Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/19/05 07:19 PM, white-rabbit42 wrote:

At 12/19/05 06:58 PM, altanese_mistress wrote:

Besides, third-world nations don't need money given to them and free food. They need reforms and stability.

You kinda missed the point. Of course they need reforms and stability. I never mentioned once they needed free food. The governments are corrupt and from what I can see, as history usually repeats itself, there will be a revolution in the LEDCs. And you may find it hard to believe but MEDC governments can be corrupt too. Tied aid arms deals have been made. I can't think of one now but i don't think you could find reliable proof that they weren't. Also 1% is not gonna make a huge dent in the countries economy and I well aware that every country has debt. I am aware that America is borrowing far more than it is making. The global econmy is a very strange thing. And yes, capitalism is a bitch.

So basically your argument is: I can't prove it, but you can't prove me wrong? You said it yourself, I can't think of one right now. And if they don't exist, you're right, we CAN'T prove you wrong. Prove you don't own a tank. Pull me up the receipt that says you don't own a tank. NO receipt? I MUST conclude you don't own a tank. And that sounds like treason. Treason leads to death. Since you can't prove your tank doesn't exist you are sentenced to DEATH! This is basically your argument. Sorry, not buying it.
And as for capitalism being a bitch, how witty. Life is a bitch too, think I'll cling to that one for a while longer as well.

At 12/20/05 09:39 PM, 31SlipKnoTonKpilS13 wrote:

At 12/20/05 09:25 PM, XmasTime wrote: Just proves that the offended, pussy democrats dont want kids to learn.

um what the fuck? I'm no democrat but its in the damn constitution that you can't teach religion in school! I mean, i dont think that evolution is necessarally correct, but at least it's not some evil plot cooked up by the damn pope to conform the whole world.

No, it isn't. What it does say is that the state shall not establish a religion. It also say, ironically enough, that it shall not infringe upon it either. Find the text in the Constitution that says "thou shalt not teach religion in school", and conservatively will shut the hell up.

And for the record, it's not the theory of gravity. It's the fact of gravity. We know it exists. We can prove it. Here, I just dropped a penny and it hit the floor. Yup Gravity's still working. We can even measure it. 9.8 m/s/s. It's less on the moon. More on Jupiter. So yup....Gravity....not a theory. Kinda like it's not the theory of aspirin. Or the theory of velocity.

My two cents on this whole intelligent design thing:
Both sides: shut the hell up. All I see is a bunch of parents wasting time that could be better spent with their children. It's a damn one minute speel. Sneeze and you'll miss it. What's the big deal? I mean really? If you believe in ID, then quite frankly, all your kids get in one minute is a bastardized version of your beliefs, quite forgettable (I've heard it). Same thing for Evo people, it's easily forgotten. And it could just as easily apply to aliens or time travelers as it could to YHWH (God). It's THAT generic.
However, I do feel the will of the people should be paramount (that IS the point of a democracy). Which is why I will never support this ruling. It is not the role of the courts to make laws or strike them down (that's legislature). And I'm sorry but 11 people is not a majority. If the majority was outraged, more than 11 parents would've stepped forward. Those quiet people...they're the ones who support it or don't care. And those quiet people are...all but 11. Yup that sounds like a majority to me. Conservatives don't support this because we see it for what it is: a small vocal minority imposing their will over the masses. They don't have the number of votes to get it banned so they go to the courts and have them over rule it. That's bullshit pure and simple. You don't have the right to be shielded from things you find offensive here in America. Because if you have that right with ID, then others have that right with video games, or books, or movies, or free speech. No more gay pride parades. No more million man march. That children, is called facism.
For the most part, I think this is much ado about nothing. But I do find the courts sticking their nose in YET AGAIN to impose their values over the rest of us is ridiculous. Our founding fathers would be ashamed.

At 12/19/05 07:24 PM, darknezz1 wrote: Back then

Republican = Democrat today
Democrat = Republican today

Not really. There's nothing to support this. Robert Byrd...Democrat, former KKK member. He's not the only one. Republicans on the whole aren't racist. Nor do I believe Democrats are, thought they do tend to attract a lot of 'former' racists to the party. Quite simply...Back then:

Republican=Republican today (We still believe almost all the same things)
Democrat=gone

The Democrats have evolved imo. They are no longer actively seeking the demise of the black man, but some of their choices have the same effects. But I'll take misguided over evil any day. So it's an improvment as far as I'm concerned.

At 1/7/05 12:26 AM, Hokey_Mokey wrote: Anybody who wants or sees a Civil War coming, is only falling victim to the chaos George W. Bush has caused.
The only war we actually need to fight is the one against our unjust president, not against Iraqis, or drugs, or fast-food, and certainly not against each other.

Besides the first sentence being unintelligible...I'd like to ask: What makes Bush so damned unjust that we need to fight a war against him? And yes, whether he's an "evil monster" or not, we should still fight the war on drugs. And no, we're not fighting the Iraqis, we're fighting FOR the Iraqis. Since I've repeated this many times on this board, I'll give you the short version. "Took out Saddam. Built schools, roads, etc. Helped teh Iraqis make a gov't they will soon control. The insurgants aren't even Iraqi, and they kill innocent civilians on purpose. And we're training Iraqi soldiers so we can one day leave. Gee aren't we oppressive? Only empire in the history of man that conquers our enemies then throws out the dictator and returns the land to the citizens." This reeks of someone who has what I like to call "hand me down values". In short, you have no clue what you're talking about, so you're regurgitating someone else's beliefs. No educated person would ever compare a war to someone denouncing fast food, which isn't even wide-spread enough to call an ideological war. Do you disagree with everything the man stands for because you believe passionately to the other side, or have you fallen into the "liberal trap" of just blindly hating everything he stands for because he's a conservative?

At 12/20/05 06:59 PM, Missileninja wrote:

Not always, no. But sometimes you don't have a choice.

No, even then you don't need to.

If someone has a gun pointed at you, and you have one pointed at them, instead of dodging that bullet and running away to safety, you kill them, you committed murder. I don't care if it's war related or not.

Of course it's murder. It's the taking of a life.
And it'd be justified, too.

That's not justified you moron. Just cause someone is willing to take your life, doesn't mean you should take theirs.

You sound so fucking silly. 'Oh, you should just dodge the bullet and run away!"

Ok, fine bad example. Maybe this sounds better to you, you fucking cum dumpster. Instead of blowing that sick mother fucker away, and being as low and sick and twisted as that other guy. Shoot him in the fucking legs, blow out his knee caps and run for safety.

This is just stupid. Plain and simple. He refutes all your points, you call him a cum dumpster. He is one hundred percent correct. If you have one shot, you go for the kill shot. Otherwise, don't bother shooting. To not kill an evil person to save lives is, in itself, evil. Despite your idiotic comment, there is not always an alternative to violence. You're looking at things from a childlike delusional view. Even in school, you couldn't neccessarily reason with a bully. They wanted to fight and they fought. You had two choices, fight back or get your ass kicked. So, now, in the real world, and not your fantasy, there are these same types of people who CAN'T be reasoned with. Bullies for one, evil people, insane or sick people. If you think you can reason with a crazy person, your comments are no longer worth listening to, they have no value. Only a fool puts a cop who shoots someone to save a life on the same level as a serial killer. That's childish and dangerous (if someone like you gets into making policy). Your comments show you have little understanding of what the real world is like. Only someone insulated from violence thinks theres "always an alternative". If someone threatens the lives of my family or friends, I'm not going to waste time "talking them down". If I have a gun, I take them down. That's real world, it's the right solution.
As for applying this to war: Hitler would not have stopped....ever. Nor would Saddam. Or the murderers in Rwanda. We see what happens when fools sit back and try to "reason" with insane or evil dictators and murderers. Innocent people die...by the thousands, tens of thousands, or even millions. Even from a religious perspective: ALL religions except for maybe Buddhism see war as a neccessary thing, and all understand that killing in self-defense is a neccessary thing, except for again maybe Buddhism.
Stop talking like a child and grow up.

At 12/17/05 01:27 PM, Hermannator wrote: Obviously the waiting period is not effect. They should put in something more effective. People who want guns should have to take a course that is something like 3 weeks long probably longer, teaching them everything about guns, like laws, safety, and other gun-related topics. All gun owners should know everything about safety and the laws about guns. I know that most do already, but it’s better to make sure that all of them do.

And if ban against all handguns is real unpopular, then should make it that the only handgun not illegal is a single action revolver. Although they are easily hidden, you only have six shots, less convenient to shoot, and take longer to reload than semi-autos. But all things considered, I would rather have all handguns illegal.

Also, I should have mentioned this part with the intention to kill point. The victim also has a much better chance of running away from some guy with a knife or a bat, rather than against a bullet that travels hundreds of feet per second.

I am not saying that gun control will reduce the number of crimes, since the number of crime is directly related to burdens on society and morons, not to weapons. However, weapons like guns increase the severity and danger of the crime, and decrease the chance of surviving from an assault or attempted murder.

Well your hearts in the right place, even if your head isn't. No ban on weapons will ever reduce crime. The reason is simple. Bans on weapons only affect law abiding citizens. Look at the ban on automatic weapons (I don't want those legal again btw). Gang members still get them. And quite frequently. So that didn't work. States that have allowed guns, even concealed weapons have a lower crime rate than those who haven't. You want people to be banned to a six shot gun that is hard to reload in a pinch, as opposed to a semi-auto, which the ammo can be kept seperate then slid in to use.
There are a lot of other factors in reducing crime than reducing guns. Everybody looks at Japan, but the secret of their success isn't gun control, it's a strict legal system. Their legal system is scary. Once you get charged with a crime, you are guilty. You can admit guilt and spend life in jail, or deny it and get executed (with the costs of the bullet and the shooters time billed to your family). Canada has a completely different group mentality, and more police per capita than here in America..

At 12/17/05 01:28 AM, 31SlipKnoTonKpilS13 wrote: Until a baby is born, the woman isn't considered two people.
In, at least, america, people have the constitutional right to do whatever they want with their bodies (don't get me started on how this is being abridged). It should absolutely BE THE WOMAN'S CHOICE. It's her body. I truly don't see why this topic is so controversial, it's a clear-cut case of choice (or lack thereof, for the fatalists). Not that I'm trying to say anything here, but maybe i can logically come to this conclusion because i use my brain? I mean, it's really the only thing that seperates us humans from animals...

First, pregnant women ARE actually often considered two people under the purposes of the law. If I murdered a pregnant woman, for example, I could be charged with two murders.
As for what makes this so controversial, most people regard it as human life. Despite the fact that the majority of people in America are against abortion, and despite the fact that the court doesn't have the authority, they keep striking down state laws prohibiting abortion, or demanding rights we don't have. It's controversial because it's the few making the laws for the many, and it's not the will of the people being done. There are three stances people take on human life. Two are intelligent, one is stupid. LIfe either begins at conception...or somewhere between conception and birth, when the child becomes viable. Those are the intelligent ones. The stupid one is the one you came to because you "use your brain". Which is that life begins at birth. This position is stupid simply because by any definition of life, a baby is life when: the brain, heart, lungs are working and it is viable outside of the womb. When the baby can easily live seperate of the mother, it IS a human being, regardless of whether it's been born or not. Even Roe vs Wade acknowledged it. Most scientists regard viability as life. So your "using your brain" is simply you deciding to take the pro-choice stance no matter how ridiculous it is. And by any definition, in the third trimester, your position becomes quite stupid indeed.
Let's not pretend that "the right to your body" is some paramount right. You don't have the right to do drugs, we have laws against suicide (even though it's impossible to enforce on offenders), etc. So the right to your body really doesn't exist.

As for the idiotic "until it has a name" argument, that hurts my head. So I can kill anything that, in my mind, doesn't have a name? So any newborn that has yet to be named isn't a human being? You're just dead wrong. This is almost like the Supreme Court decision on the "right to recognize life" in which the judge argued "every human being has the right to define life". We don't have that right. When we allow individual people to "define life", we are in sad shape. Because some idiot could always come along and say something like "it's not human til it has a name" which will lead to "until I know their name they're not human.

Wow, Dranigus, that was kinda bitter there. WOW.
While I don't idolize Bush, I've gotta say, he's a lot better than Clinton. Clinton's sole accomplishment was: making a good economy, something expected out of any Democratic president. However, he also had a run that was PLAGUED with scandals. He committed perjury like crazy, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and was corrupt as sin. Feel free to look it up. When Maureen Dowd slams the hell out of you as a Democrat, that's worse than when Ann Coulter turns on a Republican. Sorry, but Clinton was not a great president. And as for doing more for us than Reagan...you must be insane. Really. Must be that free health care he gave us....oh wait, he promised, but never delivered. Sorry, but Clinton would've been forgotten as no one if it weren't for all the scandals.

And as for people who somehow compare Abu Gharab to Saddam's torture rooms, stop kidding yourself. If you can't make the distinction between forcing a prisoner of war to wear womens panties, and rounding up innocent women and children to torture and murder then you aren't intelligent enough to be debating politics. Pure and simple.

Usually, the gun to the head doesn't work with a guy because fear tends to "deflate the balloon", but I'm sure that there are cases to the contrary. The beer bottle up the ass would definately count as rape as far as im concerned, unless he's Adam Sandler (who wrote a freaky song asking for that kind of thing...the bottle was the mild part).

I do love the idea that we should automatically accept the rape accusations without question. And if "they felt violated, they felt violated", even if they consented at the time. Idiotic spew. Smack that boy with a 2x4 and call it a night.

I find some humor in the fact that we are saying "it's in the rolling stone? It MUST be true". I ignore the Stone as a waste of time. I tend to never agree with it.

And as for the lies part. Iraq had WMDs. Only childish minds don't believe that. We found: Anthrax, Sarin, ballistic missles, etc. In his book "The Truth With Jokes", Franken says we never found WMDS (which only amount to nukes to him), then lists stuff we did find. This is the bottom line. Saddam had WMDS. Bush said he had WMDs, Clinton said he had WMDs, (all throughout his term), and every single country in the world has acknowledged his failure to allow UN inspectors in is most likely because he had WMDs, maybe even nukes. So the whole did he have them debate needs to end.

The only real question is: was this handled well? I won't debate that. All I'll say is: Everyone capitulates that he had them, and all they've EVER debated was what to do about it. Clinton advocated launching missles, a lot of countries wanted sanctions, Kerry wanted to do nothing, Bush Sr. said contain and monitor. Bush Jr. just decides "Hey, lets impliment the plan Clinton always talked about...take him out, create a new pro-US govt."

Sun Tzu said it best: the miltary decisions are to be left up to...THE MILITARY. Because quite frankly, there are too many different "listen to mes" for them to be bothered with and because most of the citizenry opens up something like the rolling stone and forms or justifies their opinion off of that without looking at everything else.

I said it in another topic. The first Amendment DOES in fact allow you to say whatever you want with two exceptions: incitement to violence, and liabel/slander. Other than that, no a person has no legal recourse against racism. The person earlier who said you CAN'T say whatever you want, is dead wrong. People print neo-nazi newspapers (and are quite public about it), and the gov't doesn't shut them down. WHY? Because it's their first Amendment right to spew hate. You don't have to like it, but you can't shut them down.
Your recourse if you don't like someone's spew is simple: you ignore them. Or publically decry them. Enough people stop paying for their paper.....it goes away. But quite frankly, yes, the first amedment protects profanity and racist speech (though institutions like universities and job sites are free to set limits to that speech), and if a person excercizes that right, you have NO legal recourse against them. Plain and simple. Anyone who says otherwise is dead wrong.

At 12/12/05 07:18 PM, Fukuzawa wrote: Whatever, most of you here do not seem to understand the effects of homophobia on people's lives. Who cares about social equality when you can do everything you want eh?

Dude, hate to tell you this, but you don't have a right to be shielded from stuff that pisses you off or offends you. To retort with a hypothetical of my own, what good is it to have free speech if you only have free speech as long as you aren't offending someone? Social equality means that no one can attack you for being gay (black/indian/female/etc), it doesn't mean they can't say nasty stuff about you. I have to put up with nasty comments because of MY color, MY political affiliation, my religion, etc. And I don't think I should be shielded from it. I am free to respond, or to ignore, or to walk away. Part of being in a free society is that people get to say whatever the hell they want and the only recourse you have is to say whatever the hell YOU want. Sorry, if you don't like that. But that's freedom. And the sooner you get to tell him what he's free to say/not say, the sooner we're free to tell you what you can/can't say. We don't have the right to censor speech here, and that's what's great about America.

And hell, just for the sakes of shits and giggles. If someone had actually looked in the Bible, it seems to say the same thing as this study. Jesus says to a leper he heals "Don't thank me. You believed you would be healed and you were. Your faith has healed you." Sounds kinda like "the only faith that matters is your own" to me or "positive outlooks affect your health for the better!"

At 7/15/05 11:17 PM, seventy-one wrote: What's so stupid about that study? It just proved that optimism and a good attitude doesn't effect a patients outcome.

Actually the article says that optimism and a good attitude DO affect the outcome.

"The Duke University Medical Center study of 700 patients, in the Lancet, said music, image and touch therapy did appear to reduce patients' distress.

Heart experts said patients could benefit from feeling more optimistic. "

and

"She said associations had been seen between positive emotional states and low levels of the stress hormone cortisol.

"Further evidence is emerging that people with a more positive outlook appear to be less affected by stressful events, such as having surgery." "

Good attitude, better chances.

I look at this study as a blind shot at religion in general. But by the very study, if you are encouraged by people praying for you, it tends to help you, because it gives you more hope and a better outlook. I would like to ask though, why our time is being wasted on a scientific study of the effects of faith.

Um, just a pretty boring observation here, but saying good sir, does not in any way sway anyone that you are being civil here.

As for the forces of logic being against you, yea they are. You make the argument that ALL white people have white guilt, then say that the existance of white people who don't suffer from white guilt shouldn't be held against your theory. Some people must be given exception, or not be counted as white. You use the logic that "to deny you are a racist means you suffer white guilt, to get angry proves it, and to say nothing proves it", a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" approach. Then you admonish others for doing the same. Black people's anger over being called racist somehow doesn't count because of a "double standard", which I agree there is, but it doesn't help your case. You talk about how it's a universal standard, but people have given you dozens of examples of people who preach to the contrary. How is logic not against you?

And whereas people have continually posted intelligent and mostly civil responses to your babble, your plan of pushing forward is: say they simply are not smart enough to understand you, say something downright rude, ignore their obvious point that hurts your case, or pretend to be civil to barely mask a deep and seething hate that comes through more clearly than when you're being downright rude. When asked about your qualifications, you claim they aren't neccessary because this is a low-brow place. You claim that your argument is simple, we claim it is ridiculously biased and double-standarded, and you say we must be too simple to understand. It's like listening to a political speech where the politician is called on blatant b.s. and tries to change the subject, or make a joke.

As for egotism, if anyone here has demonstrated it, it would be you. You started an absurd theory with massive mounds of evidence against it, and resorted to personal attacks and mockery when not everybody fell into line to be force fed crap. You have continually held a tone of arrogant and blantantly disrespectful contempt for those of us refusing to buy into your theories. You call me out like I'm debating the word "is" with you instead of shooting down your increasingly desperate shots in the dark to validate yourself. I took a cheap shot apparently, by saying that you should actually respond to my charges, as opposed to tell me I was too stupid to understand (a shot you yourself made anyway, then still refused to acknowledge points). Gee, I'm sorry, how rude of me. Expecting you to have something to back up your theory other than "I'm right".

As for the earlier charge that I must be bored to bring this back up, no not really. I prefer to dredge this up to have him defend himself. I don't think people who peddle crap should be allowed to get off and not have to defend themselves. He did it in a previous post and tried to do it again here. He needs to be called on the carpet. His last few posts say it themselves. He expected this to die and no one else to dredge it up. And he'll just be ruder and ruder until we a: let him off the hook, or b: call the mod to report his ignorant self so he can feel simultaneously victimized and vindicated. That way it's not his fault. Instead, he's now had to admit (even if he expects us to take his bile for cleverness) in a grudingly half-sarcastic way (that will somehow allow a small measure of victory in his mind that he was joking) that most of his points were invalidated.

I thought I'd revisit this, since my comp died. I wanted to see Locke blabber himself deeper. And I'd like his long complicated explaination. To me, it seems as if he's conceding some of my points.

At 12/2/05 12:43 AM, Locke666 wrote: Because when they afflict the vast majority of people they are no longer considered phenomena, they are considered the norm. But yes there may well be some exceptions, however for the most part people are just affected by it in many different ways which are not immediatley recognizable as being of the same source.

Such as? One example please? You keep saying this, but it means nothing without context.

Yes, yes there will be exceptions, there are always some. But in this case it is still just the many different ways it manifests itself, everything from angry rejection to blubbering apolagy to sublime indifference is possible. The human mind isnt simple it can react to the same thing in myriad ways. Saying I'm wrong just because the steryotype of white guilt or denial dosen't always fit is silly.

Actually that was your entire point. EVERY white person feels "white guilt". If there are cases where it doesn't fit, your whole argument goes down the drain. The human brain can repond to an argument in different ways. I'm conceding that SOME are in fact white guilt, why can't you concede that some of them aren't. I'll apply your theory to another avenue: religion. There's a huge push to be religious. But some aren't. Some leave the church. You're in fact saying here: the human brain is complex EXCEPT in issues of racism with white people, where no matter how we respond, we are just doing the same thing differently.

I am speaking of a conflict which is inevitably brought up in all thinking people in our culture. I am speaking of one thing which in turn effects everyone. You are taking assumed knowledge of everyone and trying to use it to disprove the one thing. Completely different.

Exactly the same. Just because every thinking person of our culture thinks about it doesn't mean we all feel the same. There are a lot of issues on which people think of but disagree. Abortion. Stem Cell Research. Racism. Oil. Etc. On Racism however, no matter how we approach it, you claim it means we feel bad that it happens/happened/whatever. Your knowledge is "assumed" as well.

No, simply put none of those are universal social pressures. As you said yourself many of those things are pushed on you by groups of people who often do not represent a majority and are often counterbalanced by other influence. Peer pressure and your church. The media and your family. etc. However there is no mediating influence telling you that racism is ok. Racism is a uniquely demonized thing. No one can ignore what everyone tells them at all times since birth. As easy to decide that the color you have been calling blue since birth is in fact red and everyone has just been messing with you.

And herein lies the single point you refuse to acknowledge: it's not universal. The pressure to have sex during your teenaged years is in fact much more universal, or to be religious in a religious house. It is a small group of small-minded people who I have chosen to ignore all my life (partially in response because my parents told me those people were wrong), who try to project THEIR guilt onto me, as you are doing now. I have named A BLACK MAN who publically says this is wrong. If the black man is trying to eradicate white guilt, (and he's far from alone in the black community), and racists are telling us blacks are inferior, assuming they're it, how can you say there's NO contradicting message? Nobody tells their children they've done nothing wrong? Mine did. There are dozens of books on the topic, telling white guilt victims to feel no guilt. And FOX news. There are PLENTY of people telling us not to feel bad. Not universal.

That is simply because a white person calling a black person racist is considered... well, racist. It simply ties back in to the double standard. Probably easy to mistake as your own similar reaction and it is similar in some ways. But different sources.

Respond to this one. You ignored my comment. Being called a racist hurts. People don't like being mocked or insulted. People get offended when you call them faggots. Or rapists. Or adulterers. Or stupid. You just kinda....yeah next one, here. You didn't put forth anything of substance. Double standards are ALWAYS wrong. Yet you're using one to support your theory.

Unless you are in denial over your guilt, I've explained this already, hell its the basis of most of the pop psychology out there right now. Seriously what dont you understand about this?

Because even in denial, it is a conscious thing. Denial is a choice. What was it you put later?
:Oh yes the classic you are a homophobe, no im not, your in denial, no im not, see! Yes the issue of denial is easy to abuse thats why its used in pop psychology. This was the issue I was in fact most worried about, but after prodding quite a few people I am satisfied that there is in fact legitimate denial issues not just the childish imagined ones.
Yet I'd classify this as a childish imagined one. That was exactly how your conversation with Redbob went. You're a racist. No I'm not. Yes you are. No I'm not. You fucking racist. DON'T YOU CALL ME A FUCKING RACIST YOU PIECE OF SHIT. Ha. I win. It's exactly the same. Thank you for pointing this out. This is abusal of that principle, and it's pop psychology. And I dismiss both. Pop psych and real psych are different.

So I asked you to respond by actually addressing my arguments, not just saying "I'm right and you're wrong." In most cases you couldn't do that. You ramble about vast majorities of beliefs but don't offer a single widespread one. You deride people for the "homophobe issue", but yours is damn near identical. You unjustly harassed redbob and were quite rude until he lost his temper and then you declared you won. Then later you call that abuse. You can't have it both ways. You concede that maybe there are valid reasons not to feel that way, and maybe a few random people DON'T feel that way, then reassert that everyone feels that way. Then when your losing you leave. How foolish and childish.

At 12/6/05 12:01 PM, Holo-Alf wrote: Hmm, I don't know what the answer is. It's a tricky subject, but I can offer you some insight into 'insanity'

I had a breif psychotic episode where I believed I was telepathic. Looking back on it now, it seems ridiculous, but at the time a believed it 100% without any doubt, I didn't even question it, I took it as an absolute fact. Obviously, I didn't go out and kill anyone, I saw a doctor and I'm fine now, but it made me think. If I could believe in something so daft without a shadow of a doubt, then these people who say 'God told me to kill him' or whatever probably believe it 100%. I'm not excusing their actions, I'm just saying when you're in that mental state you don't realise other people think you're nuts. You think it's perfectly normal. Best way I can describe it is to compare it to something that isn't immoral. Imagine if someone turned round to you one day and said "you ate a potato, you're going to jail.' The thought of eating a potato being wrong would seem ludicrous to you. You just don't think about the moral implications of these things when your mind isn't functioning properly.

Number one, that's NOT a psychotic episode. I don't know who told you that. It may qualify as a delusion, but a psychotic episode, no. And depending on how old you were, it may have simply been a childhood fantasy. Comparing your case to this guys is not only ridiculous to the debate, but horribly demeaning to yourself. A lot of people believe in telepathic abilities, this doesn't make them dangerous to themselves or others. Assuming all cases are bunk, it just makes them silly and superstitous. If telepathic abilities exist, it either means a. they're on the right side, or b. they're hoping they have something they don't. As opposed to the guy who believes all people with hair are out to steal his invisible dog and therefore must die. I hope you can see the distinction.

At 12/6/05 03:51 AM, bakem0n0 wrote: Sooooooo . . . he's a politician. Wow. Thanks for the insight.

politics: Poly is a latin root meaning many. Ticks are small, bloodsucking creatures.

We didn't lose the Vietnam war because of hippies. We lost because:
We were across the world from the battlefield, they were at home.
They were dug in extremely well, literally underground.
They knew the land thus were able to place and avoid traps.
The used guerilla tactics.
There was no way to tell enemies from noncombatants.
And, yes, the unrest from those Americans who realized the above, or who went with the bandwagon of those who did, inhibited as well, but it was another drop in the bucket.

No, we lost Vietnam because of poor leadership. Here are some of the brilliant leadership decisions made during Vietnam:
If we were going to bomb a target, we would drop fliers as much as three days prior to warn them about it. Why bother?
We'd waste manpower to take a strategic logation, then abandon it, and let the Viet Cong take it back. Or the North Vietnamese. Repeat.
Sometimes soldiers were sent out without bullets. Rediculous.
If a Viet Cong shot 6 of our soldiers then threw down his gun, we srrested him. Then the soldiers were often told to release the enemy and GIVE HIM HIS GUN BACK.

There were more, but let's stop pretending that the opposition was the problem and not our leadership. The Vietnamese army was good, but far too much credit is given to them, they weren't brilliant, we were just stupid. They weren't militarily superior, we just went over there with a spirit of appeasement instead of to fight a war.

When you fight a war, you fight a war. You go in, crush the opposition and finish the objectives. You don't wait for polls to see on how Americans feel about the war. You don't pretend the insurgents want to be our friends "all we have to do is change their minds". You go to war. You kill them. And you finish the job and come home. This is what politicians like Kerry don't seem to get. And unfortunately it seems Bush is trying to fight the war, but appease people like Kerry. It's drawing out the war. It's killing our troops. And THAT'S why people are losing pateince with Bush.

I'm heading to bed, and I'm sure Locke will put out more completely non-sensical crap before I wake.

So to combat your only points:

No, I'm not wrong, I'm not suffering from white grief. Your inability to accept this fact from people who put forward a calm "I feel nothing" shows that you will not accept that your theory is wrong. For example, you looked at my argument and said "Oh, he says they're not grievious, they're angry. They must be angry about their grief (as stupid as that sounds)" You then went on to refuse to read WHY I was angry. And since you're a self-professed psychology expert, you of all people should know the why is much more important than the what. The fat kid analogy that you refuse to let go of is flawed in and of the fact that you disregard the kids mental status. If he says hes not fat, he means he's fat. That's not the case. Many fat people simply don't think of themselves as fat. If they're a couple of pounds overweight, they may not even notice it. Much as some skinny people still think they're fat, some fat people still think they're skinny.

Since "white guilt" is (believe it or not) being studied, and the results of trained professionals (who, sorry, know more what they're talking about than you) show that it is a deep set of beliefs if NOT WIDELY HELD (emphasis mine).

I don't say this in mean spirit, but you debate like a child. You debated like a child in the other forum too. You refuse to acknowledge the flaws in your argument, and therefore it is impossible to take you seriously. You are presented with FACT after FACT after FACT that disputes your theory but ignore it. When someone calls you on your falicy, you respond simply with an elitist "Well, you're just too stupid to understand." Your argument isn't based in logic or even a simple understanding of psychology, but ignorance and personal bias.

You simply seem too unintelligent to understand a very simple concept. You refuse that your theory is wrong. Your theory simply doesn't hold water. Human beings are simply too complex to drop into a category simply because of the color of their skin. There are those who feel no grief (racists yes, but there are others who of course don't hate blacks but feel no "grief" either), those who feel nothing but grief, and ALL SPECTRUMS in between. That's a basic tenet of psychology. And if you don't accept that, that's fine. But it also means that you accept that you aren't a psych expert, and none of us should take you seriously. There's a spectrum of people, not just two.

Just admit you're wrong so we can move on.

My bad you did adress racism. I apologize. However, my anger anology is completely correct and your fat kid anology is far off. If you are accusing someone of a good build of being fat, they laugh you off. If you just won't shut the hell up about it it might start to piss them off. Compound that by 20 to 30 years and you have white anger.
It does stand however that to feel guilty, you must actually feel guilty.

Again, there has never once been a phenomenon that has afflicted everyone of a specific group. There were always non-religious people. Jews had non-believers and they grew up in a crowd where no other option was presented. If there can be non-believer Jews, there can be non-guilt whites. White guilt exists, we've all admitted it, and most of us have seen it. But not EVERYONE feels it. So, on that one I'm right.

I don't need to speak for the majority. If I shoot you down in ONE case (since you said "every white person" feels this), your theory is wrong. I was able to do it not in just one instance, but on a massive scale. So, on that one, I'm also right.

You STILL REFUSE to acknowledge that racists are incapable of feeling "white guilt", by the way, which I find fascinating. And the only reason why is you know it makes you wrong, and you refuse to admit being wrong.

You say I cannot speak for the majority, but somehow, you can speak for the whole. Which also strikes me as interesting.

Your entire basis for your theory hinges on the fact that since society tells me I should feel bad for this that I do. Not only is this belief nowhere near as widespread as you'd like to believe, but there are a lot of things "the whole of society" tells me that I ignore. And in reality are perpetuated by a small group of self-important people. I should feel ashamed for my religious beliefs and persecutions. But I'm not. I'm proud of being Christian. I'm a good person who wants the best for my family, friends and my nation. I should be ashamed of being American, but I'm not. This is the greatest country in the world. I'm proud to be a part of this nation. I'm told that I should be engaging in sex with strangers. I completely ignore this. And trust me, if you think there's a stigma on being racist...it means nothing. It's better to be a KKK member in high school than a virgin. But yet I've ignored the drive to bang anything that moves. If I successfully ignored all of those, the last one being pushed even harder than race relations, then I can ignore white guilt too. On this one, I am correct and again you are wrong.

Anger over being called a racist is much stronger in the black community than in the white community. There is NO apology for being racist. They either deny it simply, (this is a rare phenomenon that only occurs when a black calls a black racist against his own people) or are on the verge of violence. Once again, this point goes to me. You are simply wrong once again.

Children not only don't experience white guilt, they don't understand it. It has to be explained to them. There are two explainations: one is that the children have nothing to be sorry for and the other is a convoluted bs story that causes children to feel white guilt. Or they're taught hate. Since I got the former speel, I feel no guilt over what happened. Children see other people as different, but not inferior as mentioned before. To them, black and white are differences between people as normal as blond hair vs brown, or green and blue eyes. They don't care. Point...mine.

Guilt is accompanied by apology. Always. No exceptions. Innocence is usually accompanied by simple denial. Anger comes from repeated accusations that one is racist when they are not. This one disproves your theory. Yet you don't seem to be able to grasp this one. (Perhaps you're not capable?) Any intelligent person understands this. You don't get angry when confronted with something you feel guilt or shame over. You get quiet and apologetic. I win this point too.

You have yet to address the "you're a homophobe" argument either. That interests me because I believe you know that if you even address that you have lost.

Despite your belief that "every white person" feels this way, the whole motto of the DNC is that they display their "guilt" (no matter how phony), and beguile Republicans for not feeling sympathy for them. As a whole blacks not only believe it, they know it to be true. The reason most black people will not vote for a rightie, is they know we won't be bullied by cries of racism and give in to "guilt" (cause as Sharpton said, we don't have it) and vote for bills that will only benefit them. Only one point left, and you haven't won any of them yet.

Out of all the races, creeds, sexual orientations I could feel bad for, blacks aren't even on the list. I can feel sympathy for Arabs, since they go through such crap since 9/11, but I don't feel responsible. I feel bad for the Rwandans when we refused to help and condemned over a million to death, but I don't feel responsible. If I had been alive at the time I might've felt responsible for the Japanese detainments, innocent people lost their livelyhoods and were thrown into detainment camps.
But not the American black man.
The history of the slave: He was kidnapped from his homeland by people of his own color. He was sold to slave runners from different countries, who in turn sold him to rich southerners. For the most part he was treated well by his masters, who did not want to damage his property since the slave was expensive. Most of the abuse he suffered was at the hands of other slaves. The thanks to MY ancestors (who were indentured servents that suffered worse than the slaves), the underground railroad started to free slaves and we went to a war that, in the end, helped free the slaves. We gave the black man the right to vote. My parents were part of the civil rights movement. And today's black man suffers only imaginary sins, nothing real. The black man wouldn't be free if it weren't for the white man. I have no reason to feel guilt. In fact I feel pride. Perhaps you think that we all feel guilt because you don't know about all of the above. Most white people do. And most of our parents were involved in the black man's freedom, negating reason to feel "guilt".
On this, my final point, I get the win and the sweep.

If you even respond, actually address my point or don't bother. If all you're going to do is tell me once again that you're right and I'm wrong, don't bother. Because you're wrong. The only thing that you've said that's even remotely correct is that you have no background and therefore don't really know what you're talking about.

And to dismiss another one of Locke's stupid theories, actually no, I've been threatened with death when I called a black man racist. Al Sharpton has hit people who have called him a racist. When Larry Elder said blacks could be more racist than whites, the black backlash against his show bordered on the violent. Black people do NOT laugh off the charge of racism.

And the reason the blacks are "perceived as the little guy" is simple. They're not. Except by a small group of reporters who play the race card religiously. You're judging everyone's perception of a race by a few individuals.

Hell, by your own admission you don't know what you're talking about. You just made a theory and refuse to admit you're wrong. Read your own posts. Anyone who doesn't agree with you a. doesn't know what they're talking about or b. cannot grasp (because of stupidity I assume) your arguments. Guess what? When the majority of people disagree with you, and it's almost unanimous, you're wrong. Especially when the black community shoots you down. You have no psychoanalysis background which is obvious, and therefore aren't qualified to give a diagnosis of this magnitude.

Yes, Locke, you were shut down in another post. I don't care about you being banned. You were shut down in the fact that your argument was completely and utterly negated. And it has been in this post too. You're entire position is: every white person is exactly the same. The problem with this fact of: white guilt is this. Racists don't have white guilt. So assuming that all non-racists have white guilt, that still shoots down your theory. Racists are PROUD of their racism. Those who were born in different countries and then come here often don't even understand why they SHOULD feel sorry, and thus in their confused state, you would probably see apology. Whereas they really aren't sorry, they just don't understand. This is a third position and further fragments your poorly put together argument.

And just because you refuse to admit you're wrong doesn't mean you're not wrong. There are still people who think hypothermia is a myth, they are wrong. There are those who think that there is no historical evidence of Jesus existing. They too are wrong. Just because when you are confronted with the facts and you refuse to acknowledge them doesn't mean that they are any less factual.

For instance, these are the facts:

There is such a thing as "white guilt". Mostly, it is suffered by liberals.

Those who suffer from white guilt exhibit the following symptoms: excessive apology for things which they had no part in, i.e. slavery, the willingness to classify any act against a black man as one of bigotry, are very condescending, burst into tears for no apparent reason when talking about different races, talk about racial diversity.

White racists don't feel white guilt. Period (This fact alone invalidates your entire argument.

People tend to get angry when being unjustly accused of something of which they are innocent. This is not only not symptomatic with the "white guilt" that you claim all white people have, it is completely normal and healthy. For example: A man is faithful to his wife. Some jerk tries telling the wife that her husband is cheating on her. She believes it. The man defends himself NOT because he is cheating, but because it is untrue. His anger is not only normal, it is righteous.

There is no group of people (by race, or creed, or sex) who all have the same single characteristic. There just isn't. Sorry. You're dead wrong on this one.

A lot of white people are sick of being told they should be sorry for being white, or male, or straight. We see stories of good people being destroyed by the charges of racism and it angers us. This is also not "white guilt", but us being outraged over a travesty.

When you ask someone a question or say something to them, they tend to respond. Yet in responding, you say it proves their guilt, no matter what their response is. Realistically, even refusing to respond is a response, so no matter what you're experiment CAN'T fail under the guidelines you've put forward.

When you are diagnosing someone of something, especially a mental disorder as you claim white guilt is that requires a possibility that you are wrong. I'll call all the cases that you are wrong about "white anger". They are two completely different things. One is characterized by actual guilt over racism. These people have guilt because on a fundamental level, they are racist. White anger is different. It is suffered by people who are kinda tired of being called racist when they aren't.

Some things are very subtle, easy to mistake. People often don't get angry about something they feel guilty for. Anger and guilt, unlike somethings are pretty easy to distinquish. If you can't make that distinction, you really aren't intelligent enough to put this argument forward.

Now, you have systematically refused to address a single discrepancy in your work, which (if you want to put forth your idea as legitimate) you must do. And as of yet, the only defense of your work is: we are too stupid to know ourselves and yes we are in fact, quite riddled with the "white guilt". And if you can't even accept that racists or people who moved here from countries that don't have the race issue are incapable of feeling "white guilt", you're just not very intelligent at all.

I assume by Aruba Girl...you mean Natalie Holloway.

Actually, they think they have evidence that the girl is alive. They think she's been sold in human trafficing to become a sex slave. I've heard several sources say they think they may have ideas on where she is.

So that may be one reason the mother isn't crying. She still has hope. However, everytime I've seen her mom on TV, she's been balling her eyes out.

And brat, the suspects have been interviewed by several reporters.

However, as for criticizing the mom for being a dumb blowhard, you guys really need to shut the hell up. She's acting out of...whats that thing mothers who think they're children MAY be dead act out of...oh yes, grief. Mothers whose children are abducted don't tend to behave in rational modes of behavior. Nor do fathers. And if they honestly believe that she's alive, her parents are acting about the same as any other parents would. So let's get off of belittling mom.
Especially when the Aruban government doesn't seem to care too damned much about the girl and has yet to do very much. Considering it is a popular pastime in Aruba for bars to help Aruban boys drug, rape and kidnap foreigner girls, I think this is kind of a big problem. Gee, how out of line, trying to get attention for girls who may have been kidnapped and sold as sex slaves. HOW DARE THEY?

Did the girl do something stupid? Yes. Does that mean she had this coming? Oh hell no. Isn't it the liberals who are always saying a girl should be able to walk around naked and not have anything bad happen to her in a poor neighborhood? Why is it now that people are GENUINELY outraged over it, that liberals are saying "she got what she deserved"? That really bothers me.

Yes, we do have a right to fight another nation based on it's government. Especially when that government is:

A. Giving support to several terrorist groups that attack us (HAMAS, among others)

Al Quaeda is the only terrorist organization to attack us within our own borders, and Saddam had no connection to them.

http://www.slate.com/id/2102723
That's from a liberal by the way.
Yes Saddam did have ties to al Quida. That's not "drinking the kool-aid", that's observation from evidence and logical thinking. And I'm sorry, but this is just common sense, any terrorist group who attacks us period is our enemy, i.e. Hamas who Saddam was a huge fanatic supporter of. So even if Saddam HADN'T had ties to al Quida (which ironically enough Zarquwi considered him an ally), this point of yours is nullified.

B. Shoots at our planes as we patrol the no fly zone

They call it a no fly zone for a reason.

Yes it was a no-fly zone FOR SADDAM, because he was KILLING HIS OWN PEOPLE. It wasn't a no-fly zone for us. He had no right to shoot at our planes.

C. Tries to kill one of our former presidents

Said former President tried to kill him.

Didn't try very hard. Actually what did Bush Sr. do? He refused to finish the job and gave Saddam his country back. And even if he had tried to kill him, it was because....what was the reason again...oh yes, he was invading our allies and trying to enslave them. We went to war with him. He then tried to kill our president during a time of peace. That's a blatant act of agression, and even Clinton responded to that one.

D. Sponsers suicide bombings in allied countries

Prove it.

Don't have to. He was quite proud of it. Bragged every opportunity he could about it. You're just disagreeing cause you hate Bush. You know you're wrong here.

E. Ignores UN sanctions on building weapons

Saddam was not building weapons of mass destruction. Most of us know that.

Really? Interesting. Clinton said he was.
http://www.weeklysta..000/003/527uwabl.asp

Also thought he had ties to al Quida interestingly enough.
Kerry said he was. EVERY single nation in the world thought he was. And in Al Frankens last book, in denying Saddam had any WMDs, he puts out a list of...WMDs, about as long as my arm, included, but not limited to: Sarin gas, weapons grade materials to make Anthrax, short range missles, and hundreds of pounds of high grade explosives (just in one place). And, interestingly enough, I don't actually have to prove he was making weapons (though he was, and the UN has acknowledged it), to prove this point. Part of the rules said he had to grant access to UN inspectors to any and all sites make sure that he wasn't building weapons. By ignoring this one, Saddam gave us the impression he was building. Innocent people don't deny access to empty rooms, kinda like innocent people don't plead the fifth. So even if we HADN'T found a single weapon (which no one believes but you, indeed the only argument ever put forward was that we found no nukes, even Michael Moore has acknowledged WMDs, so you're in a category of ignorance by yourself), and we did find weapons, but regardless, we still would've been justified. As a cop, if a suspect bluffs with a fake gun and you shoot him, you are justified. You don't wait for him to shoot at you to find out if it's real. You kill him, and his bad for using a fake gun.

F. Violates Human Rights like Crazy

That's none of our business. We're not international police. I have a problem with oppressive communists governments. Does that mean I have the right to attack China?

Yes actually it IS our business. When Iraq sponsors terror, flagrantly disrespects rules and murders its own people and we do nothing, it makes us look weak and emboldens our enemies. Besides, we are partially responsible for his murders by convincing citizens to stage an uprising then doing nothing as they got slaughtered.

G. All of the Above and more

You keep citing how Bush has "done no good", he has only "made more enemies". But to do this, you cite...nothing. Because this assertion, like most of your poorly informed argument is also dead wrong. It's not like reasonable people picked up their guns when we invaded Iraq and became insurgents. 90% of them were already involved in some sort of terrorist organization (mainly because from those we've identified the remains of, they were all on some sort of criminal list) and the others were evil people who saw their way of life about to go away and wanted to continue an oppressive regime. The Iraqi people mostly love us. Even Saddam's old sect is coming around now that we found the torture chambers and showed we are equal opportunity liberators. We are working towards a new Democracy, one supported by the people, same in Afghanistan. Syria and Libya have disarmed thanks in part to us.

And to address your argument of threatening your neighbor with a gun for beating his wife...and cutting off his wifes legs accidently, let's put things in a better perspective. If we want to add civilian casuality into the anaylogy... You see that your neighbor is beating his wife with something. You run over with a gun (since in this instance you called the UN cops and they refused to come over), and kick in the door shooting. You accidently hit the wife and paralyze her from the waist down. However it doesn't matter because he was hitting her in the head with a ballpine hammer and she's braindead. When you examine his house, you find two dead children in the basement that have been raped and tortured. Fortunately, you find two in the closet that he had two more children who he hadn't killed yet and would get to later. Sadly, while you waited for the police, he beat his wife as good as to death. But, you saved two lives. All in all, you know you did some good.

Yes, what terrible people we are, accidently killing some civilians in an effort to depose a dictator that was PURPOSELY killing innocent civilians, and torturing them and raping them. Gee, we're scum.

No, don't even apologize for slavery. You didn't do it, you have no need to apologize.

Actually, after re-reading your argument, I have concluded you yourself are just a racist. All the evidence goes against your theory. Ignoring that white guilt and racism are two different things (real racists aren't sorry for their hate). White kids listen to rap and love it. They dance hip-hop. They EMULATE the black man. I'd actually argue that for a lot of white kids, they tend to feel the black community is superior. Does a white man or women who marries a black person spend their entire life thinking that their spouse is a lower form of life? Of course not. They love that person unconditionally. I forget who made the quote but it still rings true: He who accuses the whole world only indicts himself. After re-reading you what you're entire argument boils down to is: I feel the need to justify my dislike of the white man, so I will burn into my mind the belief that all whites are racist.

Larry Elder wrote a book called "10 Things you Can't Say in America", one of which was "Blacks are more racist than whites." He describes your whole mind set, and (as a black man himself) discredited all your assinine arguments.

Yes, Locke, you did do quite a bit of prodding on white guilt in another topic. And you were shot down. To come to your "diagnosis", you ignored everything that didn't fit your theory (at least you have a good future as a politician). Your experiment is flawed in the fundamental idea that by denying being a racist, you have white guilt. If you apologize you have white guilt. And (though no one did this), I assume that if someone simply ignored you, you would conclude it was because they have white guilt. There is no response, or even a lack of response that doesn't fall into the category of white guilt. To perform a valid experiment there must be a way to disprove your theory, and you must actually TRY to disprove your theory. You didn't do that here.

Let's put your experiment in an equally ridiculous light. This is farce, but it exposes the flawed way you went about your research:

All black people realize they are inferior. I have done tests on this to see how far it went. A lot of the black people I asked denied it, and got quite angry, thus, affirming that deep down they know they are inferior. Why else would they get mad? Some chose to ignore me, and thereby proved my theory by not being able to counter it and prove me wrong. Even the reliance on affirmative action means they realize they are inferior....etc....etc....etc

By denying they are inferior they prove my theory...that they are inferior. Sounds stupid huh? That's what you did. So now, I say something like that to a black person, is he (or she) going to be angry? Moreover, do they have CAUSE to be angry? Of course, I just insulted them. Why shouldn't someone defend themselves against the charge of racism? It's an insult. They have the right to be angry.And the whole problem with white guilt is that when people are accused of being racist they WON'T defend themselves. They apologize or admit to it.

Honestly, I find the wide spread belief that all white people are inherently racist fascinating, that so many in the black community seem to believe.

As they said in the other post (and you never responded), you are a homophobe. And by denying it, you prove you are a homophobe. This idiotic argument you put forward, when used back against you, puts you in a corner. So do you admit homophobia by denying it? Or do you admit it by apologizin for it? Or do you admit it by simply saying nothing and not refuting the claim? What if we call you a pedophile? Getting defensive only proves that you have guilt over being a pedophile by your own logic.

Well, being as I used to be a chaplain who threw the Bible in the lake as a teaching tool...

Of course you can be respectful of other people's religions. There were 10 Commandments. Jesus dropped that to one: Love your neighbor as yourself. Additional guidelines aren't bad. But when someone says: "If you don't believe (insert rediculous rule that's nowhere in any religious book of any religion), then you're going to hell" they are just dead wrong. AND they're trying to tear your faith down cause they have none themselves. REAL religion and REAL faith are built on the ideals of Love, forgiveness, charity and fellowship. Anyone who tries to distort this to isolate peoples of other faiths is not only ignorant, they are trying to lead you farther from God, not closer. Jesus forgave the prostitute (a stoning offense back then), loved the tax collectors (people would've rather hung around murderers), communed with lepers to heal them (whereas the holy men of the time shunned them), and died so that the message of love would be spread and we would accept our forgiveness, accept God.
If you somehow think that, after all this, some dumb pastor has the authority to damn people to hell, or that some are hell bound for believing in 6 sacrements instead of 7, you don't understand Christianity.

This is a simple question to answer. Jesus made it easier to follow the law. Man complicates it. Jesus said "through my love and sacrifice, all will be forgiven if you truly repent". Man added stipulations. Who do you think had it right? The rule MAKER? Or the thousands of revisionists?

At 12/1/05 02:27 AM, LordXanthus wrote: Alright. I fail to understand this. If there were sufficient materials found to construct a nuclear warhead, then why didn't the administration work extra hard to let us know about it? If this were true, it may well have justified the war for many Americans.

Instead, Bush continues droning on about Democracy in Iraq, as though we honestly care. If the Iraqi people wanted a democracy, then they should have staged their own revolution. The United States has no right to fight another nation based on that nation's government, dictatorship or otherwise.

If that is true, Clinton had no right to save the Bosnian peoples. And on a more personal level, if you notice your neighbor is beating his wife you don't have a right to say shit about it. Yes, we do have a right to fight another nation based on it's government. Especially when that government is:
A. Giving support to several terrorist groups that attack us (HAMAS, among others)
B. Shoots at our planes as we patrol the no fly zone
C. Tries to kill one of our former presidents
D. Sponsers suicide bombings in allied countries
E. Ignores UN sanctions on building weapons
F. Violates Human Rights like Crazy
G. All of the Above and more

Liberals want to issue sweeping changes on a national level to social injustices, mostly imaginary. Conservatives actually impliment changes to real worldly injustices on a World Level. Don't complain about small scale human rights violations then bitch when we fix the real thing on a massive scale.

As the world's strongest nation, it is our duty, not our right, to stop genocide and mass-murder when we can. To stand idly by and do nothing is the same as watching your neighbor beat your wife and not call the cops. You're allowing evil under a pretense of "peaceful neutrality".

At 12/1/05 12:11 AM, TassleHoff75 wrote: Yeah, this is getting kind of ridiculous. It feels like there is this anti-Christian movement that attacks Christianity almost everywhere now, from holidays to public schools to even taking "God" off the dollar bill.

Some of it is necessary, of course. I think that public schools should be as secular as possible from "all" religions, for example. But it does seem like Christianity is being specifically attacked more harshly than other religions in this country. Maybe its a backlash from non-Christians, since Christianity is so popular. A lot of people in our government are deeply motivated by their religious faith, including our president. Actually, almost every president we've ever had as been a strong Christian. Maybe its a backlash, but I dunno.

But anyway, back to the issue. I think anyone who is offended by the word "Christmas Tree" really just has an anti-Christian agenda set, and probably isn't really offended at all. I think some people often abuse their rights in this country in order to deal damage to something else.

I disagree completely. I think the schools need to teach religion, and anyone who dislikes it can homeschool their children. THEY can be the reason their children are idiots. EVERY child should have a basic understanding (not detailed info on sacraments and the like, but general ed) of major religions: Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism, et al. The reason behind my thinking is...without understanding religion, you don't understand people. You don't understand historical AND contemporary events in which religion played a factor in the decision. And you don't understand a majority of the political spectrum. Let's not BS ourselves, religion is an important part of the world. Not at least having a general idea about religion (other than its something crazies practice) is like having 150 pieces of a 200 piece puzzle. You don't get the whole picture.

Other initiatives we need to take...scale back sexual harassment laws. Hearing a dirty joke doesn't impede your ability to work in a non-threatening environment. And fine the ACLU every time they bring a worthless case to the courts.