. It's pretty off as most Republicans care about the environment. We're just not wacko Buddhists. And we don't put the life of a tree above the industry that provides tens of thousands of Americans (being conservative) with work.
So are most conservatives. I've never met an indoctrinated liberal.
People who say that are indoctrinated themselves. They don't notice it in others but it seems normal in themselves. I personally am the most right person I personally know, so I actually know none. I'm the right wing wacko all my friends know. But I know OF right wing wackos, like Savage.
Bullshit...it's wasted defense $$$$ that does that. And tax "cuts."
Better to have defense than not to have that. Besides JFK, who most consider a great president, supported a tax cut. Decreasing taxes while increasing spending hurt the government. Not just decreasing taxes.
FDR was a liberal...Social security is/was championed by liberals, as was the minimum wage....
FDR was liberal. But SS has no real supporters. It's in trouble. The Reps wanna do away with it or privatize it and the liberals want to do nothing.
That's far from the truth.
It's a bit of a stretch I'll admit, but it's not like that came out of nowhere. The Viet Cong did have quite a few liberal supporters. Protestors assaulted our troops returning home, sometimes fatally, and rooted on the Viet Cong. It wasn't all of them, but it's not the outrageous statement you make it out to me.
Wait, is this why Bush made the no child left behind act?The NCLB destroys public education.
No it doesn't. That's that indoctrinization you said you'd never heard of. It may not do that much good, but it far from destroys it.
Liberals didn't create retirement and Social Security...FDR...
Didn't create retirement.
Oh, let's think about it for a second, shall we...?
Indoctrinization. I'm sorry, thinking that all your benefits came from one side and that nothing good came from the other isn't being indoctrined. It's being stupid. My bad.
I have no reason to respond to that.
Wait, so we are evil because we don't give out free bundles of money to every bum and illegal immigrant who hasn't done anything useful for society?
It's becoming a central point in the Democratic party.
