Who Supports the War(s)

The CS Monitor reports thst the young are more likely to support an Iraqi conflict, than us old farts. Why? You'd think kids who grew up in the Clinton years would have a bit more cynicism. Or maybe thats it we have a generation trained to real politics, goal oriented screw the means. I remember UT making an off-hand comment about the kids who were raised strapped in child seats being hauled around by paranoid soccer moms and how they'd react to college. Well they're here and they've switched allegiance from mom to the nanny state. They'll be rendered no more safe by their new parent than they were parked in front of that airbag.

Now that the elections over-with Bush can compromise on Iraq having acheived his majority. I wonder if these voters will feel used or vindicated?

I have a friend in the Army, and he's seeing the complete opposite there. It is the old-timers who just want to go fight a war, and the young that think there's no justification for it.

Aside from that, I think it is because the young aren't burdened by Vietnam. All my generation has seen is victories - I barely remember Panama, but I remember it being a victory. The Gulf War went astoundingly well, as did Afghanistan. The only situations that were less than victories were Somalia and Kosovo.

So we see the military as basically infallible. We can't remember a lot of bodybags - but when we do, I think the attitude of the youth will shift to a more pacifist attitude if the war goes badly. Remember, the only really nationally unifying even in my lifetime was 9/11. We have nothing else to go on.

It should also be noted that, although I'm 23, I'm pretty emphatically opposed to a unilateral war, and less opposed to a UN backed one.

I'm talking about of my ass, here, but I wonder if part of that is because of the very complete training.

Unlike in the NFL, there is no room for the perfectly-trained army to expect a rout and play down to the level of the opponent. The military has to go in not expecting, but at least planning for the worst-case scenario. I would expect the rank and file to be anxious that maybe the harm's way they are going to see is going to be a shitload of harm.

The rest of us can look at the Vegas line and see we're giving 50 points, and relax a little.

I'm not seeing a clear age-based grouping within the small groups of people I'm familiar with. Instead, it seems that all the people who were strongly in support of retaliation after 9/11 are strongly in support of the Iraq war (which needs a better name).

I would hazard a guess that, moreso than age, upbringing and environment play a large part in one's political outlook: people raised in a very liberal and laid-back household will most likely grow up to be laid back and liberal. The political alignment of most people will probably change over time, yes, but what doesn't?

--Sk

I don't know about age-related differences on this issue. I'd be surprised if it's that cut and dried.

I personally am quite conflicted. On the one hand, I certainly don't disagree with the concept of going over and rooting Saddam out. On the other hand, I think after we do we're going to have a lot of trouble on our hands that a lot of politicians are downplaying. And I think Bush has really done a horrible job with our image in the international community which, like it or not, is important.

I also think we'd have many fewer problems with mideastern countries in general if we would have acted following the oil crises of the 70s to wean ourselves from needing so much oil.

Originally posted by Skunks
...the Iraq war (which needs a better name).

You're right man!
Operation Poppy's Payback? Operation Just Cuz? Operation Armageddon?

Originally posted by Griff

Operation Just Cuz

:beer:

ROFL.... funniest thing I've read all week.

Thanks k, my work here is done. :)

Griff, that article is very interesting indeed.

My generation and the one after that (1981 and beyond) have always seemed to be the anti-war gang...maybe even more so than the 60s. We just listen to angry music, do drugs, and post to places on the net like the Cellar. :) The times, they are a-changing, indeed.

From the article: "'He's really capable of anything,' says Mr. Gardner, who worries about Iraq's potential use of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. 'The only thing you can do is go to war - it's unavoidable.'"

Look buddy, you're just saying that shit b/c as long as you're in college, you probably won't be affected by any type of draft. ;)

besides the majority of Americans and the UN? No one.

Originally posted by slang
besides the majority of Americans and the UN? No one.

The UN resolution was carefully worded so that the US could not unilaterally attack Iraq. But then why would we attack a nation that does not threaten us? It makes one wonder the direct relationship between those who purchase Listerene and those who advocate a unilateral (iilegal) attack on Iraq.

Another in a long line of quality folks against Operation Just Cuz.

Originally posted by Griff
Another in a long line of quality folks against Operation Just Cuz.

sorry guys, your going to have to present better factual arguments other than the "we hate Bush and think Klinton should be the leader of the universe" BS.


If a trillion people think that 2 + 2 = 6...does that make it so? I dont think so.

You left wingers may have had fun patting yourselves on the back bashing the Iraqi war/ Republicans/ Bush but you are in the minority now. Sorry.

Originally posted by tw



The UN resolution was carefully worded so that the US could not unilaterally attack Iraq. But then why would we attack a nation that does not threaten us? It makes one wonder the direct relationship between those who purchase Listerene and those who advocate a unilateral (iilegal) attack on Iraq.

Iraq may not threaten us at this moment. I'll give you that. They may in the near future if they develop the weapons they are hoping to. If they arent developing WOMD they shouldnt have a problem with NON-US inspectors to verify this. Once they have them, we're all screwed any way you look at it.

Why is it that Iraq's illegal act of not allowing inspectors ANYWHERE they want to go not play in your argument that the <I>attack</I> is illegal? If we we didnt have these assurances in the cease-fire agreement from 1991, I would be much more likely to agree with your anti Iraq war sentiments.

I do realize that to a large degree politics is religion to many people. That's fine. It seems to me though that the people opposed to Bush are simply bitter leftist democrats that are trying to kill his approval with the American people. That to is fine but dont think we cant see through you. And yes , I know, not everyone here is from the US. I have never met a right wing foreigner though so please, step forward if you are out there, I'd really like to meet you.

Finally, I think that most of the public in the US does not want to stampede over Iraq and kill thousands of servicemen, women and children. What we fear is that Iraq will build some really nasty weopons and , as we have recently seen, use them against us. We believe Saddam can't be trusted and we need to use force becuase the wimps at the UN wont. Why even HAVE the UN if they cant enforce their OWN resolutions?

Originally posted by slang
You left wingers may have had fun patting yourselves on the back bashing the Iraqi war/ Republicans/ Bush but you are in the minority now. Sorry.

Now? When would you say the left-wingers were last in the majority? Surely, you're not going to say that the current Democratic-controlled Senate and Clinton are really left-wingers, are you?

Originally posted by Griff
Another in a long line of quality folks against Operation Just Cuz.

Operation just cuz (we dont want a crazy dictator to support terrorism with bio-weapons and nuclear bombs)


I do agree you are witty Griff, WRONG, but witty.

Originally posted by slang

If a trillion people think that 2 + 2 = 6...does that make it so? I dont think so.

Yes, it does. "2" and "6" are both arbitrary symbols. I could redefine them so that "2" means the same thing as, say, "4" does to you, and then redefine "6" to your meaning of "8". It'd just lead to pointless confusion, as nobody but me would understand, and thusly be inherrently pointless.

However, if a trillion people agree with me, what's to say your definition of these symbols is more or less valid than mine? Language relies on mass agreement as to its meaning; when any two people agree on the meaning of an arbitrary symbol, that definition becomes valid.

sorry guys, your going to have to present better factual arguments other than the "we hate Bush and think Klinton should be the leader of the universe" BS.

Why is everbody blind to all but the extremes? Sure, it makes for easier arguing, but so does flagrant lying. Just because I'm not with you doesn't mean I'm against you; there are shades of gray in politics, just like there are in life.

--Sk

Originally posted by sycamore


Now? When would you say the left-wingers were last in the majority? Surely, you're not going to say that the current Democratic-controlled Senate and Clinton are really left-wingers, are you?

Is tom Dascle left wing.YES!

Is Klinton (both Hitlary AND Bill) left wing YES!

Thanks slang...you just gave me one of the best laughs I've had today. :)

Originally posted by sycamore
Thanks slang...you just gave me one of the best laughs I've had today. :)

I read your sarcasm loud and clear. If you dont think Klinton isnt left wing maybe I should ask what your definition for left wing is.

He he. You're laughing, I just got called a leftist! Anyway welcome aboard Slang we've been interviewing for an unapologetic right winger here, looks like yer it.

Originally posted by Griff
He he. You're laughing, I just got called a leftist! Anyway welcome aboard Slang we've been interviewing for an unapologetic right winger here, looks like yer it.

Thank you. As you can well imagine , I am not always well recieved. I <I>AM</I> however way to the right of Rush Limbaugh.

Originally posted by Skunks


Why is everbody blind to all but the extremes? Sure, it makes for easier arguing, but so does flagrant lying. Just because I'm not with you doesn't mean I'm against you; there are shades of gray in politics, just like there are in life.

--Sk

My apologies Skunk. I get carried away. Do I think of EVERYONE that are aginst the war a political enemy, no. Most, but not all.


Personally I am not in agreement with all Bush's policies or far that matter the Republicans either. I do however see the national democratic party as the enemy and so are an increasing number of Americans.

Originally posted by slang
I read your sarcasm loud and clear. If you dont think Klinton isnt left wing maybe I should ask what your definition for left wing is.

Actually, there was very little sarcasm there.

And you didn't quite ask, but I'll explain anyway.

The best way I can describe a left-winger in the US is like this: To me, it's one that doesn't think big government is so bad, thinks everyone in this country deserves a Canada-style insurance system, doesn't think raising taxes is necessarily such a big deal (depending on the circumstances), thinks that affirmative action rocks and should be extended to gays, and abhors the death penalty. This obviously doesn't cover everything, but should give you my general idea of the concept.

Had you said "Bill Clinton is a left-winger" between 1992-1994, I might have agreed with you on that labeling. (Now his wife I will agree with you on...she seems pretty left-wing.)

When the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994, Clinton did this dance to the right, where, IMO he became a rather strong centrist. I believe it is the very thing that saved him from becoming a one-term chump. The Democratic party moved that way as well.

By the nature of the Democratic party and the ideals it apparently espouses, I would say that those in the party are left-leaning. You may have a few true left-wingers out there (Wellstone RIP; Nancy Pelosi looks to be one as well, though I know little about her). However, as a whole, when I look at the results of the elections we had last week, I see an incredibly centrist group of congressmen and women, who may lean to one side more than the other...but all in all, I don't see much difference among them.

Why do you see the Democratic Party as "the enemy"...or as I might call it, "the man?"

Originally posted by Griff
He he. You're laughing, I just got called a leftist!

ADMIT IT! YOU DID VOTE FOR RENDELL!!! ;)

Klinton? Well there is a biting political statement if I ever heard one. Wish i could make head or tail of it.

Finally, I think that most of the public in the US does not want to stampede over Iraq and kill thousands of servicemen, women and children. What we fear is that Iraq will build some really nasty weopons and , as we have recently seen, use them against us. We believe Saddam can't be trusted and we need to use force becuase the wimps at the UN wont. Why even HAVE the UN if they cant enforce their OWN resolutions?

Thankyou for demonstrating your lack of understanding of the United Nations.
The UN is by definition a powerless body, it relies on the will of member states to enforce any resolution passed, how such a resolution may be enforced depends under which part of the UN charter the resolution sits. On of Isreal's arguments with its own noncompliance is that its resolutions are under a different part to the ones on Iraq.

Full assembly UN resolutions are more often proxy political statements than motions that are designed to be enforced, the serious business goes on in the Security Council.
I assume by 'wimpy' you are referring to the sanctions, well the reality is that many countries want to do business with Iraq, including allies of America, why? Because nation states don't give a flying fuck about ethics. Now if you're definition of a strong enforced resolution is bombing trucks full of British cigarettes I really am going to have to start wondering about your rather naive view of politics.

I'm yet to see why Iraq would want to bomb the US with chem/bio weapons, i keep silly this rather jingoistic argument and yet even the CIA are saying the risk is bloody miniscule. Saddam is not, contrary to popular opinion some kind of raving loony, he is an intelligent, if despicable political survivor who wants to keep surviving, bombing the US is not a wise way of doing this. As for using them as a cover for an invasion, the same applies, in the short term it might work but it will be his demise. I'm also yet to see any evidence of nuclear development even. So mon ami show me evidence that a: Saddam is crazy b: That Saddam supports terrorism. Or do they fit into the catagory of right wing arcane knowledge?

The parameters for this debate as set my Bush and his echo, Blair is that, without any evidence to support their claims, Iraq has WMDs. (Not WOMDs, learn how to form an acronym)While I'd be surprised if he doesn't the result of this is that if they do find WMDs in Iraq, he's evil and should be taken out, and if they don't then he's hiding them and is evil and should be taken out. It's simple political ploy I'm sure will be put into use as soon as the inspections start.

Is tom Dascle left wing.YES!

Left wing? In the US maybe.

You left wingers may have had fun patting yourselves on the back bashing the Iraqi war/ Republicans/ Bush but you are in the minority now. Sorry.

Maybe in the US. But you're missing griff's point. The spectrum of people that do not support a war on Iraq extends into your own military and intel organisations, what does that say? People in the know, with an intimate understanding of war and world politics think a war with Iraq is a foolish idea. Look I'm saying 50/50 a war with Iraq comes off, and all the hawks can jump up and down and watch bombs hitting buildings live on CNN and crow about being in the majority all they want as far as I care, its still a stupid move.

Why do you see the Democratic Party as "the enemy"...or as I might call it, "the man?"

hehehehehe

Originally posted by sycamore


ADMIT IT! YOU DID VOTE FOR RENDELL!!! ;)

I would sooner have smoked a dog turd as voted for Rendell and I dont smoke, have a dog, or think highly of handling dog waste.

<I>Klinton? Well there is a biting political statement if I ever heard one. Wish i could make head or tail of it.</I>

-- Klinton is a communist sympathiizer. He's smooth and polished but in the end he thinks that government makes people great, they dont strive and develop themselves to achieve their goals, its the government that makes EVERYTHING good. We don't dont believe that here, and we're glad the guy's gone.

<I>Thankyou for demonstrating your lack of understanding of the United Nations. </I>

-- Point taken, I am NOT farmiliar with the detailed workings of the UN, I just know they are ineffictive. Is there a legitimate issue with Iraq developing new weapons? If not, then why all the UN attention? If they are, why are they playing this game of cat and mouse about the sanctions?

<I>I'm yet to see why Iraq would want to bomb the US with chem/bio weapons....</I>

--There is compelling evidence surfacing now that members of the Iraqi army were invloved with the OKC bombing. Bill Klinton, wanting to supress his right leaning political enemies, blamed the bombing on the Mi. militia and a handful of right wing extremists. Was McVieh the bomber, in my opinion, yes. Was he acting alone, in my opinion, no. The result was the drastic reduction in the membership of a group (MM) that was primarily organised for disaster recovery, not overthrowing the gov't.

<I>While I'd be surprised if he doesn't the result of this is that if they do find WMDs in Iraq, he's evil and should be taken out, and if they don't then he's hiding them and is evil and should be taken out.</I>

--I'll learn how to form an acronym if you learn where to place a comma-- from your quote above-" ....if he doesn't (a comma goes here smartguy) the result of this......"

--So it looks like we agree, he's evil and should be taken out. Excellent.

<I>The spectrum of people that do not support a war on Iraq extends into your own military and intel organisations, what does that say? People in the know, with an intimate understanding of war and world politics think a war with Iraq is a foolish idea.</I>

--Thats a legit point, yes. The only thing that makes me wonder is that there were anti-war people howling about what a massive kick in the butt we were going to take in the 1991 war. The exact same arguments are being made now. I think they are fearful of showing force and they are concerned about possible US losses. I share those fears too. The fear of having some wmd (how did I do this time?) effect the US is greater after seeing the 9/11 attacks though.

Why do you see the Democratic Party as "the enemy"...or as I might call it, "the man?"

--Yes, I understand how crazy that sounds. The democratic party (I left the "d" small on pupose) promotes the idea that they are something they are not, mainly that they represent the "little guy". This may have been true 40 years ago, but today they are not. The head of the DNC, Terry McAuliff, turned $100k into 18 million by "legal" insider trading. The company and it's employees lost everything shortly after "Terry got his" by cashing out. He's not the only reason for the company going bankrupt, but being the chairman of the party that supposedly represents the "little guy" wasnt a good move. Or maybe it was, he exposed himself as just as bad as those he attacks.

The democrats are also working to disarm the American population. The second ammendment means what it says, we ARE legally allowed to own, CARRY and USE firearms in defense of ourselves and the state. The tide on this issue is changing here with an active education program that explains the lies of anti-gunners. I honestly wouldn't expect a non-us citizen to agree with me here, many are fearful of guns when they are used in violent crimes. So am I, that's why I carry one, I dont want to be vulnerable. It's true that the defensive use of firearms is RARELY needed in this small town, but when I travel to unfriendly cities, I am secure knowing I have one ready. The democrats are finally learning that little ol' Slang isnt the ONLY one that will fight for the constitutional right to own, carry and use guns. Gore lost becuase of his anti-gun position and just last week KKT lost in Md. by a small margin to a gun-friendly opponent. Lets just hope the dems just drop the issue for the loser that it is.

The biggest complaint I have with the dems is that they just dont believe in the individual. I dont want their socialized heathcare, corrupted unions, stupid emotion based gun laws, and higher taxes on everything under the sun. The dems promote making people weak by attempting to position the government to do things that individuals need to be doing for themselves. I dont need someone to wipe my rear, thank you very much. I also dont need a TAX to have the government WIPE my rear. Each year there is bigger and bigger government, under the dems AND the reps. That makes me uncomfortable. At the very least the reps have the faith that I am smart and capable enough to wipe my own rear. Lets get the dems OUT of office FIRST, then we can oust the reps in favor of libertarians!

Lastly, I dont expect that everyone, or even the majority will agree with me on most issues. Thats fine, if I want to preach to the choir I'll go to a pro-gun site. I AM genuinely interested in HOW some of the ideas are formulated that are listed here in the cellar. They are just as nutty to me as you think MINE are. Also, I hope to convey content here. I am not a writer and if you want to nitpick my posts for grammer and spelling, you can just kiss my ass.

Thank you all in advance for some engaging conversations.

Clinton is a communist sympathizer? Right…..excuse me while i break out my tinfoil hat.

Give us a source for your compelling evidence, I’d love to see it. Well actually browsing newsmax is something I’d rather avoid but I need a good laugh so drop us a link to a vaguely reputable news source could you?

-- Point taken, I am NOT familiar with the detailed workings of the UN, I just know they are ineffective. Is there a legitimate issue with Iraq developing new weapons? If not, then why all the UN attention? If they are, why are they playing this game of cat and mouse about the sanctions?

Sorry, I got it wrong, its not that you'd don't have rudimentary understanding of how the UN works, it's that you don't have a rudimentary understanding of diplomatic relations, pardon me.

So judging from your dems rant, i'm guessing your ultimate government would be heavily armed anarchy?

--So it looks like we agree, he's evil and should be taken out. Excellent.

I'll put that down to sarcasm. Its either that, obtuse arrogance or monumental stupidity.

--Thats a legit point, yes. The only thing that makes me wonder is that there were anti-war people howling about what a massive kick in the butt we were going to take in the 1991 war. The exact same arguments are being made now. I think they are fearful of showing force and they are concerned about possible US losses. I share those fears too. The fear of having some wmd (how did I do this time?) effect the US is greater after seeing the 9/11 attacks though.

This isn't about US losses, I don't give a flying fuck if a albatross mashes the engine of a fighter at 40,000 feet, its about the ethics of waging war on a sovereign nation without provocation. People tend to die at war too, on all sides, which are not a good thing either. Acronyms are usually in caps. Either way i strongly doubt anything of value will come out of this discussion.

<I>Clinton is a communist sympathizer? Right…..excuse me while i break out my tinfoil hat.</I>

Here, maybe this will help.

sympathizer - To feel or express compassion, as for another's suffering; commiserate.

Now I KNOW you are the EXPERT on ALL US and WORLD "diplomatic relations" as well as American politics, but you knew that Klinton provided the N. Koreans' with nuclear power technology, right?

Here, I'm SURE you saw this, but take another look at some exerpts from "telegraph.co.uk"<B> (notice this is NOT newsmax)</B>

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/08/wkor08.xml)

<I>The project was agreed eight years ago as part of a deal in which Pyongyang promised to renounce its ambitions to build weapons of mass destruction.

North Korea also pledged to allow inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency to examine its existing nuclear plants<B> but has never done so.</B>

The Stalinist republic is believed to have<B> stockpiled enough plutonium to build two nuclear bombs</B> but key components for the reactor will be delivered only if the North makes good its outstanding promises. </I>

Now I KNOW you're real smart....tell me, who was the US president 8 years ago that supplied the plutonium to the N. Koreans that is NOW a very real threat. Klinton, very good, you are correct.

OK, here's the tie in. Klinton made this deal as well as making deals with US nuclear technology with China (China is another communist country smart guy) SO......HE'S A COMMUNIST SYMPATHIZER AT BEST AND A TRAITOR AT WORST!

Go put your tinfoil hat on smartguy, and keep smoking whatever it is you keep toking on. Phone in occasionally so you dont spin out of orbit. We appreciate you comments <B>even if they are silly.</B>

The silly comment would be this one.

<I><B>Clinton is a communist sympathizer? Right</B></I>



<I>People tend to die at war too</I>

Look around. People tend to die from terrorism too. And you arent immune, no matter how smart and refined you <B>think</B> you are. Terrorist will kill you just the same as me.

<I>I'll put that down to sarcasm.</I>

WOW, you ARE quick.


<I>Either way i strongly doubt anything of value will come out of this discussion. </I>


Why, becuase I wont allow you to BS this forum unchallenged?


Thanks for making your comments, I am very impressed with your in depth knowlege of diplomatic relations, you CAN SPELL . Bravo!

It's probably just me, but I can't seem to follow long threads that use italics (which indicate emphasis to me) as an indication of quotes.

It is probably easier for slang to type [i] than [quote] and it's certainly easier for me not to read or think about all that ... so we both win.

Originally posted by Nic Name
It's probably just me, but I can't seem to follow long threads that use italics (which indicate emphasis to me) as an indication of quotes.

It is probably easier for slang to type [i] than [quote] and it's certainly easier for me not to read or think about all that ... so we both win.

Sorry about the tag error. This format is a bit tough for me to work with, I'll use the "quote" from now on.

OK, and I'll read your mindless drivel. ;)

Slang, I am sure you will note, as we all have, that ole Jaguar is exceedingly weak on punctuation, and could use some remedial review on the mechanics of the written English sentence. He should slow down and take care, but never does. I'd've made him repeat eighth-grade English, had it been up to me.

He's unacceptably soft on genocide and weak on civil rights, too, but that's an entirely separate issue. Comes of his being either downright anti-gun, or insufficiently pro-gun. The one is despicable, the other weak.

I'm inhaling nice positive energy..................and exhaling tense and negative energy....aaahh..



And putting the vodoo doll of Jaguar down on the table (next to my defensive handun, nut not too close).




This written warfare has kept me up past my bedtime, I'll be back. Take care all.

slang you may want to check the details of that reactor. I'm well aware of it, i did a report on sinoamerican relations earlier this year that included a large subpaper on N.Korea. In fact you're in luck, I'm just about to start going over this stuff for the exam next week so I've got all my docs out and look at this, a detailed doc here. . The rest i have are on paper. You might notice one of the key components of the reactors offered was its low plutonium yield. So in reality its a choice between them building highly unsafe, high plutonium yield reactors, or new, safe, low yield ones. Take your pick. The article is lacking in detail but it sums it all up well enough. Personally I have plans to visit Korea and Japan next year, I'd rather they weren’t covered with fallout form one of the old soviet ones in DPRK going bang. I think Clinton understood this too. Also – that plutonium came from their own reactors, soviet era.

Look around. People tend to die from terrorism too. And you arent immune, no matter how smart and refined you think you are. Terrorist will kill you just the same as me.

I'm yet to see any evidence linking Saddam to recent islamic terrorism.

Ohh urbane moralising again, i thought he'd be too busy looking for sandnigger terrorists to cap. The irony is urbane, I've got an above A average in english, at the top school in the state and had work published. So in short, bite me.

Oh also slang, my knowledge of American politics is by my own admission, patchy. Still waiting for that compelling evidence too, actually now i think abotu it, i'm waiting for *any* evidence of anything.

We appreciate you comments even if they are silly.

I feel depressed becase i am so thoughly vindicated.

Originally posted by slang
I would sooner have smoked a dog turd as voted for Rendell and I dont smoke, have a dog, or think highly of handling dog waste.

Well hey, to each his own.

You still haven't answered the question I originally posed. You only spoke of Daschle and Clinton.

You originally stated: "You left wingers may have had fun patting yourselves on the back bashing the Iraqi war/ Republicans/ Bush but you are in the minority now. Sorry."

To which I asked: "When would you say the left-wingers were last in the majority?"

Originally posted by jaguar
So mon ami show me evidence that [ ... ] Saddam supports terrorism.

OMG LOLOL GET FUKING REAL LUZAR! LOL U R SILLAY!

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/03/25/1017004766310.html

And if that's not enough, you can find more with Google. I'm not going to do your homework for you; this has been common knowledge for a very long time.

[ ... ] Iraq has WMDs. (Not WOMDs, learn how to form an acronym)

Please explain to me, then, how "WMDs" is a valid acronym - i.e., Weapons of Mass Destructions.

Please explain to me, then, how "WMDs" is a valid acronym - i.e., Weapons of Mass Destructions.

You can't form a distinction between a pluralized word in an acronym, so it is correct.

Good work dave, you did such a good job paraphrasing my sentence you mangled it beyond recognition.

I'm yet to see any evidence linking Saddam to recent islamic terrorism.

Common knowledge? Sure. Apply to this? Sure doesn't.
This isn't about Isreali-Palastinian conflict. The support of terrorist groups in Israel in a populist political move and frankly, is incomparable to providing equip, money or safe hiding to people like Al Queda. Oh wait, don't tell me, they're all the same, right?

It's not correct, because if it were, you would have used "a WMD", making it singular. Your lack of "a" means you are clearly talking about plural, so the acronym is clearly "Weapons of Mass Destructions".

I took the snippet because I didn't feel like quoting the whole thing. I made it perfectly obvious that I was cutting (by putting the [ ... ] in). If it were ever unclear to anyone, they could go re-read your post. So that's really a non-issue.

As for linking to "recent islamic terrorism"... it really doesn't get much more clear-cut than his giving reward money to families of <b>Islamic</b> Jihad terrorists. What does Hamas stand for? "Islamic Resistance Movement"... so we have the Islamic part covered.

From dictionary.com, we have

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Sounds just about right for both groups. So we've got "terrorism" covered.

As far as recent... within the last few months is pretty recent to me.

So you'll excuse me if I don't exactly understand what the fuck your pseudo-point is. Don't be an ass. You fucked up on that one, 'cause he <b>does</b> fund Islamic terrorism. Rescind your bogus statement and let's get on to the more serious issues.

Originally posted by dave

Originally posted by jaguar
So mon ami show me evidence that [ ... ] Saddam supports terrorism.



OMG LOLOL GET FUKING REAL LUZAR! LOL U R SILLAY!

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002...7004766310.html

And if that's not enough, you can find more with Google. I'm not going to do your homework for you; this has been common knowledge for a very long time.

Ok, let's refine that then. When has Saddam supported terrorism against the United States? Palestinian terrrorism, which is in response to Israeli Occupation (even according to official US and UN documentation) is one thing, al Qaeda is completely different. Hizbollah (a Lebanese terrorist group and a recognized political party in Lebanon) has not attacked the US since 1982. I don't believe Hamas ever has. al Qaeda, on the other hand, have been linked to a number of attacks. Hussein has supported Palestinian terrorists, but no provable link has been made between him and al Qaeda, besides various claims of shadowy meetings made by the current administration that the CIA refused to back up.

In other words, not all terrorism groups are the same. Left-wing groups of the 60s, for example, are nothing compared to some of the recent religious terrorist groups. In addition, Hamas does not encompass all of the Palestinian terrorist groups. Many of them are secular. And my last point to dave - there are over 160 definitions of terrorism, (a real quick Google came up with this, which is kind of crappy, but shows the tip of the iceberg of this problem) and scholars can not decide on an all-encompassing one. So keep that in mind when you go to dictionary.com for its definition.

I really want to rip into slang here...I haven't had the time to be online for a few days, and this would be a lot of fun. I can be the un-apologetic left winger to his right winger, although I don't believe I am as far left as he is right (esp. if he is more right-wing than Rush; and with my general disdain for Chomsky).

So I'll just make a few comments.

-The DLC, which was the political movement inside the Democratic party (note the capital; if you're going to refer to a popular name, at least try to use some respect - but more on that later) that placed the current leadership in power, is decidedly centrist. Daschle backed tax cuts for the wealthy, and, eventually, the war on Iraq. As a denizen of the American Left, I can say it was furious about the first and split on the second (but leaning against it).

- If you keep referring to Bill Clinton as "Klinton," I'll find a similar name for Bush in any responses to your posts. It is improper and really makes you look like an idiot.

-The UN's sole purpose is to provide a forum for nations to air their grievances, and, with that in mind, I'd say it's done pretty well. Take a look at their charter. Read some resolutions, some speeches, some statements - and then form an opinion on its validity. But don't disavow it without any knowledge of it. Again, that makes you look like an idiot.

- So do blanket statements. American politics are not right, center right and left. There is a huge middle ground, and it would do you well to not ignore it.

- Gun control != anti-gun.

- China is, by most accounts, no longer Communist. See the recent discussion about the continuing change in leadership that was spawned by last week's directional meetings. I don't feel like looking it up, but try news.google.com. So to say that Clinton was a Communist sympathizer because he supported their introduction into the WTO isn't logically sound (I've never seen anything about sharing nuclear technology with China, so I'm relying on a different argument. If you have proof, please enlighten me.). It should be noted that we've extended MFN status to China for as long as I can remember. While I couldn't find an exact date, I know that there was debate about suspending it after the Tianneman Square massacre.

- What compelling evidence is there that Iraq was involved in the OK City bombing? That would be very interesting to see.

- The people opposing the current war in Iraq in the military are generally not doing so because it can't be done, but because the long operation that would be required (by most estimates, we'd have to pretty much run the country for 5-10 years a la post-WWII Japan) would divert resources from the war on terrorism - which is an entirely different thing. I have a friend in the Army whose unit will probably be called to war, and most of them (the people who will be dying) think there isn't enough reason.

- I agree with you that the Democrats have gone off-center, and don't support the poor and working class as much as they used to. However, I'd rather support a party who gives half of an interest to them than a party that outright disdains them.

- Welcome. Even though spelling and grammar bother me, unless they confuse the message, I think it's a dirty argumentive trick. So you won't hear any of that from me (unless, of course, you've screwed up so badly that I have no idea what you're trying to say anymore).

I could have sworn i posted....
I looked back, i screwed up the acronym, didn't notice and was argueing against myself on that one...
On the other hand, i think hermit22 just saved me some time. You're comparing apples and oranges. Or what is in the eyes of the majority of the world legitimate reisitance to an occupation verses an organisation intent on the destrution of the entire western world. On a side note the stinking ball of slime that killed a mother and two toddlers a couple of days ago at that kibbutz should recieve a rear admiral. Along with the Isreali soldier who shot a two year old yesterday.

jag & hermit -

Am I to infer what he meant? All I have to go on are his words, and his words very clearly implied that there was no link between Saddam Hussein and "recent islamic terrorism". I very clearly pointed out that there was. I don't care that it's not al Qaeda - he didn't <b>say</b> that.

Regardless, the "War on Terror" isn't about just al Qaeda anyway. It's one of the big fish, but not the only one. So it really doesn't matter whether or not Saddam is linked to al Qaeda, 'cause just focusing there is a pretty fucking narrow view on the whole thing.

I'll agree that there isn't a whole lot of anything linking him to al Qaeda (but again, I'm not ruling out the possibility either - I am not sold on a war against Iraq, but I could be, if appropriate evidence were presented). But the United States government has more of a purpose than simply "eliminate al Qaeda and its associates". The main purpose is (and should be) "protect the citizens of the United States of America". There are all sorts of threats out there, and the government needs to neutralize them. If Saddam is tied to al Qaeda, hey, great - another reason to go nail him. But it need not be the only reason.

The problem with "terrorism" is that it can be applied to absolutely any rebellion movement anywhere in the world. Do we want to get involved in every single one of those? The Israel/Palestine situation is a mess, but we are not attacking Palestinian terrorists. They generally pose no threat to the US - and they are the only group that Saddam is linked to. In fact, most of the Middle East is linked to the Palestinians - who, while they engage in terrorist activities, are incredibly close to being a recognised entity. (They have observer status in the UN.)

So while Saddam supports their terrorist activities, to use that as the reasoning for going after him is kind of hypocritical. We're not going after the Palestinians are we? Besides that, a lot of people in America and Europe support the Palestinian cause, if not their methods. Not too many support al Qaeda's cause.

Again, WHO THE FUCK CARES? I don't give a shit. That's not my point. I'm not saying it's justification. It's not, even though it's shitty.

My point is very simply that Saddamn <b>can</b> be tied to Islamic terrorism, so jag's notion that he can't be is silly. I'm not saying we need to do anything about it - just saying that the link can be made.

As for the Palestinians... don't lump all of them in with terrorists. They're hardly all bad. I just think your wording is very poor... "Palestinians - who, while they engage in terrorist activities"... only extremist Palestinians do that.

Ok, I'll agree with that. And I apologise, I did make an error in lumping all Palestinians together.

I see your point though, and I concede it. But I must ask: would it be justification for you if he was tied to al-Qaeda?

Am I to infer what he meant? All I have to go on are his words, and his words very clearly implied that there was no link between Saddam Hussein and "recent Islamic terrorism". I very clearly pointed out that there was. I don't care that it's not al Qaeda - he didn't say that.

All depends who you want to call a terrorist really. Secondly Palestinian terrorism (and yes, it is terrorism) is about the state, it is *Palestinian terrorism* first, and its members happen to be Islamic. Whereas Al Queda is Islamic terrorism.

Ill concede my point was at best, inarticulate, on the other hand, yours is moot. Touché.

So if he has no links to Al Queda, and the CIA thinks he is in their own words "low" risk. Why exactly should Iraq be invaded? I mean considering how successful Afghanistan is an all. (can anyone say America's Chechnya?)

Still waiting for slang's OKC/Iraq smoking gun, i could use a good laugh.

Hermit's last point, whether that would be justification is an interesting one. If it could be proven, and it was serious, the answer for me i think would be yes.

Originally posted by jaguar

Still waiting for slang's OKC/Iraq smoking gun, i could use a good laugh.

You won't be laughing long, Jaguar ...

http://www.jaynadavis.com/

Well from her bio i get the impression shes a bitter old hack with an axe to grind. Furthermore the whole thing implies government coverup, which makes no sense at all considering their desperation for anything linking Iraq to well...anything they can use as a flashpoint to excuse an invasion. I see lots of circumstancial evidence, no proof, no documents, no evidence at all. Looks like someone has a big theory and is playing a loose, fast game of connect the dots.

Originally posted by hermit22
would it be justification for you if he was tied to al-Qaeda?

Kinda depends on the level of ties, I think. For example, if he was largely behind the "Holy Tuesday" operation, or provided funding for it knowing what the mission was... then I think that evidence should be made widely available and I imagine that pretty much the entire world would support an effort to topple him and probably put him on trial. And if that was the case, and the evidence was clearly presented and irrefutable... then yeah, I think I'd support action similar to what I described above.

If the linkage is weak - something like "Saddamn telephoned bin Laden afterward and said 'fight the power, brother'"... well, I wouldn't consider that an "actionable" offense.

As I've said before, I'm still not sold on the War on Iraq. If weapons inspectors go in there and find boatloads of nukes/bio-bombs and Saddamn refuses to relinquish them... well, then we probably need to do something about that.

I think that's a pretty rational approach, and I think I mostly agree with it. But I don't feel like googling right now.. what was Holy Tuesday again?

Originally posted by dave
If weapons inspectors go in there and find boatloads of nukes/bio-bombs and Saddamn refuses to relinquish them... well, then we probably need to do something about that.

If that was found, then the world would certainly support operations to remove those weapons. That is a given. The problem remains that the world, who has spies in Iraq, says no such proof exists. The world says no country can unilaterally invade Iraq - regardless of even how the Arab world hates Saddam. Furthermore this nearly unanimous worldwide opinion is correct.

Therein is George Jr's problem. Therein lies the value of Colin Powell whose views coincide closer with mine. A 15-0 vote in the Security Council is an affirmation of Colin Powell's opinions vs George Jr's extremist advisors. Even Syria, Mexico, and Germany voted for it (the latter two being close American allies that totally and publically disagree with George Jr's right wing extremist advisors).

UN resolution passed because it was carefully worded to demand the US/Britian first get Security Council permission. Under Dave's scenario, the Security Council would have no problem authorizing use of force against Iraq - as would I. But until there is indeed a threat - a threat that Saddam's neighbor's see and appreciate - then there will be and should be no justification for military action.

That is the point. Every nation providing intelligence to the US and every nation that would be targets of Saddam's WMD don't view Saddam as a threat. Even the CIA comes to the same conclusion. Those conditions must be reversed to justify use of military force - a concept that George Jr's right wing advisors cannot be bothered to acknowledge. It is that right wing extremist mindset that make this US administration so dangerous and makes Colin Powell so essential to American security.

It was this same mindset that almost got us into a shooting war with China over a silly spy plane. It is these same right wing extremists who also want revenge on Saddam for making them so foolish. Saddam is only still there because those same right wing extremists screwed up while in the George Sr administration.

09/13/2002 The Daily Standard

<B>Why Can't the CIA Keep Up with the New Yorker?</B>
[url]http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/648rrstd.asp[/url]

by Stephen F. Hayes

IN WHAT SHOULD go down as one of the most under-discussed revelations of the war on terrorism, an unnamed "senior counterterrorism official" told the Washington Post Tuesday that the CIA is aware of credible reports documenting Saddam-al Qaeda coordination in northern Iraq, but hasn't checked them out.

Someone remind me why George Tenet still has a job.

In March, the New Yorker ran an exhaustive--16,000 words--account by Jeffrey Goldberg detailing the plight of the Kurds in Northern Iraq. It was an extraordinary piece of journalism--the kind that journalism awards are created to recognize. I distributed the article to dozens of friends and colleagues.<B> It turned Iraq doves into hawks, and skeptics about a war there into believers. </B>

Goldberg sprinkled his prose with caveats--about the possible motivations of the Kurds, about the differing agendas of Saddam and Islamic radicals. That skepticism made his account more credible. But what ultimately made the report convincing was the detail. Goldberg named the prisoners, he explained their relationships, he recreated their battles, and he described their travels.<B> In short, his work is verifiable.</B>



3/25/2002 The New Yorker

<B>THE GREAT TERROR (This is very long)</B>

http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?020325fa_FACT1

by JEFFREY GOLDBERG

The possibility that Saddam could supply weapons of mass destruction to anti-American terror groups is a powerful argument among advocates of "regime change," as the removal of Saddam is known in Washington. These critics of Saddam argue that his chemical and biological capabilities, his record of support for terrorist organizations, and the cruelty of<B> his regime make him a threat that reaches far beyond the citizens of Iraq.</B>

"He's the home address for anyone wanting to make or use chemical or biological weapons," Kanan Makiya, an Iraqi dissident, said. Makiya is the author of "Republic of Fear," a study of Saddam's regime. "He's going to be the person to worry about. He's got the labs and the know-how. He's hellbent on trying to find a way into the fight, without announcing it."

On the surface, a marriage of Saddam's secular Baath Party regime with the fundamentalist Al Qaeda seems unlikely. His relationship with secular Palestinian groups is well known; both Abu Nidal and Abul Abbas, two prominent Palestinian terrorists, are currently believed to be in Baghdad.<B> But about ten years ago Saddam underwent something of a battlefield conversion to a fundamentalist brand of Islam.</B>

<B>The Kurdish intelligence officials I spoke to were careful not to oversell their case; they said that they have no proof that Ansar al-Islam was ever involved in international terrorism or that Saddam's agents were involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. But they do have proof, they said, that Ansar al-Islam is shielding Al Qaeda members, and that it is doing so with the approval of Saddam's agents.</B>

The Kurdish intelligence officials told me that they have Al Qaeda members in custody, and they introduced me to another prisoner, a young Iraqi Arab named Haqi Ismail, whom they described as a middle- to high-ranking member of Al Qaeda. He was, they said, captured by the peshmerga as he tried to get into Kurdistan three weeks after the start of the American attack on Afghanistan.<B> Ismail, they said, comes from a Mosul family with deep connections to the Mukhabarat; his uncle is the top Mukhabarat official in the south of Iraq. They said they believe that Haqi Ismail is a liaison between Saddam's intelligence service and Al Qaeda.</B>

I havent checked JEFFREY GOLDBERG's credencials, but the report seems well researched and well written. As we see from these 2 articles, there is some type of problem with the US intell agencies. It may be omnious or not, I have more to say about that later (with references).


<B> I have many more replies to the questions/comments earlier. I dont have time to respond right now but will soon, thanks for your patience</B>

Still waiting for slang's OKC/Iraq smoking gun, i could use a good laugh.

I'm sorry Jag, I really didn't mean to use the words "smoking gun". Can you show me where I posted them , I need to change them. Thanks.

You gave the impression you had one.
That's a lovely article about an article about the Kurds, how terrible, another oppressed group. Terrible. Bit like the Palestinians really, course the US supports their oppression. Or some of the horrible regimes in South America the US supports/ed, or the ones in Africa or....

Stephen F Hayes I get the feeling, got his qualifications in a Christmas cracker.

Neither of the articles mentions any link between OKC and Iraq.

My guess is there is more to this than meets the eye. The most likely scenario in my mind is that the Kurds are talking shit and the CIA know it, it wouldn't shock me and it wouldn’t be the first time. The second most likely scenario is that what the CIA are well aware, and are doing something about it but because they are the worlds premier Intel force its not making the papers, always a sign of good operation. Of course you can never rule out sheer incompetence. On the other hand considering how desperately Bush is looking for anything to make that link to justify a war I doubt this has been overlooked.

Stephen F Hayes I get the feeling, got his qualifications in a Christmas cracker.

Neither of the articles mentions any link between OKC and Iraq.

Your lack of patience with me regarding the OKC connection is disapponting considering you "get feelings" about someone's qualifications without a specific reason given, muchless any supporting references.

I am not a researcher, and not a writer. I do have a point to make as do you. Hang tight, we can debate this after I complete the background and post the results. There are many others I owe a response to.

Your lack of patience with me regarding the OKC connection is disapponting considering you "get feelings" about someone's qualifications without a specific reason given, muchless any supporting references.

While i don't acutally seen any connection between thsoe two things and i'm yet to see you actually refute anything by anyone.........

Someone remind me why George Tenet still has a job.

I think that covers it. I've seen better essays written by year 9s, its something you'd expect to see posted on here or any other forum, not a news article or an opinion piece. A quick wander though the site appears to reveal the be most B grade rubbish i've seen published.

Just curious jag, have the kurds been suicide bombing, targetting innocent Iraqis in Baghdad?

and your point is....?
They don't have the US and Biritsh airforces keeping them safe either.

To which I asked: "When would you say the left-wingers were last in the majority?"

When I said that I was speaking specifically to the US Senate, although I'm sure I wasnt clear.

Tom Daschle has been the Senate Majority leader since Jefford's defection. More than a few people that pay attention, see that as the same technicality that put W in the White House. It was a power grab, and we're pissed.

While we dont think that all Democrats in the Senate are neccessarily totally left wing, having the Democrats in the majority gives them the control of the issues that come up for vote. I would say having Daschle in control has killed the chances of anything even remotely right from coming up for vote.

One thing we are concerned with is the Supreme Court. We want Justices that are in favor of the second ammendment, that believe in states rights, believe that there are enough special legal privileges for minorities. The religious right also wants very desparately to overturn Roe v. Wade. I personally dont have an opinion on abortion. Since they hold a strong influence on Republicans I tend to overlook the issue entirely. I DO understand how powerful the pro abortion movement is and respect their concern over having pro-life Justices on the bench.

When this last election changed the majority in the Senate, we were very happy. We now feel that some of our legislation will at least come up for a vote. That's all I am asking for, a vote.

But you already have a vote in the house - and you've had it for a while.

And listen, the Democrats may have controlled the agenda in the last Senate session, but that doesn't mean the agenda was full of left-wing bills. What got passed? Tax cuts? Patriot act? Homeland Security may have stalled, but that's Bush's fault (co-opted Lieberman's idea, twisted it, and sent it back as something no Dem that wants to be elected can vote for). Right wing judges have been stopped, but at nothing like the rate of left and center-left judges from Clinton that never got a chance. So lots of things that are remotely right-wing have hit the floor, and gotten a vote. Resolution on Iraq anyone?

It's nice to see someone from the right admit that Bush became President through a technicality. :) I'm not one of the people who are constantly up in arms about the whole situation, but I do think it's funny to hear you admit to it. However, Jeffords was driven out by Bush as much as he was welcomed by Daschle and Dodd.

Finally, those articles you sent were about Iraq - but not about Iraq and OKC. And Stephen Hayes's credentials - he's a smart guy, but he has an agenda. The Weekly Standard is one of the largest conservative weeklies, and he is one of the editors. I'm not discounting the work - I just think you have to remember the writer's bias. Same thing whether it's from the Nation or the National Review, etc.

Hermit 22

-The DLC, which was the political movement inside the Democratic party (note the capital; if you're going to refer to a popular name, at least try to use some respect - but more on that later) that placed the current leadership in power, is decidedly centrist.

<B>Daschle backed tax cuts for the wealthy</B>
Yes, he did back the tax cuts, but only after holding it up for some time, apparently hoping to have some leverage in getting a deal for "displaced workers". By the time he signed it had support from all but the MOST leftwing Senators, a short list he would not have wanted to be on. So, I wouldnt be upset with him if I were you. He held up the vote as long as public opinion would allow, then cut a deal for the left.

http://www.c-span.org/capitolspotlight/cq121001/index.asp

http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/rva/1072/107244.htm


The only other comment I have is that the wealthy PAY most of the taxes and I believe they should get some of it back. I know we disagree here but I think it's worh saying. I dont want to go into this today, but here are some numbers and references for a possible debate at another time.

Only The Rich Pay Taxes

Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.09% of Income Taxes

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html


http://www.ctj.org/html/senstim.htm

<B>and, eventually, the war on Iraq. </B>

I think this was just another game he was playing, trying to make W look bad (which he doesnt NEED help). If you remember that little rant on TV with Daschle saying something like "how dare you politicize the war Mr presedent" you will see that he was doing the same thing trying to obstruct support for the war. I'm not saying he was wrong, thats his job to vote his convictions. But as we look back we see that he was just "politicizing the war" which was exactly what he was bashing Bush for. He did all he could to stop the vote from happening and having the majority PASS the res, because there was an <B>election</B> coming up and he had to keep the people from endorsing Bush via going after Saddam. After all the BS stopped and the resolution came to a vote, it passed overwhelmingly in the House and the Senate. A large number of Dems even voted for it.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

<B>As a denizen of the American Left, I can say it was furious about the first and split on the second (leaning against it)</B>

<B>I will say in total honestly that your opinion has forced me to look very carefully at the decision to go after Iraq. I am still leaning for going , but with much less resolve.</B>

There are still many unanswered questions.

The last comment was answering Sycamore's question.

I am VERY slow at the keyboard, and often can find supprting links etc. I have many things to say about the possibilty of OKC/Iraq connection. I'm not going to charge right into the forum and say there is a smoking gun, but there are some very basic questions that need to be answered. I havent forgotten, I'm answering your other comments first.

<B>this is in response to Hermit22's comment

- Gun control != anti-gun

These may more accurately address anti-gun bias but I'm trying to move it along and get some responses out.</B>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11/15/02

<B>Gun Company Must Pay Teacher's Widow</B>

http://www.click10.com/mia/news/stories/news-178688020021114-161135.html

Grunow's lawyer asked for $76 million. But the jury found gun distributor Valor Corporation 5 percent liable for Grunow's death. The owner of the gun and the school board held the most of the liability, the jury found.

The jury didn't find any liability for Brazill, who pulled the trigger. Brazill stole the unloaded gun and bullets from a cookie tin stashed away in a dresser drawer of family friend Elmore McCray.
<B>The jury said Grunow's family should get $24 million from the three parties. The school board was told to pay her $10.8 million, the family friend was told to pay $12 million and Valor $1.2 million.</B>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The media in this country is beyond gun control , as we see in this one small example in wording of this article.They want the manufacture and use of them to fade away. Gun control is what exactly? Keeping guns out of the hands of people that would use them illegally. I would agree with that, but thats not what they are after. If they truly wanted to premote handgun safety and reduce gun violence the headline might look like this

<B>Irresponsible Gun Owner Must Pay Teacher's Widow</B> or

<B>School Board Must Pay Teacher's Widow</B>

It could be said that the "gun owner" headline would be senseless because he doesnt have the money to pay the judgement, the second headline with the school board would be able to though. The school board headline wouldnt be a consideration because the agenda is placing <B>the gun</B> responsible, regardless of the facts and for that matter, even the jury's verdict.


If you look at who the jury found most responsible for the shooting, you will see that the the actual shooter isn't even listed. The owner of the pistol was most liable, the school slightly less liable, and the gun distributor was <B>dramatically </B> less liable. According to the jury , Valor was 5% responsible. Even at being 5% responsible , the writer put that in the headline. It was in one respect a noteable win. The precedence has been set (although this must pass through the appeals process) that a criminal can use a product<B> illegally</B> to hurt someone and those responsible for the manufacture or sale may be held liable. I'm not a lawyer, but that seems to be the case, although I dont have any supporting opinions or references.

The owner in any case needs to take the responsibility for leaving a firearm accessable to a minor. Even I think that's pretty fucking stupid and he needs a good thrashing.

I'm sure you disagree with my position here, but my goal for reading and posting here is to learn and explain.

<B>Thats not the only example of gun control advocates placing the blame on the gun and not the criminal though. There was another telling statement I heard on the radio recently that jumped out as being downright anti-gun, lets take a look</B>


Can we agree that Chief Moose of Montgomery county Md. is in favor of gun-control? I can present the background, though it would take some time. Let's say for the sake of argument, he is. He's for "sensible gun control". He seems to be anti-gun though and this is what leads me to that conclusion.

This article doesnt focus only on the anti-gun bias but has a quote supporting what I heard on the radio, that I cannot document as a reference.


Nov. 8, 2002 World Net Daily

<B>Chief Moose cost lives</B>

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29590

by Paul Sperry

<B>When Muhammad and Malvo were arrested, Moose said the task force got the "gun" off the street, not the sniper. </B>

And, in an unsettling plea to the public at one press conference, he said, "You need to ask yourself: Who do you know that owns guns, and why?"

Since Bushmaster sells 50,000 AR-15 rifles a year and there arent 50,000 sniper shooting a year, wouldnt it be better said that the <B>criminals</B> were off the street, or maybe the <B>shooters</B> were off the street? He makes the gun sound like it's the problem, it's not. Chief Moose is a sharp guy and holds a doctorate, but he was exposing the anti-gun bias he has. More than likely he supports "sensible gun control" but the agenda is clear to me anyway.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<B>Another thing that I've just recently noticed was the absence of much information in the mainstream media regarding the resignation of Professor Michael Bellesiles. He wrote a book that took a slam at "the gun culture" (which I am one of) and totally misrepresented the facts. The Brady center backed him and he even recieved an award. I'd like to see this asshead flamed becuase he got a lot of attention from ant-gunners. I'm not asking for much, maybe CNN running a story on how he scammed the public. If my searched missed it......................never mind</B>

<B>"As for Michael Bellesiles ... this guy is turning out to be the Milli Vanilli of the academic community."</B>
Russell Baker of Atlanta, GA in a great e-mail now quoted in the Washington Times 1/01/02


Oct. 28 , 2002

<B>Professor quits in probe of gun book</B>

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021028-78905499.htm

By Robert Stacy McCain

Michael Bellesiles, the history professor who wrote that firearms were rare in early America, has resigned from Atlanta's Emory University after an investigation found he<B> "willingly misrepresented the evidence"</B> in his award-winning book.
Published two years ago, Mr. Bellesiles' book, "Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture," garnered praise from gun-control advocates, won the prestigious Bancroft Award and was fiercely criticized by scholars who accused Mr. Bellesiles of misrepresenting or even fabricating evidence.

October 25, 2002 Emory University - Office of University Media Relations

<B>Oct. 25: Michael Bellesiles Resigns from Emory Faculty</B>
[url]http://www.emory.edu/central/NEWS/Releases/bellesiles1035563546.html

Although we would not normally release any of the materials connected with a case involving the investigation of faculty misconduct in research, in light of the intense scholarly interest in the matter I have decided, with the assent of Professor Bellesiles as well as of the members of the Investigative Committee, to make public the report of the Investigative Committee appointed by me to evaluate the allegations made against Professor Bellesiles (none of the supporting documents, however, are being made public). The text of the report is now available online at www.emory.edu/central/NEWS/.

http://www.emory.edu/central/NEWS/Releases/Final_Report.pdf


<B>I know this needs work but I'm letting it fly for time reasons.</B>

I think I just heard someone on the radio that is more radical than me. It was Lee Rodges on KSFO in San Fran

he said something like "We need to blow Iraq clean off the godam map and then ask who's bleeping next?"

I think that's a bit much. Does that make me a centrist? :)

Originally posted by slang
...If you look at who the jury found most responsible for the shooting, you will see that the the actual shooter isn't even listed. The owner of the pistol was most liable, the school slightly less liable, and the gun distributor was dramatically less liable. According to the jury , Valor was 5% responsible. Even at being 5% responsible , the writer put that in the headline. It was in one respect a noteable win. The precedence has been set (although this must pass through the appeals process) that a criminal can use a product illegally to hurt someone and those responsible for the manufacture or sale may be held liable. I'm not a lawyer, but that seems to be the case, although I dont have any supporting opinions or references...

This is very curious. I wonder if this kid had beaten the teacher to death with a Louisville Slugger if Hillerich & Bradsby would have had to pay 5%? I guess that would depend in part on the widow's lawyer's skill in convincing a jury that H & B had designed the bat for killing in the first place. That might be a bit of a stretch for a bat, but people get the purpose of a gun no matter how it may be described.

What is more curious is the media's seemingly broad based bias against gun ownership. Bleeding heart, leftie, pinko that I am; I agree that the bias is there. What I don't get is why. Most of the media is owned by a small group of powerful corporate giants that in large measure depend on the Right to keep us pinko's from taking them apart and giving newsprint and bandwidth back to "the people" to whom it belongs. I certainly don't find these companies to be on "our" side, the left one that is. What are they up to?- I keep thinking. That said, I am for gun ownership: Not for protection from the criminal element, I remain unconvinced that it provides more protection than it causes danger; Not for sporting purposes though eating venison is slightly more honest than buying chicken at the store; The reason for gun ownership is to provide the means for revolution should that become necessary as at least Jefferson intended.
.

Two questions for you, slang:

1) When you say "we," who are you referring to?

2) Are you saying that the UN is ineffective overall, or just in dealing with Iraq?

OKC BOMBING - MIDDLE EASTERN CONNECTION

What compelling evidence is there that Iraq was involved in the OK City bombing? That would be very interesting to see.

I agree, that would be very interesting. There are truly no smoking guns that link Iraq to terroism. If there were, the numbers supporting this war would be radically different, at least in american public opinion. Depending on what your source is, the numbers vary widely. I would like to see some progress on one question that's been nagging me, as well as millions of others.

There has been a consistent story, running here, running there, about this <I> crazy</I> woman from Oklahoma City, Jayna Davis. Her story has almost become an urban legend. It hasn't been until fairly recently that she's been taken seriously in the main stream. Well, lets say that she's recieved attention from the mainstream. Have her claims been investigated and proven or disproven? If she was indeed a crackpot, you would certainly see and hear something public and messy eliminating her argument, point by point. Maybe that wouldnt even be nessessary, she may be labeled a kook by some heavy hitter, someone respectable and having some influence. That hasn't been the case.

There have been more than a few credible people to give this case some airtime. Bill O'Rielly, Arlen Specter, The Wall Street Journal, as well as some smaller metro newspapers . Each has asked some good questions, checked out the story by calling gov't agencies and following up. Each attempt to verify basic info has been flatly rebuffed by the FBI. So, thats the end of the story, the FBI shut the door on it, it's a non-issue, she's nuts. If the FBI's "no comment" as well as an absense of any major media attempts to force the feds to release some basic documents is good enough for you, then I concede the point. I'm nuts, you're right, there isnt any fire here, it's all smoke at best. This is only a flimsy attempt to gain momentum for the war and a BAD one at that.

If you have some questions though, I think there are lot to be asked.

I searched the net and JD isnt selling anything, no books, no tapes. This doesnt clear her by any means but it takes away the money motivation angle. Is there another angle? If there was, wouldnt it be promoted by some columnists or reporter? There isnt, it's fishy.

The whole OKC investigation was done with suspicious haste, they dont want to dig it back up. Many people are not buying the FBI's conclusions. Disproving Davis point by point would take the steam out of 90% of the OKC bombing conspiracy theories. In a time when they are trying to look competent in light of their 9/11 screwups, why not issue a statement or have Davis make the same presentation to them? They could show what a nut she is by disproving her claims point by point, on tape, the whole thing would evaporate in seconds.

One of the things she claims is that there were 12,000 Iraqi soldiers allowed into the US after the 91 war. If this were true, we could certainly check on this, <B>using her own documentation or the INS's.</B>If this hasnt already been done, why can't we have it done. If they cant or wont do it, <B>why do we have these worthless boobs keeping records? </B>

What is the political opposition saying about the notion that a senior Republican senator is giving this issue the floor? Nothing. Why, wouldnt this be a great opportunity to slam the republicans? I can hear it now on some political show, "the Republicans are now so desparate for support for pappy's war, Spectre's suggesting that Jayna Davis( moderator chuckling) should get time to present her "conspiracy theory" to Congress (laughing outloud)!"

After reviewing hundreds of documents and websites, articles and commentaries on Jayna Davis, I am no longer asking myself if there is a connection, but WHY there has not been some official inquiry long before now.

I dont know this woman and I dont really care if she is proven to be a loon. It's time we put this whole circus to the test though. Maybe now we can.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By MARK RILEY

NEW YORK CORRESPONDENT
NEW YORK

Friday 23 March 2001 The age

http://www.theage.com.au/news/2001/03/23/FFX4JWSBLKC.html

<B>Suddenly a crackpot theory gains credence</B>

Nicols plans to use the bin Laden link as part of his defence when his case is heard in Denver later this year. His lawyers hope it will help him avoid the death penalty.<B> Ms Davis will be called as a witness.</B>

It will not be the first time Ms Davis has been to court. Last year, she filed a defamation suit against the Oklahoma Gazette over reports labelling her theory a product of "fakery and embellishment". The two stories in question were headlined "Out on a limb" and "Liar, liar".

She said the stories damaged her reputation as a journalist. That reputation appears to have been considerably enhanced this week as hordes of journalists flock to her to capture their own piece of the latest conspiracy theory to captivate America.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 15, 2001 Fox News

<B>O'Reilly Transcript: Has the FBI Ignored Information?</B>

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,24825,00.html

This partial transcript from The O'Reilly Factor, May 14, 2001 was provided by the Federal Document Clearing House. Click here to order the complete transcript.

BILL O'REILLY, HOST: In the "Unresolved Problem" segment tonight, investigative reporter Jayna Davis told us a few weeks ago that she tried to deliver information to the FBI about others involved in the Oklahoma City bombing but was rebuffed. Ms. Davis joins us now for an update from Oklahoma City.
Well, we finally got the FBI to tell us why they didn't take your stuff, Jayna, and they said they didn't want to have it on file so that they would have to turn it over to McVeigh and Nichols' attorneys in discovery because they couldn't check out what you said, and that seemed to make sense to me. Does it make sense to you?

JAYNA DAVIS, FORMER KFOR INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: Absolutely not. This was turned over initially in June of 1995 and I made several attempts in the following months, in the spring and summer of '95, to share this information with the FBI and they were very interested initially and I was talking to an FBI agent regularly in May and June of 1995. So I don't understand why it's...

O'REILLY: Yeah, but they came to the conclusion if we take information from this woman and we haven't checked it out and McVeigh and Nichols' attorneys want it, we have to turn it over to them and that's going to hurt our prosecution.

DAVIS: Yes, but they lost interest, Bill. In September and -- I'm sorry, in the spring and summer of '95. I went back to them in September of '97 to turn it over.<B> But they had plenty of time between the spring and summer of '95 and September of '97 when I returned. </B>

O'REILLY: To check your story out.

DAVIS: Yes, they did.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 20, 2002 Fox News

<B>Tim McVeigh and a Possible Iraqi Connection</B>

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,55844,00.html

John Gibson

<B>I think we're all convinced by now that George W. Bush has the cross hairs on Saddam Hussein.</B>

And it's clear from the latest Fox News Opinion Dynamics poll that the American public supports action against Saddam by a huge, huge margin: 75 percent for — 14 percent against. In electoral politics that's a landslide.

But what do you think those numbers would be if it turns out reporter Jayna Davis is right? If the Iraqis were behind the Oklahoma City bombing, and Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols were in fact so called 'lilly whites' recruited to act as fronts for Muslim or Iraqi, or maybe even Iranian, terror against the U.S. heartland.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

September 5, 2002 WSJ.com

<B>The Iraq Connection</B>

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110002217

BY MICAH MORRISON

<B>Was Saddam involved in Oklahoma City and the first WTC bombing?</B>

The prosecutors in both episodes believe they got their men, and of course conspiracy theories have shadowed many prominent cases. Still, the long investigative work by Ms. Davis and Ms. Mylroie, coming to parallel conclusions though working largely independently of each other, has gained some prominent supporters.<B> Former CIA Director James Woolsey, for example, recently told the Journal that "when the full stories of these two incidents are finally told, those who permitted the investigations to stop short will owe big explanations to these two brave women. And the nation will owe them a debt of gratitude." </B>

Larry Johnson, a former deputy director of the State Department's Office of Counter Terrorism, also has examined Ms. Davis's voluminous research. "Looking at the Jayna Davis material,<B> Mr. Johnson says, "what's clear is that more than Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols were involved. Without a doubt, there's a Middle Eastern tie to the Oklahoma City bombing."</B>

None of this is "hard evidence," let alone "conclusive evidence," that Saddam Hussein was complicit in Sept. 11 or any of the other domestic terrorist attacks. But there is quite a bit of smoke curling up from various routes to Baghdad, and it's not clear that anyone except Jayna Davis and Laurie Mylroie has looked very hard for fire. We do know that Saddam Hussein plotted to assassinate former President George Bush during a visit to Kuwait in April 1993. Could he have been waging a terror offensive against the U.S. ever since the end of the Gulf War?<B> This remains a speculative possibility, but a possibility that needs to be put on the table in a serious way. </B>

September 26, 2002 Fox News

<B>Poll: U.S. Split On Pre-Emptive Attack</B>

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,64174,00.html

Twice as many Americans view Iraq as an indirect threat than as a direct threat. Over half of the public (55 percent) is more concerned that Iraq will supply weapons to terrorists, while about one-quarter (23 percent) are more concerned that Iraq will attack the United States,<B> and 15 percent think both possibilities are of equal concern.</B>

Oct 2002 ChicagoMag.com - True Believer

http://www.chicagomag.com/stories/1002true.htm#more

By Steve Rhodes

As he descends into the fuzzy world of dot-connecting on the fringes, I wonder, How did this come to be? Has he always been like this—or did the impeachment send him off the rails? After all, until then, he was known as a<B> brilliant lawyer and staunchly loyal Democrat</B>—his first cousins, with whom he grew up and remains close, include Joe Lyons, a Chicago Democrat in the state House, and Tom Lyons, chairman of the Cook County Democratic Central Committee. When he was named to the impeachment inquiry,<B> Schippers was almost universally described as possessing “the utmost integrity.”</B>

“Well, you know, when I was out there in Washington for the impeachment, I heard this conspiracy stuff about Oklahoma City,” Schippers says. So when he got the Oklahoma woman’s letter, he says,<B> “I thought, Here’s another nut. The same ones who will tell you that Bush had the towers pushed down.</B> But she had some specifics in there. I called her. I said, ‘Do you have any evidence?’ And she said, ‘Yes, I’ve got affidavits.’ I’ve got this, I’ve got that.

<B>“Now I’m starting to think, Either she’s nuts, and I’m gonna get a whole load of affidavits in crayon, or the woman’s got something.”</B>

Good—he thought it was nutty, too.

“She was an investigative reporter, so I gave her a little credit. Then she mentions she had been working with the<B> Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare.</B>

“I said, ‘Why don’t you send me what you’ve got.’ She said, ‘I can’t send it. I’m afraid to put it in the mail.’ And I thought, OK, well, why don’t I turn on my radio and you just beam it up here?

“She says, ‘I’ll come up there and bring it to you.’ Now, remember, I was getting calls like this all the time—‘I’ve got information and it’s coming through my fillings,’ and all that. She and her husband turned up about two weeks later.”

Dramatic pause.

<B>“This woman is the best investigator I have ever seen,” he declares. He opens a bureau behind his desk and points to three fat black three-ring binders. “See these three volumes down here? This is what she brought.” The one he pulls out and hands to me says on the cover, “Oklahoma City Bombing, Investigative Evidence, Middle East Complicity, Volume One.”</B>

That, of course, is where Schippers’s office is. But despite all the craziness that has walked though his doors, he isn’t nuts. He just has faith in the evidence of things unseen—and in the kind that comes in big black binders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted on Thu, Oct. 03, 2002 Michael Smerconish Philli.com

<B>CONSPIRACY: The Okla. City-Sept. 11 Connection</B>
http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/opinion/4201780.htm

Now I know why former CIA Director James Woolsey has been quoted as saying that when the full truth is known about these acts of terrorism, the nation will owe Davis "a debt of gratitude."
Why her name is not already a household word is the greatest mystery of all. Just this week, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that<B> U.S. intelligence has "bulletproof" evidence of links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.</B> Rumsfeld didn't offer specifics. But here is what we know from the work of Davis.

<B>Davis has 80 pages of affidavits and 2,000 supporting documents</B>, and they suggest not only an Iraqi connection to the Murrah bombing, but also to the attacks against the Twin Towers.

Oct 5, 2002 Phillinews

<B>Specter asks probe of Iraq links to WTC-Okla. attacks</B>

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/local/4217752.htm

Rose DeWolf

U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter is calling for a probe into allegations of a possible Iraqi connection between the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City six years earlier.

<B>Specter said he has no plans to pursue the investigation himself, however, but has written to FBI Director Robert Mueller suggesting that the possible connection is worth pursuing.</B>

"I'm a little surprised that this hasn't gotten more attention, given that there is so much concern about whether Iraq has any connections anywhere," Specter said.

Oct. 10, 2002 Michael Smerconish/Philli.com

<B>SPECTER & THE JOHN DOE NO. 2 CONNECTION</B>

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/opinion/4251116.htm

What is it that the government doesn't want made public? Is she a crackpot, some kind of conspiracy nut? Does her work under scrutiny resemble Swiss cheese?

Or is it that she ruffles feathers when reminding us that the first APB after the Murrah bombing was for two Mideastern-looking men?<B> Perhaps somebody doesn't like her uncovering the presence of an Iraqi cell in America's heartland?</B>

21 October 2002 Thisislondon

<B> Iraqis linked to Oklahoma atrocity</B>

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/1678779

James Langton

Since then, Davis has<B> gathered hundreds of court records and the sworn testimony of two dozen witnesses.</B> Several claimed to have seen a man fitting Al Hussaini's description drinking with McVeigh in a motel bar four days before the bombing.

<B>But she has evidence that up to 12,000 Iraqis were allowed into America after the Gulf war.</B> Some of these, she suspects, are using their status as refugees for cover. "They are here," she said. "And they are highly trained and motivated."

Nov. 2, 2002 WorldNetDaily

<B>Reporter stands by allegations</B>

Jayna Davis rebuts critic, says evidence shows Iraq involved in attack

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29513

By Jon Dougherty

"It is my understanding that my staff has contacted both the FBI and Justice Department requesting a briefing on the issues raised by these allegations, and these requests have been rebuffed," wrote Specter. "It is also my understanding that such a briefing was offered to former CIA Director Robert J. Woolsey Jr., but that he declined the FBI's offer."

"I would appreciate your comments on whether these allegations warrant further investigation," he said.

As of last week, Specter's office had yet to receive a response. Calls to his office yesterday were not returned.


I've also been trying to track down an alleged US House committee investigating this and havent been able to find it , although there are several smaller websites that have claimed it is just beggining.

I also found it interesting that the oringinal investigation to the wtc attack is being reopened (unconfirmed report heard on ABC News).

The background research for the whole "who supports the war" question took me many places. The US Intell agencies are apparently having quite a conflict between the CIA and the FBI.


The creation of the Homeland Security Agency may play a part in why these two are in such a struggle, I cant say for sure without sticking my foot in my mouth for a lack of supporting info.

I think it can be safely said that both agencies have lost credibility with the american people on some basics, and we're fucking tired of hearing we cant know due to "national security"

Maybe we'll get some answers.

I like a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, and while I don't think it impossible for Iraq to be involved in the OKC bombing, I'm still skeptical. After all, this would be the perfect time to implicate Saddam in that...a lot of people are still wary of our boys heading back to Iraq for Desert Storm 2: The Motherlode of All Battles. And yet, I'm still mainly hearing the cries of conspiracy. Not to mention, the FBI looks like complete dogshit right now anyway...wouldn't they want to blow open something like this to repair their reputation? Truth be told, this sort of thing should be front page news right now.

Specter's not a bad guy. Although, he was the one saying the Electoral College should be looked at after the 2000 Election...I never heard any follow up on that. Smerconish has his moments, but I think he likes to hear himself babble more than anything.

1) <B> When you say "we," who are you referring to?</B>

The extreme right wing. We want our gun rights back, less gov't in general, to rip the tax code out by the roots/prosecute the tax people, and to keep our sovereignty as a nation.

I dont agree with the religious right though. THEY, are fucking crazy bastards :)


2) Are you saying that the UN is ineffective overall, or just in dealing with Iraq?

This gets complicated, read through these first and then I can explain more

This is an official document from Louis Freeh, former head of the FBI

http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress99/freehct2.htm

THE UNITED NATIONS - is perceived as an organization bent on taking over the world and destroying American democracy and establishing "the New World Order." The New World Order theory holds that, one day, the United Nations will lead a military coup against the nations of the world to form a one-world government. United Nations troops, consisting of foreign armies, will commence a military takeover of America. The United Nations will mainly use foreign troops on American soil because foreigners will have fewer reservations about killing American citizens. Captured United States military bases will be used to help conquer the rest of the world.

So...you like referring to yourself as "extreme?"

The way you listed that "United Nations" blurb is incredibly misleading. You make it look as if that is Louis Freeh taking that position, when he is actually referring to militias.

for crying out loud slang do what everyone else does and post links, no links and the article, i can click them all by myself, it makes the thread bloody unreadable.

Originally posted by sycamore
So...you [b]like referring to yourself as "extreme?"

The way you listed that "United Nations" blurb is incredibly misleading. You make it look as if that is Louis Freeh taking that position, when he is actually referring to militias. [/B]

I understand that I am in the minority in this forum. The Cellar
has been described to me as having a majority of left leaning participants on the upper end of the intelligence scale. That is why I am here, to learn and explain. I am on the opposite end of this spectrum and have a very hard time understanding the thinking of many people in this country. This is an exercise to help balance me, or at the least understand in depth the opposition's opinion

In this forum I am the extreme right, in my everyday life, I am just right leaning.

The quote from the letter was not intended to say Freeh believes this, I should have been more specific. It was to say that there are a substancial number of people that at least partially believe this. The quote sets the stage for an explaination and some examples. I believe that I can learn from the people in this forum, and at the same time at least explain the position of the right wing extremists.

Originally posted by jaguar
for crying out loud slang do what everyone else does and post links, no links and the article, i can click them all by myself, it makes the thread bloody unreadable.

I'm sorry, I was attempting to make reading them easier. The entire articles are not posted, just a part, where the rest of the article can be accessed for additional information.

I dont plan on posting that much again because it is extremely difficult to paste in and modify to look correct.

The format also bombed out on me twice while loading it, I'm not here to kill the server.

This might give you a rough (and I do mean rough) idea of where the main posters stand. You might even want to try the Political Compass yourself.

The results from the test are -3 and change and -1 and change, I saved the chart but I went back to look at it and I cant open it.


<B>I like a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy</B>

I do too, but I thought that WJC's Monica problem was just rumor until it really got some attention. Up until that time I had heard that he was everything from an alien to the anti-christ.
No matter where you stand on the outcome, I think it could be said that the prior rumors of conspiracy were laughed at. After the facts came out it didnt seem so silly.

This government has lost a great deal of credibility from the coverups. I dont know how we can get some trust back, even committee investigations are political.

<B>COMMUNIST LINKS TO CLINTON</B>

If you keep referring to Bill Clinton as "Klinton," I'll find a similar name for Bush in any responses to your posts. It is improper and really makes you look like an idiot.

Maybe. Depends on who you ask. I have seen Clinton spelled with a "K" more times than I can remember. Why would we do that besides just to look like asses? It has been my understanding that WJC was quite cozy with the Soviets, Chinese, and the North Koreans. This was alleged to have been well before the fall of the wall and the change in communism to a more capitalistic brand.

The most recent and seemingly clear ties to communist China that WJC had was in the Wen Ho Lee case. The last I remember hearing about this was actually a few years ago, but it has stuck with me. The allegation I heard went something like WHL gave the Chinese secret weapons technology and then soon after, WJC recieved campaign money from China. A lot of it, and in a way that was considered borderline illegal, if not outright. A review of the whole case reveals no clear ties to WJC, or even that WHL was actually a spy.

That's my mistake and I apologize.

While WHL did actually plead guilty to some felony in the handling secret weapons videos, the ties to WJC were not there. It does seem suspicious that he would not voluntarily account for the videos, and at the same time the Chinese have technically similar nukes, the case has apparantly been put to rest.

As for any other possible links of WJC to communists, if I come across something , I will post it.

http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/05/19/lee5_19.a.tm/

http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/02/03/cia.deutch.02/

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2000/09/aj091000.html

Hey slang, thanks for responding in a concise, coherent manner with citations. It's refreshing, even if the format can get confusing.

My mind is absolutely mush right now; too much time reading and writing papers this weekend. In fact, I looked at that last post of yours and thought you were saying that there was unequivocable proof that Clinton was somehow tied to Wen Ho Lee. I think I need a break.

I haven't really bothered to read the rest of your posts yet, but I will get back to you. Since you seem to be changing your opinion on the Clinton-Communism connection, maybe you'll shift opinion on other matters as well? It's never good to base your ideologies on hearsay (which isn't to say that we don't all do it, or that you do it with each of your beliefs). A little research and understanding goes a long way.

While I'm at it, I did see one other thing I wanted to comment on. I saw that court case where a gun company was held liable for a murder, and I don't think it will hold water on appeal, nor do I think I should. I talked about it more in my blog the other day.

I saw that court case where a gun company was held liable for a murder, and I don't think it will hold water on appeal, nor do I think I should.

and from your blog ...

While I admit that I don't know the specifics of the case, I'm not sure I find this to be fair.

You really ought to consider going to law school. I don't know if you have the prerequisites, but I think you're more than ready.

<B>And another thing , while I'm at it</B>

After posting the OKC bombing info I continued looking for the committee that is conducting the investigation. I found it , although have not confirmed it through a independant source.
We are still not to the point of revealling the smoking gun but the FBI seems to have lied about some key information, looking more and more suspicious.

The FBI originally denied the existence of some surveillance videotape from the buildings around the Murrah building shortly before and after the blast. A FOIA suit shows that there are some to be seen. They<B> may</B> show something relevant to the case. They may also just show something totally irrellevant to the case but embarrassing to the FBI. Either way I believe that the evidence needs to be reviewed by the GRC. This shell game is pissing me off.

http://www.indystar.com/print/articles/9/001153-8709-021.html

I'm also firing off an e-mail to Specter to tell him that we <B>are</B> watching (OK, me, I am watching) and that we think it's important to resolve this, Iraqi involvement or not.

I dont expect we'd see OBL or Saddam on those tapes, but I <B>sure</B> would like to know what <B>is</B>.

Originally posted by jaguar
for crying out loud slang do what everyone else does and post links, no links and the article, i can click them all by myself, it makes the thread bloody unreadable.

Given the length of the overall post, I think Slang made the right decision in terms of both posting links in addition to directly quoting the relevant bits of the supporting articles.

If you have something to say about his posts, address the CONTENT not the format.

In short, stop whining.

<h4>Chefranden</h4>

The reason for gun ownership is to provide the means for revolution should that become necessary as at least Jefferson intended.

(Slang falls to the floor, bumps head )What!? Let me take another look at your post.

Yes, thats what you meant. <B>I totally agree with that statement</B>, but rarely hear anyone say that. Maybe because people fear we are getting close to the edge of revolution. I'm not crazy about the idea myself, however, I strongly believe that we need sweeping changes in this country that are unlikely to happen through the process of voting. My voting finger is twitching now, lets hope we dont get to the point where our trigger fingers need to twitch as well.

It's also important to say that the firearms are of no value to any revolution if they just hang on the wall or collect dust in the closet. In the past 5 years, in response to the percieved threat of confiscation of guns, the shooting sports have expanded but I dont have any hard data on how much. Here in rural Pa., there is a new pistol range being built in this TINY town and the membership of the high power rifle shooting league is growing. Any way you look at it, I see this as a good thing. People need to know how to shoot. It doesn't help anyone to have firearm related accidents.

Another point that I've heard more than a few times is that we dont need firearms in civilian hands for the purpose of resistance to tyrrany . That line of thinking says that the modern weapons of the military are so high tech, small arms couldnt defeat them, or even be effective. They may not. That's not the point. <B>The volume of small arms makes them effective, not their power or their technology</B>

Anyway, I looked on your profile and see you're a Nam vet. On behalf of the country I'd like thank you for your service. We appreciate your sacrafice. Some of us still see Veteran's day as something other than an excuse to buy a recliner with zero % interest .

<h4>hermit22</h4>

What got passed? Tax cuts? Patriot act? Homeland Security may have stalled, but that's Bush's fault (co-opted Lieberman's idea, twisted it, and sent it back as something no Dem that wants to be elected can vote for).

[url]http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html[/url]

I'd like to state for the record that I am not leaning in favor of the patriot act. There are some specific new provisions that are of concern to me. These are just a few that popped out at me. I dont speak "legalese" but these seem suspicious without digging in.

Sec. 104. Requests for military assistance to enforce prohibition in certain emergencies.

Sec. 201. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to terrorism.

Sec. 351. Amendments relating to reporting of (banking) suspicious activities. (This one really bugs me)

Sec. 356. Reporting of suspicious activities by securities brokers and dealers; investment company study. (This one too)

Sec. 359. Reporting of suspicious activities by underground banking systems.

It seems pretty silly that the patriot act was needed to make these changes, but just scanning the text, they seem pretty reasonable.

Sec. 205. Employment of translators by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Sec. 403. Access by the Department of State and the INS to certain identifying information in the criminal history records of visa applicants and applicants for admission to the United States.

Sec. 405. Report on the integrated automated fingerprint identification system for ports of entry and overseas consular posts.

And let me keep my comments for the "Homeland Security" re-org to a minimum by listing these quotes.

http://www.cato.org/dispatch/11-08-02d.html

According to Ivan Eland, Cato's director of defense policy studies,<B> "even before the September attacks, the U.S. government had sufficient bureaucratic machinery to deal with terrorist attacks on the homeland without adding a new department."</B> He added,<B> "the real problem revealed by the terrorist attacks is too much bureaucracy - causing too many communication and coordination problems - not too little."</B> In his commentary, "Bush Plan is Just 'Do Something'", Eland outlines the flaws that could render a new homeland security department ineffective.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28400

Meanwhile, despite evidence of an increased threat to U.S. security from such Islamic terrorist groups, former FBI Director Louis Freeh and his former deputy, Robert "Bear" Bryant, were shifting the bureau's counter-terrorism efforts to combatting threats from anti-government militia groups, violent white supremacists, anti-abortion groups and other "right-wing extremists."

http://europe.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/07/26/homeland.security/?related

Bush's proposal calls for all or parts of 22 government agencies to be pulled together under the umbrella of a single department committed to protecting the nation from terrorist attacks. The proposed department would have nearly<B> 170,000 employees,</B> and a budget of $37.4 billion.

And Stephen Hayes's credentials - he's a smart guy, but he has an agenda.

I agree. He was just bringing up Goldberg's report though. I had to dig to find it and I dont remember seeing CNN giving it much coverage. It must not have been credible or was irrellevant. It didnt seem to be, but it hasnt recieved a lot of attention.

Hey slang, thanks for responding in a concise, coherent manner with citations. It's refreshing, even if the format can get confusing.

Your welcome. Its much easier to, at the very least, follow my thought process by looking over the supporting text.

Since you seem to be changing your opinion on the Clinton-Communism connection

Now wait a second Hermit. Let me clarify. I have found on a couple issues that have been distorted by some news sources and not followed up. As for WJC. I'm not finding the cold hard facts that supposedly indict him on <B>many</b> issues. It seems likely that I need to re-evaluate some positions here. That doesn't mean I have dissmissed the other allegations prior to my own research, I'm just letting up on the grip I have on his neck a bit. The list of WJC scandals is long. I still think Dem politicians suck , I just dont say it as often out of respect.

A (hopefully) daily summary of my intellectual journey through the<B> National Security Studies</B> masters program at my college

You may very well be someone I have been looking to talk to. You may be able to provide some books or articles on some security related issues . That would be appreciated.

<h4>Nic Name</h4>

Wow, this is funny! I wasnt expecting to see that on your page.

"Want a BIG Penis?"

Originally posted by wolf
In short, stop whining.

Thanks for the support Wolf but you missed the point. If posting as I have been keeps Jag from pestering me.....WHY CHANGE IT?

Yeah, who says I don't like tasteless humor, when it's done intelligently. ;)

Slang, as much of an incredibly-left clamorer as jag can be, he can provide some great insight at times...you two can spend many hours debating the polar ends of the spectrum. :)

Nah...fuck that...I want a battle royale. Hermit and Jag vs. Slang and Urbane Guerilla...that sounds like a real treat! ;)

Now Slang, I read the Freeh report. Could you kindly explain your stance on the UN?

As far as Clinton and Communism...as I see it, the US has been trying to break open the communist world pretty much since the Bolshevik revolution. Trying to do business with countries such as North Korea and China is not only noble in nature, but just makes good business sense. I don't doubt that there are some secrets the Chinese have obtained...but it works both ways.

You know what's funny? In my travels both in the real world and online, I've found that foreigners seem to take a great interest in our country...its history and political structure. Moreso than maybe some Americans. Of course, it usually helps if they've spent some time here, but I rarely see or hear of Americans doing such research into other countries, beyond "scholars."

(Come on Jag...fuck Britain...come to the States. Come to Philadelphia...you know you want to. :) )

Now Slang, I read the Freeh report. Could you kindly explain your stance on the UN?

I'm not farmiliar with the specifics of how the UN works. The goals of the UN seem pretty reasonable, but they require some changes in the US that I find threatening. I'll throw some examples together to illustrate some key points without writing 20 pages. This might take some time though. Look for something in the next day or so, I'll have something for you.

Again, slang, I apologise that I can't address all of your concerns. I'm in the middle of writing a 45 page paper (stupid grad school!) and I'm just taking a break. If you want any information on national security, terrorism, or any such concept, just send me an e-mail; I'll be happy to respond as soon as I can.

Let's see...what did I want to address? Oh yeah, the UN. I'm a fan of the UN; I think it has served its purpose (provide a forum in which governments can express their grievances with each other instead of going to war) well. I'll actually be at the UN building for a few days this Spring, but that's a different story. Check out the UN Charter. The Basic Facts about the UN is another good place to start.

I just want to make sure... were you quoting the Patriot Act or Homeland Secuity? I think that the basic idea of the Homeland Security Department isn't bad. However, I don't like a lot of the riders that have been tacked onto it by the house any more than William Safire
does. I also think the attempt to de-unionize a good portion of the federal government in one fell swoop is disturbing. It basically says that any President can hire or fire any worker in that department as they see fit, and to me, that gives the President too much power. The banking tracking stuff was in a previous bill, but I believe it got struck down as unconstitutional. It's unsurprising that they would try it again.

Sycamore, it will be live on ppv next month.

Yep, I'm sure none of us four would mind getting arena sand sticking to our sweaty faces, all to entertain Sycamore Imperator!

:p ... Ave!

Originally posted by hermit22


Let's see...what did I want to address? Oh yeah, the UN. I'm a fan of the UN; I think it has served its purpose (provide a forum in which governments can express their grievances with each other instead of going to war) well. I'll actually be at the UN building for a few days this Spring, but that's a different story. Check out the UN Charter. The Basic Facts about the UN is another good place to start.

I just want to make sure... were you quoting the Patriot Act or Homeland Secuity?

I understand you are in favor of the UN . It may help you personally to understand why everyone isnt though. There is a side to the UN that you may not have seen. You are in Cali. The country does not see life as all of you there do. I am attempting to gather some key points with some of my personal experiences to give you perspective.

The quoted sections from the prior post were from the patriot act, which is inaccurately named by the way. A closer look shows it makes relatively small changes to existing laws and procedures.

IMO the homeland security act is not needed. This is my opinion as an engineer that has never worked in nor has experience with huge government bureaucracy. It concentrates too much enforcement and intelligence power into one agency.

As for the unions, I have witnessed first hand how fucking useless union work is. Though I do not believe people should be fired summarily, it is important for a business to shed the dead wood to remain competetive. A job does not exisit only to give a person an income, the position is created from a need of the company. From my experience, the unions are a bad thing. I understand you disagree.

Wolf: I prefer people to post content, not articles. When people write their arguements in the own words its far more useful. If i wanted to read a collection of news articles i'd read a newspaper.

Slang: Yea i know you'd prefer i didn't, pull bullshit, like DPRK reactors and comunist clinton links or whatever, people are going to call bullshit round here myself included. I"m really interested to see what you're on about with the UN, should be entertaining.

I still don't buy the Iraqi/OKC thing, its still a very long way from making sense. On the other hand its interesting nad i wouldn't be too shocked if there was something in it.

Originally posted by jaguar
Wolf: I prefer people to post content, not articles. When people write their arguements in the own words its far more useful. If i wanted to read a collection of news articles i'd read a newspaper.

Content like you post? Mr. Jaguar, I have absolutely no doubt you are an extremely intelligent young man. I also have no doubt you are miles ahead of me. What I do doubt is your ability to make a valid point without it being just your opinion. What makes you support a specific idea? We rarely know, or at least I rarely know. You assume that everyone is from a similar background as you and has read the exact same information. On top of that you seem to "get feelings" and pass judgement very quickly on issues that you are both unfarmiliar with and disagree with in general principle. This makes both of us look like asses when either of us do this. And, it's your option to access the supporting information that is posted, but it's not required.

Participate in the coversation or not, I don't care. Your responses are weak in comparison to Hermit's. He seems to be interested more in understanding a given postion and debating it. He and I disagree on many issues but I can respect his ability to present the argument with something other than opinion. After reading his posts I can at the very least follow why he supports an idea. You Jag, on the other hand, try to prove to everyone that you are very intelligent with your responses. I doubt anyone would disagree, but you fail to make a rational argument to those of us that are not of exactly the same political background as you.

You could very easily change the opposition's opinion of you from "someone that needs to be bitch-slapped silly from one end of the room to the other" to "someone I disagree with but also respect". I personally hope you raise the bar. You have a lot to contribute, but your arguments thus far are unconvincing.

Slang: Yea i know you'd prefer i didn't, pull bullshit, like DPRK reactors and comunist clinton links or whatever, people are going to call bullshit round here myself included. I"m really interested to see what you're on about with the UN, should be entertaining.

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say in the first sentence. That I'm full of bullshit I guess. The communist links to Clinton that I have researched show no conclusive evidence that WJC is a communist sympathizer. And , in these examples, I look like an ass. That isnt to say that other events couldn't lead one to believe that he's a little too cozy with the communists. They would only be an opinion though and I'm looking to avoid opinion without supporting evidence. When and if I have time to make a case that WJC is crooked or red, I will do so. There are many other issues to deal with at the moment.

I'm not providing my "other side of the UN" post for you Jag. When I make a case, you spike it immediately and discredit it by either saying the writing to support the arguement is bad or that you "get feelings" that it's false or invalid. You also totally ignore the fact that tens of millions of people also have opinion as I do and that there must be something that led us to a given conclusion. I don't post for you. That's an exercise in futility.

I still don't buy the Iraqi/OKC thing, its still a very long way from making sense. On the other hand its interesting nad i wouldn't be too shocked if there was something in it.

I say most respectfully Jaguar, it doesnt make sense to you. This is a very complcated case and there are many details that are relevant. I cant say that I buy the case either. What draws me to this controversy is the is the degree that the FBI and the DOJ have attempted to hide supporting evidence and have outright lied to the Government Reform Committee. If you arent following the case, the possibility of middle eastern accomplices seems weak. If you look at the the findings of the committee and the surrounding circumstancial evidence that could easily be proven false, it seems incredible that there isn't something to all this.

At this points, I dont think anything will come of this. Time is running out and the committee must conclude their inqury soon, without key supporting evidence that Ashcroft wont release, for whatever reason. After following this as closely as I have though, I will always be suspect of the FBI, the DOJ, and my government in general.


I also have some offline things I have to do that will hold up the completion my anti-UN explaination. After I finish that, I also have a LOT of other things that will limit my time to reply to questions but I'll do my best.

<h3>See, someone else thinks WJC is a Communist too!</h3>
"This administration must be in bed with the Chinese, because right now, our tax money is propping up a Communist dictatorship that has missiles pointed at us as I speak." - James Traficant November 16, 1999

And thus he demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the nuances of diplomacy, or at least is trying to rabble rouse, one of the two, I'm leaning towards the latter. Its teh difference between diplomatic niceities, America follows the One China Policy for example and realpolitik on the other, America sells advanced weapons systems to Taiwan and keeps a fleet in the reigon.

If you disagree with a specific comment I've made, feel free to ask for sources. I provide them when I think they’re necessary, such as the analysis about the reactors being offered to the DPRK. I assume your comment about snap judgments is based on my opinion of the supporting article you posted about the Iraq/OKC link. That was made after skimming most sections of the site it came from, and reading 3 other articles on the site, as well as reading the main articles on the reporters page and skimming the other information on there and some of the links on the site as well.
I wouldn't call it a snap judgment but either way his writing style was decidedly unprofessional, I'm suspicious of any published material that is because it suggests the source of not particularly credible. Other articles on the site too were of a very amaturish nature, which suggested a writer who had little or no professional training or experience.

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say in the first sentence. That I'm full of bullshit I guess. The communist links to Clinton that I have researched show no conclusive evidence that WJC is a communist sympathizer. And , in these examples, I look like an ass. That isn’t to say that other events couldn't lead one to believe that he's a little too cozy with the communists.

So what you are actually saying amongst that wonderful load of circumlocution is that you hold an opinion without any factual basis whatsoever, and thus don't feel safe about expressing your bias on here because you cannot support it.

Glad we cleared that up.

As for the Iraq/OKC thing, as I posted earlier, the Bush admin is desperate for anything to link Iraq to terrorism against America, while Occam’s razor would put that down to incompetence, i find it hard to believe there is not a better reason. There is quite possibly something in it, but it's not the most likely not the obvious answer.

I'm not providing my "other side of the UN" post for you Jag. When I make a case, you spike it immediately and discredit it by either saying the writing to support the argument is bad or that you "get feelings" that it's false or invalid. You also totally ignore the fact that tens of millions of people also have opinion as I do and that there must be something that led us to a given conclusion. I don't post for you. That's an exercise in futility.

I covered why i thought that article was unreliable at best, either way it was second teir information, more of a footnote than anything else. The case is interesting, but I'm going to attack any flaw I find, I intend to go into journalism, I’m naturally cynical of *everything*, often not entirely equally, but we all have our biases. I supported why I felt the article was dodgy, and received no reply, for you to then argue i based my attack on emotional denial is therefore an incompetent fallacy at best and a deliberate attempt to discredit though misrepresentation of the truth. by the way using the bold tag doth not make your points any more valid.

And thus he demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of humor

This is a joke. Traficant is currently in prison and has said some of the weirdest things I've ever heard from a member of Congress. That's what makes it funny. I was attempting to be funny by quoting Traficant to support my previously disproven statement of WJC. Sorry you didnt get it.

<a href="http://www.thememoryhole.org/traficant/one-minute-1999.htm">I yield back all the flatulence in China paid for by the EPA.</p>

I've stated previously, i'm not that familiar with US politics, though that name should have rung a bell, read something about him recently, sounded like quite a decent fellow really. Least you know what the openly corrupt ones are doing, far more trustworthy. It fitted your 'if lots of people think the same thing it somehow becomes valid' theory quite neatly, so i naturally assumed the worst.

Originally posted by slang
See, someone else thinks WJC is a Communist too!
"This administration must be in bed with the Chinese, because right now, our tax money is propping up a Communist dictatorship that has missiles pointed at us as I speak." - James Traficant November 16, 1999

Yeah, Traficant's real credible when it comes to calling out sneakiness. ;)

Please excuse me for interjecting, but the Title of this thread should be more accurately called, Who supports ending the Gulf War?....
I contend that war is ongoing with Iraq and did not end. The minute Saddam broke the terms of surrender, he effectively un-surrendered erasing that ending. For the last 11 years, the only one who realized the war was still ongoing was Saddam!
To this day, he wages war....it's time to end the Gulf War!

Jaguar, when the OKC bombing happened in 1995, many eyewitnesses stated there was a middle eastern looking man fleeing the scene. Don't even try to hang this on President Bush wanting Iraq, because in 1995 Bush was Governor of Texas, not Oklahoma...
and I doubt he reads tea leaves to predict a need for this scrap of information in the future.
Talk about conspiracy theories! Sheesh!
Our prisons convert anybody who wants to convert to terrorism. Even gullible white boys like McVeigh, even PuertoRicans like Padilla....did you know that Padilla is married to McVeigh's sister? True. I believe it was Padilla running from the scene in OKC, but no one seems to want to know for sure.

Sycamore, The Chinese do have missles pointed at us this very moment, as did the Soviets back in the day. We don't have missles pointed, but we do have a protocal of attack planned out to follow.

did you know that Padilla is married to McVeigh's sister?

Wow...I forgot about that and I'm pretty "up" on what's going on with the whole case. That's just coincidence though ;)

Jaguar, when the OKC bombing happened in 1995, many eyewitnesses stated there was a middle eastern looking man fleeing the scene. Don't even try to hang this on President Bush wanting Iraq, because in 1995 Bush was Governor of Texas, not Oklahoma...

huh? What's 'this' ? A new war? Please, try again and next time try and articulate your point more clearly.

Cairo & slang

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Cairo

did you know that Padilla is married to McVeigh's sister? True.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Responded Slang

Wow...I forgot about that and I'm pretty "up" on what's going on with the whole case. That's just coincidence though ;)

The plot thickens ... Lana Padilla is the name of Terry Nichols ex-wife. What do you make of that?

http://www.cnn.com/US/OKC/facts/Investigation/IndictDeadline8-4/

http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/1997/Nov-20-Thu-1997/news/6457168.html

It is noted here that Lana Padilla told the Wall Street Journal that she was not aware of having any relation to Jose Padilla.

A final note: Much has been made of the fact that Terry Nichols was married at one point to a woman named Lana Padilla. Lana Padilla acquired that surname — a common name — through a subsequent marriage. There is no known relation between Lana Padilla (who gained the surname by marriage) and Jose Padilla, according to Lana Padilla, quoted in the Wall Street Journal on June 17, 2002.

If Padilla is married to McVeigh's sister, as well, you might want to post that here.

Originally posted by Cairo
Please excuse me for interjecting, but the Title of this thread should be more accurately called, Who supports ending the Gulf War?....
I contend that war is ongoing with Iraq and did not end. The minute Saddam broke the terms of surrender, he effectively un-surrendered erasing that ending. For the last 11 years, the only one who realized the war was still ongoing was Saddam!
To this day, he wages war....it's time to end the Gulf War!

It's not just Saddam. We've (along with the British) been running a full-on bombing campaign since 1998.

Jaguar, when the OKC bombing happened in 1995, many eyewitnesses stated there was a middle eastern looking man fleeing the scene. Don't even try to hang this on President Bush wanting Iraq, because in 1995 Bush was Governor of Texas, not Oklahoma...
and I doubt he reads tea leaves to predict a need for this scrap of information in the future.
Talk about conspiracy theories! Sheesh!
Our prisons convert anybody who wants to convert to terrorism. Even gullible white boys like McVeigh, even PuertoRicans like Padilla....did you know that Padilla is married to McVeigh's sister? True. I believe it was Padilla running from the scene in OKC, but no one seems to want to know for sure.

First, why does a man of Middle Eastern descent have to be somehow involved? Couldn't they be just running from a big explosion? I know I sure as hell would want to get my white ass out of there.

Second, McVeigh (as far as I know) was never in prison. There have been no connections between him and any extremist groups, just a specific ideology (Christian Identity). Most of his inspiration came from reading The Turner Diaries - in fact, the OKC bombing was almost a line by line reading of that book. I actually just started reading it for school (the seminar about Christian Identity is next week so no, I'm not reading it to become an anti-Semitic racist pro-gunner); for anyone who's interested, it's available here.

Hi Hermit22,
Nice to hear from you. You say, "It's not just Saddam, We've been running a full on bombing campaign since 1998." Let's see, how can I put this in the nicest way possible....
It never is the rapist, is it? It's always," Her skirt was too high, her blouse was too low." and "What was she doing out at that hour, she was just asking for it." Pathetic! Like blaming a woman for being raped, or blaming the VanDamm's lifestyle for their daughter's murder...blaming US is totally appalling. It is just Saddam, and everything we have done is reactionary to what he did first.

It doesn't ~have~ to be a middle eastern man, but that's what the witnesses and evidence shows. Witnesses saw the two(McVeigh and JD#2) in the rental truck driving around the day before the bombing as well as fleeing from the scene.
I think Nichols was the one who had the terrorist connection, not McVeigh.

In my travels, I've noticed how some Latinos look almost Asian...it could be the Native American ancestry. Some of them I've seen also look Middle Eastern. Some folks say I look Latino or Arab, though most of my ancestry is Native American and German.

Hmmm...eyewitnesses say a middle eastern-looking man fled the scene right after an incredibly traumatic event. Eyewitness testimony can be incredibly flawed...hmmm.

I'm not betting with those kind of odds.

So what exaclty has Saddam done this time? As far as we have proof, not much i can think of.

Originally posted by sycamore
Hmmm...eyewitnesses say a middle eastern-looking man fled the scene right after an incredibly traumatic event. Eyewitness testimony can be incredibly flawed...hmmm.

I'm not betting with those kind of odds.

Great point. Eyewitness testimony is the least reliable. That's why we need to have the Feds release the surveillance tapes from the surrounding buildings security systems. These have been confirmed to be under seal. You know, the ones that arent supposed to exist but yet have been verified to exist by a Federal judge looking into the FOIA suit. These tapes may very well show nothing. I would bet that there isn't anything convincing on them. The way they are playing with the evidence is suspicious though.

<a href="http://www.townhall.com/columnists/billoreilly/bo20021102.shtml"> As O'Reilly points out in a recent </a> article, it doesnt look like we'll be getting any answers on any topic in the near future.

<a href="http://www.indystar.com/print/articles/9/001153-8709-021.html">Here's the article that </a> says the tapes do exist.

<a href="http://www.fair.org/extra/0207/mcveigh.html">I also found this while looking for any credible evidence.</a> So the above article may be wrong. Who the hell knows? If Ashcroft would release the tapes maybe I could move on to another possible conspiracy. Like maybe the Malvo sniper case....misguided young sniper, or CIA operative? :)

My hard drive crashed and all my background info on the UN is gone. I'll get the original arguments posted when I can

My hard drive crashed and all my background info on the UN is gone.

I wonder if there is a conspiracy between Microsoft and the Department of Disinformation to prevent slang from getting us the dirt on the UN. ;)

Originally posted by Nic Name
I wonder if there is a conspiracy between Microsoft and the Department of Disinformation to prevent slang from getting us the dirt on the UN. ;)

I'm on it Nic Name

Originally posted by Cairo
Hi Hermit22,
Nice to hear from you. You say, "It's not just Saddam, We've been running a full on bombing campaign since 1998." Let's see, how can I put this in the nicest way possible....
It never is the rapist, is it? It's always," Her skirt was too high, her blouse was too low." and "What was she doing out at that hour, she was just asking for it." Pathetic! Like blaming a woman for being raped, or blaming the VanDamm's lifestyle for their daughter's murder...blaming US is totally appalling. It is just Saddam, and everything we have done is reactionary to what he did first.

Next time read what I say, and then post a diatribe. Try to keep it on topic.

I was simply responding to a quote that "the only one who realized the war was still ongoing was Saddam!" You said it, you should remember it. So what did I say? That the war has been ongoing since 1991? That we began Operation Desert Fox in 1998 by dropping bombs on Baghdad? Or some vague reference to the cut on a woman's dress? Maybe you're trying to make some unsubstantial connection between Lewinsky's dress and Desert Fox (both were going on at the same time)?

Most of the world realizes that a limited war has been ongoing for many years. We are shielded from it by the media because, well, frankly, we don't care. There's no drama, so whatever.

Whatever, indeed....try to comprehend the last line of my post,"It is just Saddam, and everything we have done(Desert Fox,Food for Oil, and No Fly Zone conflicts) is reactionary to what he did first(un-surrendering).
The "diatripe" before that line was to all the "Blame America"(for all the World's woes) wankers
out there...if you are not one of them, it wasn't to you then.

Anyone who thinks an attack on Iraq is a pre-emptive action, doesn't realize that the Gulf War has not ended yet. And well frankly, it's about time we cared.

Hey Sycamore,

I'm still gathering evidence of the coming UN takover of the US, but I just came across this rather incriminating photo that <a href="http://briefcase.yahoo.com/bc/slang324/vwp?.dir=/&.dnm=ASHCROFT-med-2.jpg&.src=bc&.view=l&.done=http%3a//briefcase.yahoo.com/bc/slang324/lst%3f%26.dir=/%26.src=bc%26.view=l">supports my case.</a> It's pretty scary, don't look at it alone.

<TT> Slang disclaimer: This photo is doctored and is only a joke for entertainment puposes only, any resemblence to any government officials (UN or US) is purely comical. If you happen to use this photo in any court of law, media outlet, or social gathering, please understand that I am under no obligation and cannot be held liable if you appear to be delusional . If you agree with this, please click "supports my case" above. If you don't, simply move on to the next post. Thanks.</tt>

Oh my goodness!!:D

Makes me want to fire up Global Operations and play the terrs in that level with the bluehats ...

Anyone who thinks an attack on Iraq is a pre-emptive action, doesn't realize

the difference between high and low level conflict.

jaguar,
Welcome back! I missed you.
You are right, anyone who thinks an attack on Iraq is a pre-emptive action, doesn't realize that high and low levels of conflict have been ongoing and the Gulf War has not ended.

Originally posted by Cairo
Anyone who thinks an attack on Iraq is a pre-emptive action, doesn't realize that the Gulf War has not ended yet. And well frankly, it's about time we cared.

The Iraqi situation is what happens when politicians don't plan, in advance, for the upcoming surrender. Learn about what Yalta, et al were all about - why they were so important to ending that war. Why such planning was so important in keeping the mistakes of WWI from being repeated.

Had those in power in 1990 decided to remove Saddam as a condition of surrender, we would not have been in this position. Clearly Saddam was a candidate for crime against humanity in The Hague. However senior George Sr admininstration political types made Saddam's surrender conditions so pathetic that things like the no-fly-zone were appended to the surrender AFTER the surrender agreement was signed. Had those American political types done their job in 1991, none of this morass would exist.

Before you go about solving problems by dropping nuclear bombs, first learn how we got here in the first place. George Sr administration screwed up. George Sr himself suspected something wrong in a news conference where he said he just did not feel we had accomplished everything and was not comfortable celebrating so early. George Sr was correct. His adminstration let Saddam off the hook and even made it almost impossible for the UN inspectors to find all those weapons of mass destruction.

Bin Laden's attacks on the world are directly traceable to the fact that we said we would leave the Gulf after war was over. We lied. One need not agree with bin Laden's actions to still understand reasons for his actions. We lied. We did not leave the Gulf. We remain in a continuing skirmish with Saddam because we agreed to these, what are now unacceptable, surrender conditions.

Based upon the conditions we agreed to, an attack on Saddam requires new UN approval. There is no way around that fact - which even right wing extremists in the administration conceded to. Yes Cairo. An attack on Saddam is not justified by any 1990 UN resolutions. Even senior officials of the George Jr administration concede that point.

Saddam conformed to the original surrender conditions. To attack Saddam, a smoking gun is first required. That is exactly what the recent UN resolution demands. That necessary smoking gun is why Germany, Mexico, Syria, China, and France all agreed to the new resolution. A smoking gun must be produced before any attack on Iraq can be initiated. That is fact. That was fundamental to the UN resolution. That is what those who honor rules of law appreciate. That is what you outrightly ignore in your opinions. You ignore that a smoking gun must be presented before any attack can even be considered. Welcome, again, to reality.

I was going to explain the concept of a ladder of conflict, with neat little examples to try and get it though Cairo's thick head. But simpsons reruns were on and well, time is valauble.

What's a "think head?" I know that some people use their heads to think, but I've never heard of a "think head."

Wrong again! And the lengths to which you will stoop to enable Saddam are frightening, BTW!!!!
Conditions of surrender are conditions of surrender, regardless of "planning"...you break it, you buy it. One such condition was to conform to the 16 UN Resolutions he broke. Since removing Saddam in 1990 was not our mission, doing so would have caused what Saddam threatens will happen now with the Arab street. Our mission in 1990 was to stop Saddam's greedy oil grubbing, so he couldn't blackmail and hold hostage America's interests. Mission accomplished! Bush 41 beat back Saddam and reduced him to a pile of quivering blubber, crying to save his rear! Colin Powell advised Bush 41 that ousting Saddam would hurt Arab Relations, and assured Bush 41 that Saddam's replacement would be much worse than a beaten-down compliant Saddam. So, if ya want to lay blame on how we got here....Powell and giving peace a chance are the culprits!!!!!

Who's trying to solve problems by dropping nuclear bombs? Oh, right...Saddam is!!!!
We said we would leave the Gulf after the war was over??? First of all, the Gulf war isn't over! And second, Saudi Arabia won't let our troops leave, seems they are afraid of being overthrown by bin Laden's terrorist network, and the Royals begged the UN to install US there in the first place!(Learn a little History, dude.) So "your truth" is false, the fact is, Saddam said he surrendered...HE LIED!
In wartime, we don't need to P-foot around with Diplomacy, no need to ask permission to defend our Country in a 10+ year ongoing war, no need for a "smoking gun"...the "smoking gun" is the fact that the Gulf war has no ending!
All this PC crap going on right now is un-necessary and a waste of time, which Saddam loves I'm sure!
Saddam ignores fundamental UN Resolutions...
Saddam ignores the Rules of Law...
In Kuwait and to the Kurds, Saddam ignores the fact that a "smoking gun" must be presented before any attack can even be considered...
Sure would be nice if you would apply the same standards and barriers to Saddam that you expect of me!!!!! Reality is lost on you! Reality is, in any fight, if our side is bound by rules, and the other side is not...our side loses everytime!

Yes, "think head" was right!....*sigh* Using my brain to think, instead of a spacer to hold my ears apart(Jaguar), does have set backs. I can't be brainwashed and live in ignorant bliss...like tw does. LOL.....

Nice post Cairo, a little too short but nice. :D

PS I need a freakin staff to keep up with all these posts!


And another thing dammit. I'm sick of reading the phrase smoking gun! Enough already! Christ!!

Why thank you so much, slang...you did notice that I was being "nice". So unlike me, I think I'm coming down with something, maybe?

Although...It comes as no surprise to me that this
idiot can not figure out the situation with Iraq,
because he can't even figure out how to address
Bush 41 and Bush 43!!!!! :eek: :angry:

LOL....I'm Baaaaack! :beer:

Cairo if I remember correctly earlier this year there was allot of blather about this admin finishing the work of bush serious, to which bush sir angrily replied that he had done all he had set out to do - the specific reason for not invading all of Iraq and removing Saddam was that backing Saddam into a corner would be very dangerous and his replacement, or the collapse of Iraq as a nation state would be far worse. I really don't see what's changed since then. I mean when you have serious figures in the military opposed to the war and many republican elders questioning the wisdom of such a move, you really have to wonder don’t you?

Except for an admin desperate to create a concept of a perpetual war against an abstract enemy to allow draconian rule and political maneuvering space, the second coming of McCarthyism. Very interesting Washington post article a couple of days ago about the shadow legal system being created to deal with 'terrorists', all sounds kind of familiar...

Saddam ignores fundamental UN Resolutions...

and laws eh? That’s kinda funny. So does the US, at least in diplomatic practice.

So does Israel. The number of SC Resolutions that Israel violates by controlling the occupied terrritories is more than the 16 that Iraq does, yet we have made no intention of invading Israel to liberate Palestine.

I'm not an Israel-hater, I'm just using it as a point. Many, many countries violate UNSC Resolutions and they do not get threatened with war like Iraq does. (OK, so Israel's been attacked a few times, and part of the justification from Syria, Egypt, et al. was their violation of 42, 61, 242, etc. - but not the US.) Consider that when you're developing your theories about UN's takeover of the world.

And Cairo...the Gulf War did end. Conflict may continue, but, as Jaguar said, it's low level conflict. There is a huge difference between full-scale war (I'm sure you could try to argue that legally there wasn't a war in the first place, so the conflict is the same, but, in modern warfare, the declaration of war is no longer required.) and low-level conflict. So I'll make a quick little ladder, since Jag's off watching Simpsons.

Ok, let's say someone insults you. Do you respond with a full-out nuclear response? No, you insult him or her back, and conflict continues at the same level. Or you turn the other cheek, and it de-escalates. Or you throw a punch, and suddenly, the level has escalated.

Similarly, what we've been doing since the Gulf War (and it wasn't directly after the Gulf War that the no-fly zones were established; they were put in after the Kurds in the North and the Shi'ites in the South couldn't handle Iraq's Republican Guard, despite our claims that we had completely demoralized them. They were established by Britain, France and the US to protect those groups from Hussein's revenge - ie. his destruction of Halabjel after the Iran-Iraq war.) has not been actual conflict by today's standards. We bomb a few buildings here and there, ensure that noone is flying where they're not supposed to - and that's about it. Occasionally, Hussein targets our planes, so we bomb those installations too. Fine. Conflict is kept at a relatively low and consistent level.

In all that, however, there is no indication from Iraq of a direct threat. Besides the attack on former President Bush in 1993 (which, I might add, is 9 years ago) and the withdrawal of inspectors in 1998, there have been no indications of a need to escalate the conflict to the level that the chickenhawks suggest. So, then, it is pre-emption. If conflict is on a scale of 0 to 10, with 10 being nuclear war and 0 being America and Britain, then pre-emption does not necessarily mean you go from a level of 0 conflict to 8 or 9 overnight. You could go from, say, a 3 or 4 to an 8 - and it's still pre-emption. Also, look at the argument that is being made - that Hussein needs to be stopped before he attacks us - that are all about pre-emption.

It wasn't just Powell that was calling for an end to the Gulf War. Much of the coalition agreed, and many of the military establishment did as well (they, of course, didn't want to go to war in the first place, but that's a different matter).

In addition, I wouldn't call Hussein an idiot. He's outlived an attack and a resulting animosity from the most powerful nation in the world. His positioning inside the country to become President is a case study in totalitarianistic politics. I've seen it compared, on a lesser scale, to Stalin's rise. None of that means he's a good person, it just means that rejoicing in calling him stupid is ignorant in itself. Same goes if you're Canadian or German.

Who's trying to solve problems by dropping nuclear bombs? Oh, right...Saddam is!!!!

What on God's green earth are you talking about? Even the harshest armchair generals can't admit to Hussein currently having nuclear weapons. Instead, they usually just incorrectly quote a report about his capabilities before the Gulf War and ascribe it to the present day.

irst of all, the Gulf war isn't over! And second, Saudi Arabia won't let our troops leave, seems they are afraid of being overthrown by bin Laden's terrorist network, and the Royals begged the UN to install US there in the first place!(Learn a little History, dude.)

You go learn a little history. SA is none too pleased with the American presence in their country, esp. lately. The reason they let Americans in in the first place was because they thought they were next on Hussein's list. One of the most contentious issues in Saudi Arabia today is the presence of troops.

In wartime, we don't need to P-foot around with Diplomacy, no need to ask permission to defend our Country in a 10+ year ongoing war, no need for a "smoking gun"...the "smoking gun" is the fact that the Gulf war has no ending!

It's a good thing you don't run the country. We are not an empire. Get that through your head. We may be economically and militarily superior to every other nation in the world, but that does not give us the right to act that way - especially when it's not in our interests to do so. You don't want to invade a country that has successfully painted us as the bad guy on the world scene (ie. sanctions) and use the "oh, I thought they were going to attack us" line. It doesn't fly in international relations. It a) infuriates the surrounding countries, some of which act scared, others of which become havens for terrorists, and b) tells other countries that it's OK to invade another country for no reason.

Look up the idea of a nations sovereignty, and their right to it. We constantly argue that we can not sign any human rights treaties because the transparency inherent in them makes them a violation of our sovereignty, yet we completely flubb that rule when it comes to Iraq.

Ok, I may have wandered a bit. But the point is that you can't view two nations in a vacuum. You need to understand their relations with the rest of the world in order to act coherently on the international scene.

If you want me to list the other reasons why we need UN support to invade Iraq, just ask. I'll do so in another thread.

So does Israel. The number of SC Resolutions that Israel violates by controlling the occupied terrritories is more than the 16 that Iraq does, yet we have made no intention of invading Israel to liberate Palestine.

If they did that on Tuesday, by Thursday Palestinians would make a pre-emptive strike on Israeli territory, justifying their re-occupation -- except this time with no UN oversight or involvement at all.

What on God's green earth are you talking about? Even the harshest armchair generals can't admit to Hussein currently having nuclear weapons.

Where are the aluminum tubes you bought?
- What aluminum tubes, we don't have any aluminum tubes.
The aluminum tubes on this invoice.
- Oh, yes, we did buy aluminum tubes, but not for making nukes. Those aluminum tubes were for making baby milk.

jaguar,
You say,"I really don't see what has changed since then."
Well then, it seems that you and the Afghani's are the only ones in the World who didn't!
The difference is, the Afghani's have a reason...
they were oppressed!

Socialists always whine and cry,"McCarthy" when they see their Communism being choked out, not even close, Bud.

Most of us heard and responded to the wake up call of 9/11...others are intent on hitting the snooze button until the mushroom cloud hits their bed.

Originally posted by Undertoad

If they did that on Tuesday, by Thursday Palestinians would make a pre-emptive strike on Israeli territory, justifying their re-occupation -- except this time with no UN oversight or involvement at all.

But that wouldn't be pre-emption now would it? It would be retaliation.

Don't get me wrong, the whole Israel/Palestine conflict is a mess, and neither side is any more or less justified. And I don't want to get into a discussion about that right now.

Where are the aluminum tubes you bought?
- What aluminum tubes, we don't have any aluminum tubes.
The aluminum tubes on this invoice.
- Oh, yes, we did buy aluminum tubes, but not for making nukes. Those aluminum tubes were for making baby milk.

Cairo said that Hussein was exploding nuclear weapons, which is absolutely not the truth. He may be trying to develop them (and yes, most of the items on the sanction list are used in hospitals as well as weapon making, thus the outcry against the sanctions), but he has not tested any yet. I was pointing out incoherency in Cairo's post. Here's another batch of it:

You say,"I really don't see what has changed since then."
Well then, it seems that you and the Afghani's are the only ones in the World who didn't!
The difference is, the Afghani's have a reason...
they were oppressed!

where he somehow tries to tie in Afghanistan's oppression under the Taliban with jaguar's opinion that ousting of Hussein is just as bad of an idea now as it was in 1991. Unfortunately, Cairo doesn't seem to realize that a good portion of the world shares jaguar's opinion. His broad generalization is, in fact, useless. I'll get more into that in the next post.

Originally posted by Cairo

Socialists always whine and cry,"McCarthy" when they see their Communism being choked out, not even close, Bud.

A lot of libertarians think McCarthyism was a dark period in American history. I'd say that anytime the government engages in a witch hunt, things are awry. Funny how you have no problem with this kind of a witch hunt, but a huge one if your 'right' to own an assault rifle is infringed upon. (Right is in quotations because there is disagreement as to whether or not that is a right. I do not choose to endorse it as such.)

And by the way, socialism != communism. They are two different ways of approaching the same problem. Don't equate the two.

Most of us heard and responded to the wake up call of 9/11...others are intent on hitting the snooze button until the mushroom cloud hits their bed.

What? Repond by not capturing bin Laden? How about not being able to deal with asymmetrical warfare, instead continuing to endorse ideas like national missile defense, as if it could do something against a terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon. Or how about continuing to misunderstand the emerging nature of conflict inherent in the very real threat from al Qaeda, and, instead, focusing on a supposed threat (and, as yet, unsubstantiated - when was the last time Iraq attacked the US?) from another nation?

Just like McCarthy - Cairo will go to any length, rewrite any history to prove his extremist position - the world and facts be damned.

Originally posted by Cairo
Wrong again! And the lengths to which you will stoop to enable Saddam are frightening, BTW!!!!

First attack the messenger. OK. He's done that. Then reinvent history.

We said we would leave the Gulf after the war was over??? First of all, the Gulf war isn't over! And second, Saudi Arabia won't let our troops leave, seems they are afraid of being overthrown by bin Laden's terrorist network, and the Royals begged the UN to install US there in the first place!(Learn a little History, dude.) So "your truth" is false, the fact is, Saddam said he surrendered...HE LIED!

If the Gulf war is not over, then what was that surrender as signed. What are all those Iraqi weapons that were destroyed. Where are the onslaught attacks of Iraqi armored columns? I don't even see a guerilla war. Just some foolish anti-aircraft guns firing and getting immediately destroyed. Even the DMZ in Korea remained just as hot long after the Korean war completely ended. Or have you not rewritten the history book on Korea yet?

Saudis only permit a small US force remain to meet conditions of the no-fly-zone and to defend military stores. The US is most definitely not there to defend against bin Laden! Are you obtuse? When did you rewrite history? Bin Laden was not even relevent until over 5 years after the Gulf war - ended.

The Royals said nothing to the UN nor begged anyone to build bases. The Saudis contracted and constructed military bases for decades before the Gulf war in case they required military support. One base that made Israel angry was built in the NW corner - long before Saddam of the UN was involved in the region. You just made that UN base nonsense up, right? Yes. Its 'Cairo fiction'.

In short, one paragraph intended to insult me as being ignorant of history instead cannot be correct due to chronological errors. More 'Cairo fiction'. Cairo invents history as he needs it to justify his extremist ideas. Cairo invents history to justify his hyperbolic politics.

Nothing in his post has credibility. However hermit22 probably says it best. This is quoted because of its accuracy:

It's a good thing you don't run the country. We are not an empire. Get that through your head. We may be economically and militarily superior to every other nation in the world, but that does not give us the right to act that way - especially when it's not in our interests to do so. You don't want to invade a country that has successfully painted us as the bad guy on the world scene (ie. sanctions) and use the "oh, I thought they were going to attack us" line. It doesn't fly in international relations. It a) infuriates the surrounding countries, some of which act scared, others of which become havens for terrorists, and b) tells other countries that it's OK to invade another country for no reason.

Unfortately Cairo is too young to look in a mirror and see McCarthy. Both used same reasoning to justify their extremism. Cairo even promotes this long since denigrated McCarthyism: socialism = communism. This is the guy that's going to teach me history? First get a history education outside of the "Radicals are Us Institute". Fiction is not history. For the long list of your historical errors, start with hermit22's posts. I can't be bothered with how you think history should be written.

Well hermit22,
Since you insist on mistakenly accusing me on History because you're either too lazy to look it up yourself, or afraid to find out I'm correct. I thought you deserved answers from a real Right Wing Republican who happens to teach History,
Allow me to introduce my husband, INDEPENDENCE01,
He thinks your "points" are nubbed.

Israel has always submitted to UN resolutions that carried the threat of force. In 1956 it was UN resolutions issued under article 7 that kept the Arab Confederacy from being completely destroyed.
The only UN resolutions that have been issued under article 7 were largely to get the arabs asses out of a sling.
Point of fact is that if the UN had kept out of the War for Independence, Israel would have fought a decisive victory against those who would bring her harm. The subsequent Nasser inspired follies of 1956 and 1972-74 would never have happened.
During the Battle of the Bulge, do you think the US should have followed a directive by the League of Nations to cease fire were it to have been issued? After all, Germany hadn't directly attacked any US territory, and our Normandy invasion was clearly an act of aggression against soverign German territory.

Israel has fought only defensive wars.
1948-49: Wars for Independence
1956: Sinai Campaign
1967: The Six Day War
1968-73: The War of Attrition
1973: The Yom Kippur War
1976: Entebbe the beginning of the War Against Terrorism
1981: Operation 'Peace For Galilee'
Try reading Chaim Herzog's THE ARAB ISRAELI WARS, a definitive read by someone who was there.
The subsequent UN Resolutions since Security Council Resolution No. 338(imposed cease fire on the IDF's 1973-74 push into Egypt), have all been issued under the auspices of Article 6 of the UN charter. Article 6 resolutions, no matter how eloquently worded or long winded, carry no weight of force. They are in effect, official suggestions; nothing more. SCR-338 carried the threat of UN 'peace' keepers in the form of arab allied soviet forces getting involved on the arab side. These current resolutions of which Israel is supposedly in 'violation' have no weight of force.
You see, it helps if you stayed awake during World Government back in high school.
The only way the UN Security Council can issue Article 7 resolutions is unanimously. The US, and usually the UK, for all purposes almost never support an Article 7 issuance against Israel. Since all it takes is one vote to kill a Resolution, Art 7's are rarely issued against Israel.
The only time the US supported Article 7's is when it looked like the russkies were about ready to walk out of the UN and wage war by themselves: 1956, 1967, 1973-74; all resolutions imposing a cease fire were initiated by russia.

If you are bemoaning western interference with the jordainian/syrian/palestinians situation.
Consider that the West is responsible for this in the first place. Not Britain or the US for creating Israel, but Rome for destroying Israel in 72 AD.
In 72 AD, western invaders(the Romans) destroyed all of Israel, and enslaved the citizens of Israel.
The population of Israel was scattered throughout the farthest regions of the Roman Empire.
Israel ceased to exist as a nation.
But,
the people through their faith endured and survived. Their religion endured.
Now the arab squatters and merchants were not the targets of Rome's wrath. Do you really think that they were going to just leave Israel uninhabited until they finally came back? Consider that no other people have ever survived such a scattering of their culture. And yet some would say miraculously, Israel endured to arise once more.
In 1948, the children of Israel returned to their ancestral home to find it inhabited with all sorts of vermin.

There are no palestinians mentioned in the Bible. If anything contemporary interpretations of the time viewed palestinian and Israeli as one in the same. Since palestine was part of Israel, it could mean nothing else to a first century writer.
Perhaps you are thinking of the PHILISTINES who inhabited the area at one time. Before they were exterminated by the Israelites.

I would give you that in that form there would be a philistine/palestine similarity as Israel will exterminate the jordanian outcasts who currently claim the name 'palestinians'.

...As a matter of fact I do own the road.

No we aren't an empire, I never said we were.
But we have a position of strength that must support our voice of authority. History is littered with the ghosts of nation/states that talked a big talk but grew loathe to use their armies. A weapon unused, becomes a useless weapon.

Our interest in Iraq can be rooted firmly in their violations of the 1992 terms of surrender. It's as simple as that. The terms didn't stipulate that additional SCR's would be needed. It was the completion of an executed Article 7 directive, the surrender fell under the force provisions of that section of the UN charter. All this foot dragging by the EU is typical for that cowardly bunch who don't seem to be good at killing anybody but their own citizens. It is the demsocs here in the US that have bought Iraq over 8 years of developmental time.
Hmmmph clinton's peace dividend consisted of pakistan, n korea, and to a lesser extent iran and iraq, in joining the nuclear club.
China got ICBM technology in exchange for campaign contributions.
Carter got a Nobel for aiding in nonproliferation in N Korea.
Arafat got one for Middle East Peace .
I think Pol Pot is overdue one for population growth.

The US is the de facto keeper of this motley planet. If we won't do it, then nobody will.
The moon has been around as long as we can remember.
But the US wasn't even 200 years old before we went and stuck our flag in it(forget that "all mankind"
PR crapola). It was 1969, we could have just as easily planted a UN flag. But traditional rules of right of claim require we mark our claim with a marker or flag with our symbol on it.

We feed, clothe, shelter, educate, employ, provide welfare and common defense for millions of people besides our own citizens. That's how blessed we truly are.
I'm able to hammer out a pin head online with a Mac with a DSL connection while savoring any luxury I wish.
It beats eating bugs with a dirty floor staring at a dung fueled fire.

It's too bad we can't help everyone, but why should we stick our necks out that far? NOBODY antes more cash to the needy than WE do. Does that get US respect?
Flood, famine, hurricane, earthquake, friggin volcanoes; if they hurt anyone POOF we're there helping anyone who needs it. Any appreciation? Hell no, those nations are so destitute they can't even afford that.
As I said it's too bad we can't help everyone, but as you interjected, we are no empire. We help who we can when we can, rarely asking for anything other than friendship in return.
It's unrealistic to even think you could everyone. As the Christian prophet Jesus said, "the poor will always be with you.". The aramaic word for always pretty much means always, so I think any person with a mote of intelligence knows you can't help everyone.

As for the maligned Senator Joe McCarthy, as bad a rap as he got, he was right about his general assertion just off target on his "list".
Communism had indeed infected significant portions of the US political body. Since we were at a cold war with the russkies(whom were mislabeled commies for some odd reason, considering they were in practice hard line fundamentalist socialists of the highest order) the leftists here had to call themselves socialists then liberals(to greenies and now "centrists") in order to practice their political philosophy without being run out of town on a rail.
McCarthy was used to give the very idea of rooting out socialists a bad name. It's become unamerican to hunt down unamericans in effect.
I grant that McCarthy could have done a better job, but he wasn't that bright a character and I genuinely believed he was completely overwhelmed by the purported evidence that was undoubtably shown to him in private. Just who was able to influence him will always be a mystery, as it is no doubt some insider demsoc rat, but he must have carried some authority in the eyes of old Joe.

I for one pity the poor guy, he got a raw deal and I'm sure he came to realize that his action led to the commie socialists being able to act without restraint in this country. If he was a true Patriot, no doubt that broke his heart.

He allowed the wolves to roam free.

In the end McCarthy was a fine american.....and my favorite Beatle.

O.K....*bumps hubby off* My turn now....
Hermit22,
So, you're not an Israel hater, you just love to spread lies and propaganda about them? Hmmmmmm...

Listen up this time, I never disputed the high/low conflicts, so your rant is irrelevant. I said...
Saddam broke the terms of surrender, which puts us back into pre-surrender status of war.
Example: Let's say someone says "Uncle" or I give up, I give up!, then as you walk away they say, No I take it back, I don't give up...In his eyes, he didn't lose, and he will jump on your back! See?

I wasn't calling Saddam an idiot, I was calling tw an idiot...idiot!

Do you have COMPREHENSION problems? I said "trying to"...there is a big difference between trying and doing. Do you deny he is trying to obtain uranium?

You are the slacker who is in need of comprehension and history classes, pronto!

Socialism is the bridge to Communism, the Gateway if you will. Look it up! Stalin was in the Socialist Party but admired and read Karl Marx.
He took the Country towards the ideals of Marx after he murdered Lenin. Look it up!

Fortunately hermit22, you do not determine if or when American Rights are violated...the Courts do!
So you can advocate and defend the Rights of terrorists under the guise of Our Rights all day long, but just know that you are, in effect, infringing on MY RIGHT TO LIFE!
Bin Laden is dead....Dead, Dead, DEAD!
And I know you are not implying that The terrorist network is as organized and funded the same as pre-9/11...that would negate your credibility in of itself! You need to remember that this Administration is capable of doing more than one thing at the same time. You seem to be confusing(having flashbacks?) Clinton's inability to talk and get a blow job at the same time!

The War on Terror is like an octopus, if you keep cutting off the tenticles, they just grow back.
You need to find the body and kill it, then all the tenicles die off for lack of support. Saddam is the octopus body.

You seem to be confusing(having flashbacks?) Clinton's inability to talk and get a blow job at the same time!

Such wit! i'm convinced, ill be hanging this in my window in the morning.

Sorry if i ever stop laughing i might reply properly.

Originally posted by Cairo (or apparently her husband)
In 1948, the children of Israel returned to their ancestral home to find it inhabited with all sorts of vermin.

Now, when you say vermin, are we talking about giant locusts and the like?

Our interest in Iraq can be rooted firmly in their violations of the 1992 terms of surrender.

1992?

Cairo, in your own post, you referred to Bin Laden as "dead." Now, do you mean he is already dead...or that he is going to be dead?

This is to Cairo's husband, the self-proclaimed right-wing Republican history teacher. Seems like her description casts a shadow on his analysis, which, unfortunately, he helps perpetuate.

I refuse to get suckered into a discussion about Israel/Palestine. It's a big mess that would take days to completely debate, and I have finals this week. However, I wish I had your husband as a teacher so I could point out his normative analysis in the middle of class. If this is supposed to be a history discussion, be objective for crying out loud. Don't begin with failings in the inadequacy of your descriptive analysis. My final note on the discussion of Israel: please realize that you completely missed the point - that Israel's violation of SC Resolutions has never garnered talk of a US invasion force. And that qualifier you used about "the threat of force" is ingenius, since, technically, the UN has no right to use force and, as a result, most resolutions do not suggest a threat. Ingenius, two-faced, and misrepresentative of the truth.

I would like to add, though, that it appears you are Jewish. Understand that I completely believe in Israel's right to statehood - I just also believe in Palestine's right as well. I think both sides have lost credibility on the issue. And that's all I'll say.

But the rest of it isn't about history. It is a badly misrepresentative ramble, propaganda so to speak. Saying that socialism, communism, centrism, greenism, etc. are all one and the same is like saying that Christian Identity represents the views of all conservatives. You absolutely cannot claim that the extremists of any group are indicative of the entire group. It's an intellectual fallacy; a debate trick that's used to woo the lesser intellects in the audience. If you associate your enemy with what is percieved as the worst elements of society - even if they have little in common - you have villified and thus discredited them. And if you want to support a witchhunt like McCarthy's that suppresses free speech, then go start your own fucking country. That's about the farthest thing from American patriotism that there is.

But your post is more than that. It's devoid of any understanding of IR theory or the practical application of it - instead, it tries to base its reasonings on a myopic view of the world. You do not realize that there are other nations besides the United States and the enemy du jour. Refer back to my last post, which tw also pointed out for you. And if you want to claim that the best reason is that Iraq broke the terms of surrender, then historical precedent makes that completely irrelevent.

If you want to blame 'demsocs' for Iraq, then you choose to not remember who was president at the time. Was it a 'demsoc' president? No, it was a Republican. And who joined in on criticism of current invasion plans? Most Democrats (with a capital D) were too scared to do so. Several liberal commentators outside of politics did. And, interestingly, former President Bush did as well. So did his National Security Advisor, and some top brass in the military. 'Demsocs,' indeed. And are you unaware of the fact that the current round of bombing was started under a Democratic President?

You also ignore the idea of a nation's sovereignty. It could be easily argued that the United States is, in fact, in violation of the terms of surrender, since we established separatist enclaves inside Iraq's sovereign territory after the war.

Most Scandinavian countries provide more of their GNP in foreign aid than the United States does. Look up the UN Official Development Assistance table. It will show how woefully inadequate the United States' foreign aid is when compared to, say, Denmark. You can't look at straight numbers. The only way to really measure such a phenomenon is through percentage of GNP. You lose a whole lot of credibility when you ignore the facts and claim that the rest of the world is too destitute to help anyone else, let alone themselves.

The point of civilization, especially in the Judeo-Christian tradition (the Islamic as well, but we are not a predominantly Muslim nation) is to provide humanitarian support for your fellow man. It is the decent thing to do - to transcend the guilt our morals instill in us for having a better life than anyone around us. But it makes sense in the political realm as well. Poverty breeds resentment, violence, disease. Each one of these affects our foreign policy. The poverty of most of the world has bred anti-Americanism and, in some cases, contributed to terrorism. AIDS is as much a concern to us in America as it is to a starving Bushman. It is in our interest to protect ourselves. One of the ways of protecting ourselves is prevention - simple steps that will ease the threat each of these faces. Invading Iraq is a different type of 'prevention' - the presupposition that one man's behaviour (as opposed to broad social trends that are more reliable) will eventually result in collusion with some of his enemies against us.

You claim that a weapon unused is useless. That's a nice argument for non-proliferation - that the obvious desire to not use nuclear weapons means means that we shouldn't have them in the first place. However, your argument that not using military force has been the downfall of many empires throughout history shows a great ignorance of the many social and economic issues that have plagued these same empires. Often, when an empire is on its last leg, it turns to aggression to take its population's mind off of its own suffering. That's in history too.

Finally, you're right in saying that you can't help everyone. But that does not mean you shouldn't try.

Originally posted by Cairo
O.K....*bumps hubby off* My turn now....
Hermit22,
So, you're not an Israel hater, you just love to spread lies and propaganda about them? Hmmmmmm...

nope. I've researched the topic pretty extensively. My thesis might be on it. I'm not spreading lies or propaganda - just the truth. You can not base any argument against what I've said about the Israeli situation on an objective analysis of the facts. I have an advantage in that I'm not Christian, Jewish, or Muslim, so I'm not tied up in the subjectivity of religion. It's unfortunate that people do so, but we're all human. It's in our nature.

Listen up this time, I never disputed the high/low conflicts, so your rant is irrelevant. I said...
Saddam broke the terms of surrender, which puts us back into pre-surrender status of war.
Example: Let's say someone says "Uncle" or I give up, I give up!, then as you walk away they say, No I take it back, I don't give up...In his eyes, he didn't lose, and he will jump on your back! See?

You may not have disputed them, but you seemed completely unaware of them. You still are. The world does not exist in black and white. There isn't pre-war state and post-war state, especially in this conflict. Refer to my earlier comment to your husband at our efforts to establish Kurdistan.
And, no, your example actually makes negative sense. I've lost brain cells just trying to figure out which pronouns you ascribe to whom.

I wasn't calling Saddam an idiot, I was calling tw an idiot...idiot!

You have to give me some slack. Most of your posts are pretty incomprehensible, filled with unsubstantiated and irrelevent claims and random images.

Do you have COMPREHENSION problems? I said "trying to"...there is a big difference between trying and doing. Do you deny he is trying to obtain uranium?

You are the slacker who is in need of comprehension and history classes, pronto!

Slacker, eh? I probably have more years of school than you do. I obviously have more of a propensity to do my own research and not rely on what others tell me. That's a slacker alright.
Of course, I'm Gen X, so we're all slackers, right? How 1991.
Go back and look at my post. When did I say anything about uranium? You're the history-unconscious person that claimed Hussein had dropped a nuclear bomb under the assumption that that would solve a problem. You did not say developing nuclear bombs, and the trying was used to qualify the problem solving. If you weren't claiming the historically inaccurate, then try not to appear to do so.

Socialism is the bridge to Communism, the Gateway if you will. Look it up! Stalin was in the Socialist Party but admired and read Karl Marx.
He took the Country towards the ideals of Marx after he murdered Lenin. Look it up!

So...are you trying to imply that Lenin wasn't Marxist? Or that he wasn't trying to take "the country towards the ideals of Marx?" Because that would be pretty funny. About as funny as the claim that Lenin was assassinated, and didn't die of a stroke - the 3rd or 4th one in the final 2 years of his life.
Anything is a bridge to something else. The argument that links conservatism to fascism is incredibly simple. But that doesn't mean conservatism is fascism. It just means that someone who takes it to the extreme could end up in totalitarianistic ideology. The argument that they are one and the same does not hold water.

Fortunately hermit22, you do not determine if or when American Rights are violated...the Courts do!
So you can advocate and defend the Rights of terrorists under the guise of Our Rights all day long, but just know that you are, in effect, infringing on MY RIGHT TO LIFE!

And when did I do this?

Bin Laden is dead....Dead, Dead, DEAD!

So you skip curent events as well? It was just two weeks ago that the US gov't admitted that he was not dead. From where do you gain the insight on his status?

And I know you are not implying that The terrorist network is as organized and funded the same as pre-9/11...that would negate your credibility in of itself! You need to remember that this Administration is capable of doing more than one thing at the same time. You seem to be confusing(having flashbacks?) Clinton's inability to talk and get a blow job at the same time!

The War on Terror is like an octopus, if you keep cutting off the tenticles, they just grow back.
You need to find the body and kill it, then all the tenicles die off for lack of support. Saddam is the octopus body.

That really is one of the funniest things I've ever heard. Even Bush & co. don't try to claim the al-Qaeda/Hussein link anymore - because it really doesn't exist. Hussein is the mastermind of all terrorists, huh? Go study terrorism a bit. Even Khadafi and Khoumeini couldn't claim that.

This is another example of the incomprehensibility of your posts. What the hell are you talking about? How is my credibility linked to terrorist networking and funding? Please explain. Keep in mind, though, that the FBI is warning that the level of detected terrorist activity is the same as it was the summer before 9/11. And don't forget the attacks in Kenya last week, and this weekend's warning to Israeli citizens to stay out of Southern Africa or the US warning to American citizens to avoid Yemen.

And my last comment is also on a part of your post that had me on the floor - the claim that Clinton was single-minded in his quest for blowjobs. You're talking to someone who has no problem with the president having sex, just a problem with people trying to claim some sense of puritanical injustice about the whole thing. Meanwhile, Clinton was one of the most eloquent speakers we've had for a President in a while. You can't say the same for Bush, who half the time seems like he can't even talk.

Cliff Notes for the latest chapter of Cairo's book on "Corrective History":
The League of Nations (which no longer existed) orders the US to a ceasefire during the Battle of the Bulge?

The US was the aggressor against Germany even though Germany declared war on the US and attacked US property before even declaring war.

The 1981 invasion of Lebanon in conquering part of that nation in direct violation of the Prime Minister's direct orders was a defensive war? Only if you are the innocent Ariel Sharon who defied all orders and was not court marshalled - just a footnote that slipped through the rewrite.

All UN resolutions that do not carry military enforcement should be ignored?

72 AD Rome is responsible for all Arab-Israeli conflicts?

Israelis who occupied some of the least time in that part of the Middle East have more rights to the land than anyone else?

The EU is a cowardly bunch who are only good at killing their own citizens?

Iran, Iraq, and N Korea now all have operational nuclear weapons?

China got ICBM technology by making campaign contributions to US politicians - ignoring Chinese rockets launched a decade and more previously?

The Nobel peace prize committee does not know what it is doing.

The US is god's chosen people as keeper of the earth.

The US conquered and owns the moon.

NOBODY antes more cash to the needy than the US even though most every Europe country and Japan do more per capita. 90% of US foreign aid is concentrated on Israel, Egypt, Turkey, Greece, and Taiwan(?). The US is very stingy with foreign aid among the G-7. Those poor suffering Israels are clearly so downtrodded as to deserve the largest share of US foreign aid.

The maligned Senator Joe McCarthy got a bad rap? Pity the poor guy because he got a raw deal? Just forget that he tried to destroy more American lives when he tried to do same to the US Army. Left to go on, McCarthy intended to declared the US Army as communist sympathizers. Apparently that chapter was already written out of history.

McCarthy was a fine american? One wasn't fine and the other was not American.

The massacre at Sbrenica was by UN troops so that Milosevick, Mladik, and the Serbians would be blamed. Or are those people still alive?

Clearly the Holocost never happened.

The USS Maine was sunk by aliens.

Magellan was a communist who aspired to be a socialist.

Joe McCarthy was not permitted to tell everything he knew about communists in the American government (because it takes time to write fiction).

Richard Nixon was framed with Watergate by socialists from the Democratic party (or was it those godless Libertarians?).

Cairo fiction is the long overdue rewriting of history. Reality. Where does it go when having so much fun with history?

*patiently waits for Cairo to realise the Nazis were the Nationalist Sociality party and decry us all as anti-semitic communist hitler lovers.*

*claps hermit22* I admire your tenacity even if it is like trying to fill a bucket with a bloody great hole in the bottom.

I was trying to match Ciaro's creativity on Iraq - this was the best i could do: this gem of sanity

Sycamore,
I only asked my husband to weigh in because these clowns have no idea what a true right winger is, or what History before liberal revising manipulation is....I thought they deserved it.

Vermin, I guess, would be unwelcome, uninvited intruders, like cockroaches.

1991, he meant to hit the one.

Our forces killed bin Laden during the attack on Tora Bora. Bin Laden is dead, but Al Qaeda is not.

Originally posted by Cairo
I only asked my husband to weigh in because these clowns have no idea what a true right winger is, or what History before liberal revising manipulation is....I thought they deserved it.

So, based upon your above statement, are you saying that history as many folks know it (and I mean straight up facts here, e.g. "Israel became a state in 1948.") has been manipulated by liberals?

Vermin, I guess, would be unwelcome, uninvited intruders, like cockroaches.

Hmmm...interesting. Who were the unwelcome, uninvited intruders? Cockroaches? Locusts? Evil Christian missionaries?

Our forces killed bin Laden during the attack on Tora Bora. Bin Laden is dead, but Al Qaeda is not.

Bin Laden is dead?

Are you serious?

Stop playing.

That's some pretty big talk there...I suppose you have the sources to back that up, right?

Go for it...this should be neat.

I'm excited, why the hell didn't our government announce this. It would surly have helped raise support for the current administration. I know I'd be more apt to agree with what Bush says in the future if this was true. Actually accomplishing what he said(first) was the primary reason for the invasion of Afganistan would certainly make him more credible in my eyes.


okay I'm having trouble with my browser, can't seem to get the quote button to work :~(. So anyways

Original posted by jaguar
"I was trying to match Ciaro's creativity on Iraq - this was the best i could do: this gem of sanity"

This was great, much needed humor after a night of studying :~).

Once again Cam, you are being an unamerican SOB. Don't you know that the media is controlled by liberal pukes who would love nothing more than to cover up the truth to try and bring Dubya down?

Damn it, I really do need to move to Canada, It's not that far, and Winnepeg has a pretty good University, and I have family up there, though they live Alberta, one hell of a long drive. I would get free health care, one of my biggest worries, especially with all the fucking loans I'm going to have.

Then again if I move to Canada, it makes my next birthday the same as any other(21). I'd have to actually learn about hockey, not just go to the games and cheer everyone else. I'd never be able to say "canadians are stupid" again(though "americans are stupid" would become a fun phrase). I'd have to learn the words to "O' Canada. And I'd have to learn about the Canadian government(something I really should do anyway).

Well I've listed all the pros and cons I can come up with this close to bed, it's up to you members of the cellar to help me make my decision, Should cam move to Canada, or should he stay right here in the USA.

Hermit22,
Saying,"So does Israel." in response to my assertion that Iraq has broken U.N resolutions that carry a penalty of "use of force" is flat out untrue! In all your "subjective" "unbiased" "fair and balanced" research, you failed to comprehend the difference between Charter 6 and Charter 7.
Charter 6 is non-comparable because everybody breaks Charter 6 resolutions. Israel has never thumbed her nose and disobeyed a Charter 7 resolution...Iraq has!

http://users.otenet.gr/~prof/UNcharter.htm

Truth is black and white, it's either true or it's not. Propaganda and agendas are what drives the cloudy, indecisive, uneducated, ignorant, dissenting, and radicals to make the truth appear grey or unclear when it's not.
Pre-war is getting troops into position and devising a plan or strategy. During war is what we are doing now. Post war is clean up and rebuild.

Hooked on phonics could work for you! Comprehension 101 wouldn't hurt either. You have more years in school? That means only that you have more Liberal Socialist indoctrination and brainwashing than I do...and you're ~bragging~????? Oh, I know, you skipped Comprehension 101 to take How to use a condom 101...Right? Puuulease!

Lenin was a Socialist, he was about to install a Parliment system of Government that would stop the Communist trend, so Stalin had him killed before he did it.

Every time you spread misinformation and lie about the Patriot Act, FISC, or hinder our Government's ability to protect and keep US safe, you are, by proxy, infringing upon the Right To Life of 3,000+ American citizens.

That tape was not bin Laden. Or do you limit your current events to only one source?

The Czech Republic says there is an Iraqi/Al Qaeda link. And everybody agrees there are many Saddam/terrorist links.

Your credibility in debate is linked to my interest to keep replying to you...if all you have are lies or ignorance to bring to the table, I lose interest and become bored(as I have with tw). It's just not fun to debate with an un-armed man.

I never said "single-minded", again, comprehension is key! Oh, you have no problem with having an impeached President so morally bankrupt that he refuses to be accountable and step down. Who looks into the eyes of the American people and lies when he didn't have to. Who committed perjury and obstruction...and people like you keep begging for more! No wonder he thought he was above the law and could get away with it, your ilk make it easy!
HA! Eloquent L I A R !
Well, if you think talking down to you is more impressive than talking to you, you must love Algore! Personally, I'm more of an actions speak louder than words kinda gal.

Sycamore and Cam,
How lovely! I really hate to pull you two apart from this little tongue in each other's cheek fest you've got going on....

BUT, revisionary History...I'm sure you've heard of it? Such as revising the Bible so it's more gender friendly, revising Texas History so it doesn't hurt hispanic children's feelings, revising that Thomas Jefferson raped and produced children with a slave, when DNA proved otherwise...the anti-Israel and "Palestinians" falsehoods stated on this board alone is proof of liberal manipulation as most people know it.

I can tell you how I reached my opinion that bin Laden is dead...
Bin Laden's signals and messages are very important to the survival of Al Qaeda. Bin Laden speaks and shows his face, recruitment goes up and money flows in. After the Tora Bora attack moral and recruitment fell, Al Qaeda needed bin Laden to energize the base as he always did. Bin Laden is too smart, too egotistical, and too "pay back time" oriented to pass up the biggest opportunity of his life to plaster his face all over the media announcing to the world and his followers that the US infidels are no match for Allah, and as Allah protected him and made the West miss him, so shall He protect them. The West didn't miss him, so we heard nothing. Now, Al Qaeda has had time to fake that moment of importance, but in reality, the moment has passed.
Also a captured member of Al Qaeda slipped up and referred to bin Laden in the past tense, he quickly recovered, but the initial acknowledgment was his thought.
Some in the US Govt. think the tape is real, some think it's a fake, France, of all people, thinks it's fake, as does countless voice experts.

Yes Cam, you really should learn about the Canadian Government...their "healthcare" is not free, but it is bankrupt and outdated. How about the freakin' 70% of your income they steal? Try figuring out how you're going to live, eat, survive on 30% of your hard earned dollar...maybe you could just live in the Hospital using your "free" healthcare!!!! LOL...

Originally posted by Cairo
Hermit22,
Saying,"So does Israel." in response to my assertion that Iraq has broken U.N resolutions that carry a penalty of "use of force" is flat out untrue! In all your "subjective" "unbiased" "fair and balanced" research, you failed to comprehend the difference between Charter 6 and Charter 7.
Charter 6 is non-comparable because everybody breaks Charter 6 resolutions. Israel has never thumbed her nose and disobeyed a Charter 7 resolution...Iraq has!

http://users.otenet.gr/~prof/UNcharter.htm

That is utter and complete bullshit. You want to argue legal without knowing what you're talking about? I'm not an expert in international law, but I think I can find a few things in just a few moments.

So which article of Chapter 7 are you referring to? Would it be article 39, which points out the right of the United Nations to determine the status of peace. Now let's take a Resolution at random from the list of resolutions that involve Israel. I was originally going to use the Litani River Project, but I figured that you would apply your ridiculous 'liberals rewrote history' whine. So I'll stay contemporary. I'm going to focus on SCRes 1402 for you, which called on both sides to take steps to end the escalation in conflict. It specifically called on Israel to withdraw its troops from Palestinian cities, but Israel did not comply in anything like an expedited manner.
You really do not understand the difference between Chapter 6 and Chapter 7, do you? Chapter 6 deals with "disputes," Chapter 7 with the "breach of peace." Go ahead and try to argue that there have been no Security Council Resolutions regarding Israel that deal with breaches of peace.

Of course, I do think it's amusing that a right-winger, who theoretically should disdain the liberal institutionalism that established the UN (you know, the whole realism vs. liberalism idea), uses the UN as a justification, even if they're wrong in their argument.


Fair and balanced would be the lying mantra of your side's media network. But hey, repeat it enough and it's true, right? Isn't that what you're saying happened before the liberal corruption of history? Apparently it is fair and balanced to call an entire population vermin. Whatever. Go look up the etimology of the word Semitism, and you'll realize you're an 'anti-Semite.'

Truth is black and white, it's either true or it's not.

Too bad you're proving yourself to be colorblind.

Pre-war is getting troops into position and devising a plan or strategy. During war is what we are doing now. Post war is clean up and rebuild.

Oh right. There's only 3 phases to any conflict. How would you describe Kashmir? How about Columbia? Has Israel been at war since 1967? Can you see how ridiculous this assumption is?

Of course, this does assume that every action a state engages in has something to do with war. No peace here.

Hooked on phonics could work for you! Comprehension 101 wouldn't hurt either. You have more years in school? That means only that you have more Liberal Socialist indoctrination and brainwashing than I do...and you're ~bragging~????? Oh, I know, you skipped Comprehension 101 to take How to use a condom 101...Right? Puuulease!

Hooked on phonics would work for me? Ok, I'm insulted. I guess that English minor I picked up when I was an undergrad was meaningless. Thank you for pointing it out. With that, and your revelation about bin Laden's life, it seems that your insight is so incredible that there's no way I could fight its power.

Yup, I'm bragging about having more school. I'm bragging about trying to become an active member of society. I'm proud of my accomplishments. Of course, you don't know what I studied as an undergrad, the quality of the education, or the political leanings of my professors (or if that was even a relevant issue). I was a Computer Science major with a Creative Writing minor. After graduation, I jumped into a National Security Studies master's program in which most of the professors (4 of the core 5) are lifelong Republicans. So the "brainwashing" by the "Liberal Socialist" system would be difficult to prove.

Maybe you should get some more education. It might open your mind up a bit. And have you forgotten that your husband had to be "indoctrinated," as you call it, in order to become a teacher?

Your "Comprehension 101" comment made me laugh, though. There's no way you could have known that I got over a 700 on the reading portion of my SATs. (I don't remember the exact score as that was probably 10 years ago.) Of course I'm not going to instantly comprehend everything I see - no one does. But I think more of the problem lies in your ability to communicate effectively.

At least I know how to protect myself from HIV and the risk of helping increase the world's overabundant population.

Lenin was a Socialist, he was about to install a Parliment system of Government that would stop the Communist trend, so Stalin had him killed before he did it.

Uh no. One of the things Lenin wanted to do was give the Kazakhs, and a few others that were revolting and being oppressed, some autonomy. (Unusual, of course, for Lenin to have a problem with mass murder. He read as much Heinzen as Hitler. And it's a lot more complicated than that, but I don't care enough to be more specific.) You may be talking about his expansion of the Central Committee, or the granting of legislative powers to the Central Planning Commission - both of which already existed and were not an establishment of a new Duma.

Every time you spread misinformation and lie about the Patriot Act, FISC, or hinder our Government's ability to protect and keep US safe, you are, by proxy, infringing upon the Right To Life of 3,000+ American citizens.

I'm pretty sure I've never mentioned the Patriot Act or FISC in this discussion.

So are only 3,000+ citizens worthy of the right to live (and yes, I notice your thinly veiled reference to the abortion debate, and I think it's preposterous). I realize that you are trying to make a reference to the deaths on September 11 to sensationalize the matter. But you don't have any substance - assuming of course that you realize you are essentially advocating the elimination of freedom of speech (not forcibly, but by some sense of guilt or shame).

That tape was not bin Laden. Or do you limit your current events to only one source?

Nope. I'm well aware that a Swiss lab says that there are problems with the tape - which you didn't bother mentioning in defense. Instead, you merely claimed, without calling upon any source for proof, that you knew that bin Laden was alive. However, when the US government claimed that the tape was bin Laden (which it was not alone in doing), it mentioned that the tape had been transferred over a telephone line, which could be responsible for the wave analysis problems the Swiss lab found. I don't know; I don't claim to be an expert in such manners. But I would posit that more signs point to bin Laden being alive than dead. That whole no body thing is a big deal. I equate it to a murder investigation. Police don't assume that a suspected murderer (and before you jump on me for saying suspected, realize that I'm relying on a social convention, not an assumption that bin Laden is not guilty. It would be unsurprising to see you attempt to distort that into some frm of collusion with terrorists or some other bs.) is dead simply because they attacked his hideout, burnt it to the ground, and couldn't find any trace of his body in the ashes. They especially don't drop the investigation when a tape recording claiming to be him is confirmed to actually be him by their own crime lab.

The Czech Republic says there is an Iraqi/Al Qaeda link. And everybody agrees there are many Saddam/terrorist links.

Everybody, huh? Who constitutes this everybody? And do you really think that the Bush administration would not be beating the war drums of an al Qaeda connection if it was there? They dropped it as soon as reporters began investigating their claims, which was that a lone Iraqi official met with a single member of al Qaeda in Prague. It didn't hold water then, and trying to bring it up now does not either.

Your credibility in debate is linked to my interest to keep replying to you...if all you have are lies or ignorance to bring to the table, I lose interest and become bored(as I have with tw). It's just not fun to debate with an un-armed man.

Well, your credibility is linked to your ability to respond without basing your argument in insults, generalizations without any substance and misrepresentations of the truth.

I never said "single-minded", again, comprehension is key! Oh, you have no problem with having an impeached President so morally bankrupt that he refuses to be accountable and step down. Who looks into the eyes of the American people and lies when he didn't have to. Who committed perjury and obstruction...and people like you keep begging for more! No wonder he thought he was above the law and could get away with it, your ilk make it easy!
HA! Eloquent L I A R !
Well, if you think talking down to you is more impressive than talking to you, you must love Algore!

If comprehension is key, then you threw yours away long ago. My point was that Clinton is a better speaker than Bush will ever be, which you didn't bother to refute (mostly because it would be too difficult, I'm assuming.) The great thing about Clinton is that he did talk to you. The bad thing about Bush is that he acts like he doesn't have to be bothered to learn the speech well enough to deliver it to the public. And that's even worse than talking down to me.

Yes, I like Al Gore - I have no complex about an intelligent man. I'm not sure he should run for President again, but I like many of his political ideas. And I view the entire Lewinsky fiasco to be an example of the character assassination certain political forces were engaged in. They could not get the American public to respond to much of Clinton's inadequacies as President (and yes, I believe there were many), so they tried to overblow a relatively trivial, and definately private event; a moral indescretion that he was not alone in committing.

Personally, I'm more of an actions speak louder than words kinda gal.

I can't pass up this opportunity to show you the inadequacy of your association of extremists with the mainstream.

"Actions speak louder than words" is practically a direct quote from Carlo Piscane, who was influential in Brousse's development of the idea of "propaganda by the deed:" the idea that revolutionaries can not rely simply on words to spread their propaganda. India's HSRA followed this with the "philosophy of the bomb," which said that the best action to use was the employment of bombs. And modern terrorism was born when the Narodnaya Volya incorporated these two ideas.

So does this mean you're a terrorist kinda gal?

Originally posted by Cairo
Sycamore and Cam,
How lovely! I really hate to pull you two apart from this little tongue in each other's cheek fest you've got going on....

The examples of Cairo's propensity to base her arguments on insults abound.

BUT, revisionary History...I'm sure you've heard of it? Such as revising the Bible so it's more gender friendly, revising Texas History so it doesn't hurt hispanic children's feelings, revising that Thomas Jefferson raped and produced children with a slave, when DNA proved otherwise...the anti-Israel and "Palestinians" falsehoods stated on this board alone is proof of liberal manipulation as most people know it.

Nice misrepresentation of a few examples. Revising the Bible to make it gender neutral (not gender friendly) does not change the meaning. I would argue that it enhances God's image, because it places God above the differences in gender. I'm agnostic and I can see that.

IIRC, the Texas history that was revised demonized Santa Anna and his men, and did not explain the situations surrounding the war for Texan independence. Revising the textbooks to reflect the truth is generally not a bad thing.

The Jefferson thing made me laugh. Do you realize that you contradicted yourself? History hasn't taught that Jefferson fathered children with any slaves. Evidence arose to the contrary, and the debate that began was whether or not to [i]revise[/] history to include this fact. So which is it? Do you like revisionism or hate it? Also, where's your proof that Thomas Jefferson raped his slaves? You don't know that he didn't have a relationship with a slave. Or were you there too?

I'm tired of talking about I/P to you.

I can tell you how I reached my opinion that bin Laden is dead...
Bin Laden's signals and messages are very important to the survival of Al Qaeda. Bin Laden speaks and shows his face, recruitment goes up and money flows in. After the Tora Bora attack moral and recruitment fell, Al Qaeda needed bin Laden to energize the base as he always did. Bin Laden is too smart, too egotistical, and too "pay back time" oriented to pass up the biggest opportunity of his life to plaster his face all over the media announcing to the world and his followers that the US infidels are no match for Allah, and as Allah protected him and made the West miss him, so shall He protect them. The West didn't miss him, so we heard nothing. Now, Al Qaeda has had time to fake that moment of importance, but in reality, the moment has passed.
Also a captured member of Al Qaeda slipped up and referred to bin Laden in the past tense, he quickly recovered, but the initial acknowledgment was his thought.
Some in the US Govt. think the tape is real, some think it's a fake, France, of all people, thinks it's fake, as does countless voice experts.

That's possible, but maybe he expected that reaction? Without him taking front stage, the West may ease its dilligence in trying to prevent terrorism, which will make his goals easier. In addition, no one is really sure what the power arrangement is inside al Qaeda. Maybe bin Laden is engaged in a power struggle that has stopped him from putting his face on television? Or maybe he's just in hiding? I think there are simply too many unanswered questions to claim knowledge of his status.

Yes Cam, you really should learn about the Canadian Government...their "healthcare" is not free, but it is bankrupt and outdated. How about the freakin' 70% of your income they steal? Try figuring out how you're going to live, eat, survive on 30% of your hard earned dollar...maybe you could just live in the Hospital using your "free" healthcare!!!! LOL...

Hmm...according to Yahoo Canada, the high end of the progressive tax scale is 29%. This is actually pretty comparable to the US tax scale. Care to revise your assessment?

I'm guessing one would get a stronger readership by breaking one's points up into smaller posts, too.

And avoiding all the name-calling and whatnot

Thankee

My Uncle that lives in canada seems to have no trouble eating. He doesn't work at any great paying job either, I believe he's driving trucks at the moment. My uncle also had open heart surgery in Canada, survived, and is doing fine. So obviously their outdated health care system isn't that bad.

Also your blatent statement about Bin Laden being dead, which I'm sure sounded like a stated fact to anyone who read it was a complete cairo deducation. You have no sources to back it up, just what cairo thinks. Which by the way seem to be how you back up all your arguments.

<h5>Hermit22</h5>
:mad: Your posts are too long!!

Note: This is a joke. The irony of this comment is that I make rediculously long posts and should never comment on how long someone else's might be. This is not to be taken seriously, it is not intended to incite harsh replies. This is humor. :)

Slang, you crack me up. :)

Originally posted by Griff
The CS Monitor reports thst the young are more likely to support an Iraqi conflict, than us old farts. Why? You'd think kids who grew up in the Clinton years would have a bit more cynicism.

First off the Christian Science Monitor is hardly a reputable and valid news source. Second Why would kids be cynical after growing up in the clinton years? I wasn't aware 8 years of unprecedented economic boom that had nothing to do with the previous president was something to be cynical about.

And people ARE cynical and don't believe a war mongering idiot like GWB who has yet to provide a single link between Al Queda and Iraq. Thus far Iraq has never attacked American soil, never helped anyone else attack American soil, never paid anyone to do it, and never harbored or supported those who have and not one shred of evidence has ever been given to the public to the contrary. And this is despite the fact that in 1991 America launched an unwarranted and illegal attack on Iraq and subsequently starved their people to death and kept life saving medicines from them. Iraq is a sovereign nation and doesn't answer to any other sovereign nation including America. America has no authority beyond our own borders and we aren't the boss or police of the world.

If GWB wants to send Americans to fight he MUST provide actual proof. And why is GWB so hot to start a war when he himself pulled every string he could to stay out of the Vietnam war? It’s because he's a hypocrite. When he does drugs it's a "youthful indiscretion" but when other people do it they must be locked in jail forever. When he's going to fight in a war, it must be avoided at all cost, but when he's not the guy in the trenches, it's just fine.

Iraq poses no threat and never has. Why isn't GWB going after Korea who just said they've got nukes? Why doesn't he go after an actual threat? Because he's a bully and like all bullies he wants to go after the weak.

I served in the military and I would never fight in this war or the one in 1991.

Hmm...according to Yahoo Canada, the high end of the progressive tax scale is 29%. This is actually pretty comparable to the US tax scale. Care to revise your assessment?

Actually Canada pays more money for their healthcare than America and they get substandard healthcare for their money. Many Canadians come to America for their serious operations because they don't want to wait long periods for lower quality medical care. Socialism is a failure each and every place it is tried including the holy grail of socialism...Sweden.

For the price people pay in Sweden for healthcare, I could get a new kidney every year in America.

Every time you spread misinformation and lie about the Patriot Act, FISC, or hinder our Government's ability to protect and keep US safe, you are, by proxy, infringing upon the Right To Life of 3,000+ American citizens.

Let's share some truthful information about the so-called Patriot act. It's the most blatantly unconstitutional piece of legislation in the history of the united states. It practically erases the 4th amendment, it allows the government to spy on our own people even though they are not allowed to do that in the constitution. It's a violation of everything that America stands for. If you support the patriot act you support terrorism against Americans.

The patriot act doesn't defend anyone's "right to life". It UNCONSTITUTIONALLY infringes on the rights that make our lives worth living.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

Originally posted by Radar


Actually Canada pays more money for their healthcare than America and they get substandard healthcare for their money.

Hmm. Last figures I saw showed that the United States spends 14% of the GDP on health care, while Canada only spends 7% of theirs on health care.

According to this website the percentage of the GDP spent on healtcare is 9.3%

Let's use this FACTBOOK the GDP per capita in Canada when adjusted for purchase parity is $27,700. When we take 9.3% of the GDP per capita we get $2695.21 per individual per year on healthcare. That comes out to $224.60 per month. Most Americans pay half this amount if they've got a job that has healthcare and dental insurance. Even less if there's a family plan.

So yes, Canadians pay more money for healthcare, and they've got substandard healthcare when compared to America which has the best doctors on earth. Thank god for Capitalism. (not that I believe in god)

Then again the majority of Americans always have to worry about their insurance companies, changing their policies or refusing to provide coverage in certain instances.

Then again the majority of Americans always have to worry about their insurance companies, changing their policies or refusing to provide coverage in certain instances.

That's the beauty of having a lot of insurance companies to choose from. It keeps most of them in check from going too crazy with what they charge and from changing benefits all the time.

Competition keeps costs down and services up. Healthcare is far too important to let government mess around with. So is retirement, charity, education, and many other things.

Actually, I think healthcare is far too important to leave it to the free market. Just difference in philosophy I guess. Strictly free market philosophy seems, to me, to have failed, and that is precisely because companies raise their rates and lower their coverage, or risk going out of busines. In addition, there isn't really the free market choice when your job gives you the selection of only one health care company.

Also, people pay more than just their insurance rate for health care. There's also things like Medicare, co-pays, and prescription drug costs, and when your employer offers insurance, they have to pay the company a fee. I'm a healthy 23 year old, non-smoker, don't get sick, etc. and I pay $160 per month for just health insurance (no dental). When you throw in some of these additions, and substitute for a less healthy individual with more risk factors, I think the cost would be comparable, if not greater, than Canada's.

The other failing of our system is that I can't change jobs and retain my health insurance. Even if I could find a job that fits my schedule and offers insurance, the insurance wouldn't kick in for some length of time, often 90 days. So if I needed to change jobs like that, I would be hampered by my lack of health insurance. Or I might be only able to find a job that doesn't offer insurance. Either way, there would be a period of time where my insurance would be out unless I found a temporary solution elsewhere.

Originally posted by hermit22
The other failing of our system is that I can't change jobs and retain my health insurance.

Actually, you can keep your insurance through COBRA, for up to 24 months, IIRC; however, you are responsible for the full cost of the insurance.

When I left my last permanent job a year ago, I was paying $17 a week through the company. When I left, I had the option of keeping it...at $269 a month.

:p

I have an idea that many will surely hate.


Why dont more people scrap all this medical insurance nonsense and get a high deductable catastrophic insurance plan (that costs about 20 bucks a month) and take the extra money you would normally pay to the insurance assheads and put it into an acct you only use for catstrophic medical problems. If you need to see a doctor, pay cash. The doctor will probably charge you a lot less and give you only what you need, not what your plan will pay for. If he recommends something you must actually pay for you will have the money to pay for it, if it's really needed. If you have a catstrophic event. you're also covered by the plan.

Putting the responsibility on the individual also promotes better health habits. If you're going to smoke crack (or whatever will eventually kill or disable you) why in the fuck should I have to pay for your lack of common sense, self discapline or ignorance?

What does the current system encourage? Political bullshit. I dare say that the majority of people make themselves sick.

Earth to the American people.......take care of yourself....or the government will take charge of that too.

<B>Sure, I love to smoke, drink whiskey straight from the bottle, sit watching tv for years on end, eat nothing but KFC (with lotsa gravy) and run with scissors just as much as any other guy. The reality is though if you take care of yourself, chances are you wont be at the mercy of any health care policy. And then we can remove this bogus issue from the political table and move on to more important second ammendment issues.</B> :)

COBRA is at least a net, but then your new policy may not cover any preexisting conditions. I know some people, diabetic, cancer survivors, who cannot take the risk of changing jobs. My brother in law is a frustrated doctor in Canada and I know full well that their system is far from perfect. But for low-income, small business, and self-employed persons such as the warch crew it looks pretty good. Ok, six month wait for maintenance treatment, vs in the US roll the dice and hit the emergency room when you blow. We have employer coverage now, but spent most of our 20s with no coverage. We lucked out in Texas by finding a doctor that would treat us on a way sliding scale or even barter. But it was always the (poor) fall back plan, if all went horribly wrong- pack up your bloody carcass and head for the border.

Just a few of my personal thoughts on the concept of national healthcare:

--I live in the greatest country in the world. I'm willing to work hard, pay my taxes, and be the best American I can be. I'm entitled to be taken care of by my country, since I help take care of it.

--People who have health coverage may be more apt to go see a doctor when they do not feel well...rather than try to wait the illness out. This will get them on the road to recovery faster, and will result in more productivity, which helps the company work better, which helps the economy work better, etc.

--Regarding "healthy lifestyle" choices, everyone will pay for people's bad habits in the end, one way or another. In fact, people's bad habits actually help our nation. For example, without people dealing drugs and what not, there would be no DEA. Those people are employed thanks to stupid choices. Here in PA, had the tax on cigarettes not been raised, the commonwealth would be deeper in the red than it already is. Deep red means cuts in jobs, departmental budgets, etc. So light up smokers of the commonwealth! Your tax money just helped get a child get into a vital social services program. :)

I know, both personally and have seen news reports, of more than one Canadian who has come south to self-pay for procedures, up to and including cardiac bypass surgery. One of my mom's friend's granddaughters was here for arthroscopic knee surgery a couple years back.

Recently I've seen several news reports on doctors who are not accepting insurance for medical care --- straight pay only, and they've significantly reduced the amount of time they spend dealing with paperwork generated by the managed care system (which manages cost, incidentally NOT care ...) and are devoting that time to actual doctoring.

I spend a lot more of my day (evening) arguing with insurance companies than I do seeing patients. One thing that's good about my facility, though, is that we treat REGARDLESS of insurance status, and worry about how we're getting paid afterwards ... also, if we have a patient that we think need treatment, we admit, despite what some care manager in an offiice 1200 miles away thinks about the needs of someone they haven't even seen. We're usually successful on an appeal of the initial denial of care (okay PAYMENT for care), and if not we either get funding through the county or medical assistance or just eat the cost.

I dare say that the majority of people make themselves sick.

Especially small kids. Eatting dirt and pickin' their noses and stuff.

Originally posted by warch

Especially small kids. Eatting dirt and pickin' their noses and stuff.

Don't forget eatting dead frogs. They can't be left to eat these sorts of things.

I'm assuming you're bringing this to my attention as an exception, children. I'll agree that most kids arent responsible for their own cancer, chronic illness etc.

Do you agree that most adults make themselves sick?

Health too important to be left to the free market: what, like food, clothing and shelter?

Actually healthcare is not in the hands of the free market in the US. 50% of the healthcare is bought by the government to begin with. That screws up the market like no tomorrow.

If the first customer in the china shop is always a bull, the second customer ain't gonna get good prices or service.

originally posted by Wolf

One of my mom's friend's granddaughter's neighbor's dog's owner's mechanic's second cousin's husband's college buddy's roomate's professor's assistant's dry cleaner's podiatrist's.....

:) forgive me. I think I'm funny

Actually, I think healthcare is far too important to leave it to the free market.

The free market never fails to provide the best products and services at the lowest cost. The reason health care costs have gone up isn't because of the free market, but because of government intervention. The most expensive health care on earth are in the most socialist and communist nations. The more they embrace socialism or communism the more people pay for healthcare, and other substandard services provided by the government.

The government is like King Midas, except instead of gold, whatever they touch turns to shit. Government is NEVER as good as private enterprise at providing any product or service other than killing. Private enterprise can get 6 pounds of oil across the world for less than it costs to send a letter across the street.

Read this article


Slang: Your idea isn't new. That's the way healthcare used to be in America when we had the best system on earth. You would only require insurance to pay for serious problems....broken legs, surgery, etc. But for your common colds, flu, etc. you would pay to see a doctor.

COBRA is a backup plan just to help you out between jobs or until your new job benefits start. It's reasonable to assume if you're leaving one job for another the new job pays more. Most people move up rather than sideways. So it's reasonable to assume you can afford Cobra for 1-3 months until the new insurance starts. Most company insurance costs about $100 per month for one person and that includes medical, dental, and vision.

--I live in the greatest country in the world. I'm willing to work hard, pay my taxes, and be the best American I can be. I'm entitled to be taken care of by my country, since I help take care of it.

You're paying taxes to fund unconstitutional social programs. And it's not your duty to take care of the government. It's also not the place of government to provide healthcare, retirement, education, or charity to the people. The ONLY VALID ROLES of governemnt is to DEFEND our borders, to regulate commerce, and provide a judicary. Nothing else.

--People who have health coverage may be more apt to go see a doctor when they do not feel well...rather than try to wait the illness out. This will get them on the road to recovery faster, and will result in more productivity, which helps the company work better, which helps the economy work better, etc.

Yes, people with health insurance are more likely to see a doctor every time they get the sniffles. And they keep the hospitals crowded and force the price of medical care up.

Fortunately, I think you're funny too ...

(don't make me come up there and kick your ass ...)

(after my doctor lets me drive and after the roads are clear enough that I won't risk smushing my new car).

Originally posted by Radar


Yes, people with health insurance are more likely to see a doctor every time they get the sniffles. And they keep the hospitals crowded and force the price of medical care up.

I'd rather they caught that case of crabs when they first noticed the little buggers crawling around. Seriously, though, preventing a disease, or catching it in its infant stages, is a much better approach than trying to deal with it later, when you've already spread it, and the treatment has to be harsher. You know - that whole ounce of prevention line.

The free market never fails to provide the best products and services at the lowest cost.

Oh, like the recording industry? How about the software biz?

he reason health care costs have gone up isn't because of the free market, but because of government intervention. The most expensive health care on earth are in the most socialist and communist nations.

When you're dealing with something like people's lives, I don't think you can focus entirely on the cost. You need to focus on the effects - who has the healthier citizens. That would be a nearly impossible survey to conduct, because how would you account for all the variables in society - people's diet and exercise habits, etc?

I think that at this point the choice is between which system offers the most benefits. Each one offers a level of services to all people; the difference is where that level begins. I believe that level should not be 0 (as it is now), but it should be set at a reasonable level to discourage overuse and bad behavior, and not discourage universal health. I'll be the first to admit, however, that I have no idea what that level is.

Originally posted by warch

Especially small kids. Eatting dirt and pickin' their noses and stuff.

i just dug my kids brand new crayons out of his molars.

~james

Oh, like the recording industry? How about the software biz?

Funny you should mention those. Software is cheaper now than it was 20 years ago. So are computers. And the government doesn't regulate either of them. Also a CD right now costs less of a percentage of your income now than a record did in the 60's.

When you're dealing with something like people's lives, I don't think you can focus entirely on the cost.

No, you also have to focus on the quality of healthcare provided and the United States without question has the best doctors on the planet. Nobody would dispute that point.

You need to focus on the effects - who has the healthier citizens.

That's more of a question of culture rather than healthcare. Americans have more money, fast food, etc. We drive cars instead of riding bicycles, etc. That's hardly a relevant comparison to determine who has a better healthcare system.

I believe that level should not be 0 (as it is now), but it should be set at a reasonable level to discourage overuse and bad behavior, and not discourage universal health.

Our level isn't 0. Anyone in America can walk into any emergency room and get care even if they're homeless. That's far from being at a 0 level.

I'm all for encouraging exercise, better eating habits, and other healthy habits. But I'm also for getting rid of laws that prevent people with medical training from providing medical assistance simply because they aren't a doctor certified with the AMA.
There are people from other countries that live here and haven't gone through our medical training system who know a lot. But the AMA and the FDA keep medicines and treatments out of the hands of people that need it.

There are plenty of people who can administer first aid, know how to treat a cold, the flue, broken bokes, or other treatments besides AMA certified doctors who specialize in symptomatic rather than preventative medicine. If these people were allowed to help others, medical treatment would be far cheaper and you wouldn't even need insurance except for serious problems like a heart transplant or something.

Originally posted by Radar


Our level isn't 0. Anyone in America can walk into any emergency room and get care even if they're homeless. That's far from being at a 0 level.

It is 0 if you can't afford it. You may be able to walk in and be guaranteed service, but if you can't afford the bills you're going to receive from this, you're going to avoid it at all costs.

There are plenty of people who can administer first aid, know how to treat a cold, the flue, broken bokes, or other treatments besides AMA certified doctors who specialize in symptomatic rather than preventative medicine. If these people were allowed to help others, medical treatment would be far cheaper and you wouldn't even need insurance except for serious problems like a heart transplant or something.

You want to discredit our medical system? Allow any quack to fool the average American into using unproven medical techniques? That would be a horrible situation. It would undermine our faith in the system that you claim is the best in the world, or, at the very least, has the best doctors. Funny how you want to undermine that. Of course, great doctors don't necessarily mean a great system.

Software is cheaper now than it was 20 years ago. So are computers. And the government doesn't regulate either of them. Also a CD right now costs less of a percentage of your income now than a record did in the 60's.

Just because they're cheaper doesn't mean they're the lowest cost or the best products. I know there are many people on this board who are less than pleased with both industries.

(Apologies to those that read this earlier before I revised it.)

Originally posted by Cairo
Such as revising the Bible so it's more gender friendly

The Bible may be a book of history to you...it's a book of faith to me. The Bible is incredibly subjective, depending upon the religion and the person, so it's unfair to include it in this argument.

revising Texas History so it doesn't hurt hispanic children's feelings

I've found in my own studies that the US pulled some neat stunts in taking Texas. The Gadsden Purchase was slick too. Oh, and don't forget Hawaii. You can call it "revisionism" if you like; I call it "looking at a situation from multiple perspectives and coming to a reasonable conclusion."

Even if the revisions are being done so that the information "doesn't hurt hispanic children's feelings," we can all benefit from multiple perspectives of history...whether you like it or not, it can only enhance your knowledge. A perfect example of this is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Next you'll tell me how romantic Manifest Destiny was...

revising that Thomas Jefferson raped and produced children with a slave, when DNA proved otherwise

I've never heard it described as a rape, though I wouldn't be surprised if it were.

And while I have heard some say that the deed was done (though I only saw some minor media attention given to the outcome of the DNA tests), the only definite link is that a male descendant of Sally Hemings has the same Y-chromosome DNA as the Jefferson males.

I'm not sure what you mean by "otherwise." The DNA tests didn't prove that Tommy Boy was the father of Eaton Hemings, but he can't be ruled out.

The folks that run the Monticello say this: "The Thomas Jefferson Foundation stands by its original findings - that the weight of evidence suggests that Jefferson probably was the father of Eston Hemings and perhaps the father of all of Sally Hemings' children" (Source)

All in all, I'd say it certainly deserves some historical mention, just as the Clinton-Lewinsky deal does as well.

I can tell you how I reached my opinion that bin Laden is dead...

Whoa! Hold on here...

Originally posted by Cairo on 12/4/2002
Our forces killed bin Laden during the attack on Tora Bora. Bin Laden is dead, but Al Qaeda is not.

I don't know what they taught you in school, but most people would call the above quote a statement of fact. There is no "I think," "I believe," etc. in your statement, which would then make it a statement of opinion.

So, are you now saying that it is your opinion that bin Laden is dead?

If it seems like I'm not taking you seriously Cairo, it's because I don't. You come across like Ann Coulter or Jerry Falwell, both of whom are out-of-touch nutjobs, IMO.

You are more than welcome to embrace hard conservative views with open arms if you wish...that's your right. However, understand that almost everything here at the Cellar is subject to incredible scrutiny. Particularly when "outlandish" claims and statements are made. Hard lefters get their asses checked too, so don't try and cry a liberal bias.

It is 0 if you can't afford it. You may be able to walk in and be guaranteed service, but if you can't afford the bills you're going to receive from this, you're going to avoid it at all costs.

It's not 0 ever. Even if you can't afford it you will get service. You can be a homeless drunk and walk into an emergency room and get treatment. If you don't pay the bill you can keep going in and still get treatment.

You want to discredit our medical system?

No I don't want to discredit the medical system. I just want to discredit the AMA and FDA. Our doctors are the best on earth and I'm all for doctors getting certified and still being the best. But I think doctors should be privately certified and other people with medical training shouldn't be prevented from giving care. If they harm someone they will be responsible as any other doctor would be.

Allow any quack to fool the average American into using unproven medical techniques? That would be a horrible situation.

Who says the medical techniques are unproven? Most Eastern medicine has been used for thousands of years. It couldn't be more proven. But many of those techniques and medicines are outlawed in America.

I'm not saying everyone should see these people for every problem. What I'm saying is that if someone chooses to see someone like that they should be able to see anyone they want, especially if they've got a small problem like the sniffles, a rash, etc.

It would undermine our faith in the system that you claim is the best in the world, or, at the very least, has the best doctors. Funny how you want to undermine that. Of course, great doctors don't necessarily mean a great system.

It wouldn't undermine anything. It would provide more faith in our health care system because less people would be waiting in emergency rooms, insurance would be cheaper, and we'd still have the best doctors on earth. And you're correct, the best doctors don't necessarily make the best system. America once had the best healthcare system on earth until the government passed the HMO act, started medicare, and otherwise meddled with the free market medical care system.

Just because they're cheaper doesn't mean they're the lowest cost or the best products. I know there are many people on this board who are less than pleased with both industries.

You're barking up the wrong tree here pal. I've been a computer programmer and network engineer for 17 years. Software now has more features and does more with less effort than ever. Even development is easier. It's also cheaper. So are computers. So is long distance service. And so is music. Music is also digitally mastered and provides superior quality.

The Bible may be a book of history to you...it's a book of faith to me.

A highly flawed one at that. It's full of holes.

Nothing in the bible is factual. It's a book of fairy tales and nobody with an IQ with 3 digits can possibly expect anyone to accept it as historical fact.

Originally posted by hermit22
Just because they're cheaper doesn't mean they're the lowest cost or the best products. I know there are many people on this board who are less than pleased with both industries.

What do you suggest as an alternative? Have the government set price ceilings on CD's? Have the government fund all software development? What exactly are you advocating here?

I have server sitting 10 feet from me that's running free web, email, FTP, SSH, database, remote access, LDAP, and backup services, all on a free OS. All I paid for was the hardware, and the time it took me to get it all configured. How could it get any better than that?

I also have a little free time in the evenings, and so I'm helping to adapt said backup software to use a database backend. I'm giving back to the community because it helps others, yes, but foremost because it helps me. That's free market for ya -- take care of numero uno, and you accidentally help others.

How could the government possibly improve on that system?

Originally posted by sycamore
I'm entitled to be taken care of by my country, since I help take care of it.

I wholeheartedly disagree. You aren't <I>entitled</I> to squat, except life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Originally posted by Radar
Nothing in the bible is factual. It's a book of fairy tales and nobody with an IQ with 3 digits can possibly expect anyone to accept it as historical fact.

A man named Jesus Christ was born in a town called Bethlehem. That is a historical fact.

He was also killed by crucifixion. Again, historical fact.

Whether He is the savior of men, or the Son of God, you may disagree with. But saying "Nothing in the bible is factual" is incorrect.

A man named Jesus Christ was born in a town called Bethlehem. That is a historical fact.

He was also killed by crucifixion. Again, historical fact.

Whether He is the savior of men, or the Son of God, you may disagree with. But saying "Nothing in the bible is factual" is incorrect.

I'll tell you the same thing I tell all Christians. PROVE IT!

Show me his bones, dna evidence, some prove of the actual man. And not fake evidence like the shroud of turin which has been dated 600 years after the supposed death of Jesus.

There may or may not have been a man named Jesus of Nazareth. But the bible is a book of fairy tales designed to help people with a set of values. It has a lot of social and historical relevance itself. But what's in it isn't historically accurate until we have actual physical evidence.

I don't recognize the accuracy or authority of the bible. I've read it 3 times and know it better than most Christians. The teachings of the character "Jesus of Nazareth" are enciteful and wise and were also taught long before the life of Jesus assuming he actually was alive.

And it's sweet that you use linux. I like to play with it when I can but I've only got one box so I use Win2k. I'm a MCSE, MCT, A+, CNA, CNE. I'm not married to any OS but I like open source and I like linux. I have yet to see a web server better than apache. When I build my next box I'll probably make this one Linux. But there are a lot of flavors to use. The last one I used was Redhat and it installed in a snap. It recognized all my devices and had drivers for them. It required hardly anything to set up. Even easier than MS OS's

Originally posted by Radar

I'm a MCSE, MCT, A+, CNA, CNE.

You're an MCSE? Really? Wow. I never would have guessed.

D00d... j00 r liek s00p3r-3|33t! G0t 4ny w4r3z? Pr0n?

*sighs*
I leave for a compel of days to get take little pills and pound my eardrums and look what I have to come back to....

Radar. Yes, the bible is full of holes. On the other hand it is also full of verifiable historical fact backed up by archeological research. I am an atheist. Jesus being born etcetc is far more questionable, but you cannot dismiss everything in the bible as rubbish out of hand.

I'm a MCSE

You really want to say that in public?

What do you suggest as an alternative? Have the government set price ceilings on CD's? Have the government fund all software development? What exactly are you advocating here?

The freer the market the freer the people my fucking arse.

It is an issue of moderation and control.

It is undeniably true a free market can create a great spirit of competition that in theory benefits customers, and often does, but once a field is established it can be close to impossible for new players not to be squeezed out by force of simply economies of scale, which leaves entire markets ripe for exploitation by price fixing cartels, formal or informal. Direct intervention into the market by government should, IMHO as limited as possible but powers should be in place to make it possible for the govt to really, and I mean really, slap down anti-competitive practices, My own little dream scenario/social experiment would be to have a very, very small government, entirely free economy and a small group of overseers who could at discretion intervene, to keep things fair. Don't bother pointing out the flaws, just a nice experiment of sorts.

Health systems.....
I’m not sure of the details of the system in Canada but from memory it is not too different to ours. I have a Medicare card, its government issues. I can walk into any doctor that does bulk billing, swipe the card and the govt picks up the tab, I can d the same @ public hospitals. I can also get private health insurance, independent of my employer and use private hospitals and doctors as well as specialists at my discretion. Personally I think it's the best of both world. Everyone has access to health care, free of charge, and those who wish can have private care. Personally I do have private health insurance, it helps pay for things like contact lenses.

D00d... j00 r liek s00p3r-3|33t! G0t 4ny w4r3z? Pr0n?

Wow, you're so elite. I'm so impressed....*yawn* I thought people gave up that crap years ago. Nice to see people still clinging to habits that were annoying before they started.

You really want to say that in public?

Why wouldn't I. I've been certified since 1996 in all the Operating systems from Microsoft. Microsoft is a great company and makes some great products. In my opinion, Bill Gates is as good a human being as Mother Theresa or Ghandi. That's how much he's done for charity. And he intents to do more. Microsoft gets a bad rap from ignorant people who claim they're a monopoly when they clearly aren't. In fact Microsoft has only done one seriously wrong thing in my book and that's how they violated their license agreement with Sun Microsystems and Java.

Everything else was fair game. It's called business and it's tough out there in the competitive world.

The freer the market the freer the people my fucking arse.

It's your "arse" then because it's true. Free market capitalism results in more competition, better products at lower prices, more efficient services handled by more qualified people, etc. The only time government should get involved is when there is a clear monopoly, when a company has committed fraud (including to their investors) or theft, polluted public lands, made faulty products that harm people, etc.

I'm all for accountability and responsibility for everyone including the government, but the government should never get between two parties doing business.

Everyone has access to health care, free of charge, and those who wish can have private care.

<BZZZT> Try again. There's no free lunch, no free healthcare, and no free anything else. Socialized medicine costs more than regular insurance. Especially in countries like Sweden that embrace socialism even more. The more socialist or communist a country is, the more the people pay. Private industry is more efficient than government programs 100% of the time.

The libertarian position on these things is by its very nature, a selfish one, thankyou for pointing that out. Healthcare is not cheaper if you cannot afford it. Frankly i find it a sign of a civilized society that we are willing to pay for the healthcare of those that cannot afford it, rather than going for the most cost effective option. I also don't think you read what i posed. Here most of the healthcare is provided by the govt, the exception being public hospitals, it's just the govt picks up the bill. Yet somehow that is less efficient?

Why wouldn't I. I've been certified since 1996 in all the Operating systems from Microsoft. Microsoft is a great company and makes some great products. In my opinion, Bill Gates is as good a human being as Mother Theresa or Ghandi. That's how much he's done for charity. And he intents to do more. Microsoft gets a bad rap from ignorant people who claim they're a monopoly when they clearly aren't. In fact Microsoft has only done one seriously wrong thing in my book and that's how they violated their license agreement with Sun Microsystems and Java.

I think you need to clean your nose dude, must absolutely stink. On the other hand if i made my money by supporting the faults of substandard operating systems i'm say something to that effect too.

Mother Theresa - Selfllessly helped the poor for the vast majority of her life
Ghandi - Freed a nation of colonialism and pioneered non-violent protest
Bill Gates - made billions by developing other peoples software and ripping off their ideas, then gave a fraction of it away to charity.
Yea. very even.

Microsoft are not a monopoly? That explains why they can bully OEMs and everyone else without fear of a backlash, that explains why they can use their overwhelming market share to quash any competition.

Ohh sorry, I forgot, a free market could never let that happen, right? A massive domineering supplier, or cartel of suppliers could never squash competition to maintain the profitable status quo, right?

Companies would never, ever crush innovation with thier sheer size, of course not.

Sorry, try again.

I'm all for accountability and responsibility for everyone including the government, but the government should never get between two parties doing business.

Even if it's going to create monopoly?

Look i agree free market capitalism can produce the benefits you claim, but it is oh so easily exploited by companies that in the end, only care about their bottom line.

Originally posted by jaguar
The libertarian position on these things is by its very nature, a selfish one...

Oh, dear, the mating cry of the cooercive collectivist: "It's so selfish of you to not give us what we want!".

Originally posted by Radar
In my opinion, Bill Gates is as good a human being as Mother Theresa or Ghandi.

I know jaguar already addressed this, but what the hell are you thinking man. I've her some cracked up opinions in the cellar before but this, this is one is incredible.
Bill Gates spends some of his money on the poor, while living his life in his mansions flying on private jets, crushing smaller companies, and refusing to give consumers the best products, all so he can squeeze a few more billions out of the public. You really think he donates his money because he really cares, he does it to increase his public images, something that obviously has worked in your case.

Mother teresa on the other hand lived among the poor, helped them first hand, not just handing off a half percent of her income to a charity. She willingly lived a life of near poverty for the sake of helping those less fortunate. Yep sounds a lot like Bill Gates. I'm sure the pope had a conversation over breakfast today about whether or not Bill Gates will be declared a saint when he dies.

Ghandi, don't know a lot about him but I'm sure he was a better person then money hungry Gates.

Bill Gates spends some of his money on the poor, while living his life in his mansions flying on private jets, crushing smaller companies, and refusing to give consumers the best products, all so he can squeeze a few more billions out of the public.

This sounds exactly like what the government does, only on a scale that's 1000 times what Gates could ever dream of.

how so?

<h4>Cam</h4>

That's a fair question. It seems pretty clear to me, but not everyone sees the world as I do.

Unfortunately, I only have the capacity to be annoyingly vague, or annoyingly specific.

I'll put something together, give me some time.

Originally posted by Radar
In fact Microsoft has only done one seriously wrong thing in my book and that's how they violated their license agreement with Sun Microsystems and Java.

That's the <b>only</b> thing they've done that's "seriously wrong", eh? Don't you have trouble getting those blinders on over your rose-colored glasses?

Or does your definition of "seriously wrong" not include "dishonest" or "unethical" and embrace only "blatantly actionable"?

I guess it's only "wrong" if you get caught, convicted and suitably punished. They've managed to avoid that so far.

Originally posted by MaggieL


Oh, dear, the mating cry of the cooercive collectivist: "It's so selfish of you to not give us what we want!".

You're missing the point. It is selfish to not do what you can to help your fellow man. I'm selfish, you're probably selfish; we all are. But jaguar's right when he says that a civilized society does what it can to stop people from falling through the cracks. We, as Americans, do not do enough in this regard.

And Radar, the absolute devotion to any ideology is myopia. The free market is not the answer to everything. I think it should generally be used for most industries, but there should be a close watch put on it. And certain things, like the health of the population, should not be left to the free market.

While I am greatly respectful of the assistance Bill Gates has given to charity, that does not change his predatory practices in the business world.

The difference between the music industry, the computer industry, and the healthcare/medical industies is an amazing array of evergrowing ethical concerns wrapped up in the products and services that may determine life/death/disability/ability. There will always be vulnerable populations in need of care. There so many issues beyond economic capitalism. There has been talk on other threads describing some cultures as being more "advanced". How does life expectancy and quality of health figure into that?

Thinking about the housing and food industries, yes, two essentials of life - their markets have contributed undeniably to some more long term glitches with more issues to come - Housing:sprawl, shoddy but quick construction, resource waste, environmental impact and Food: GMO's, monoculture, also environmental impact.

Its such a balancing act.

Originally posted by hermit22
You're missing the point. It is selfish to not do what you can to help your fellow man. I'm selfish, you're probably selfish; we all are. But jaguar's right when he says that a civilized society does what it can to stop people from falling through the cracks.

That's the same empty platitude twice in a row. "It is selfish not to do what you can...a civiized society does what it can". So if there is anything that you *could* do that you *haven't* done, then you have failed to "do what you can"...the ultimate blank check drawn on "somebody else". "Civilized society" takes a vow of poverty until everyone is happy, and no one has "fallen though the cracks". Socialism always gives it's proponents a delightful warm fuzzy self-righteous feel-good...but it's still ethically bankrupt at the core.

Maggie- Its interesting to me that you are so shocked by Gate's sense of ethics. He's hardly a bankrupt socialist.:) What is the individual's responsibility to others? What is your idea of an un-ethically bankrupt philosophy of society?

Originally posted by jaguar
Bill Gates - made billions by developing other peoples software and ripping off their ideas, then gave a fraction of it away to charity.

Oh shit.

I agree wholeheartedly with Jaguar on something.

Please watch this space for the fall of civilization. ;)

OK, dammit.. it's time to split this into five different threads now... I can handle tangents but this is ridiculous!

Originally posted by MaggieL


That's the same empty platitude twice in a row. "It is selfish not to do what you can...a civiized society does what it can". So if there is anything that you *could* do that you *haven't* done, then you have failed to "do what you can"...the ultimate blank check drawn on "somebody else". "Civilized society" takes a vow of poverty until everyone is happy, and no one has "fallen though the cracks". Socialism always gives it's proponents a delightful warm fuzzy self-righteous feel-good...but it's still ethically bankrupt at the core.

And absolute adherance to capitalism gives its proponents a delightful warm fuzzy self-righteous feel-good sense because they don't have to care about anyone else. Capitalism works because it plays off of greed and rewards whoever is the greediest. It fails in a humanitarian sense for the same reason.

Neither should be strictly adhered to, but a blending of the two seems to be the best option available. That's the problem with ideology - people get stuck in the particulars of a specific mindset and can't understand that the proper road might be somewhere down the middle. I decry complete socialism as much as I do complete capitalism.

Originally posted by Radar

I'll tell you the same thing I tell all Christians. PROVE IT!

Show me his bones, dna evidence, some prove of the actual man. And not fake evidence like the shroud of turin which has been dated 600 years after the supposed death of Jesus.

How do you know that Hannibal used an army of elephants against the Romans? Do we have video footage of the event? Any living eye-witnesses?

No, but the story has lots of basis in fact, and parts of it coincide nicely with other parts of what we know of history. We take it as having actually happened because it seems rather plausible, and have no reason to believe otherwise.

So you're right, no one can <I>prove</I> that Christ lived, because anything you would consider proof didn't exist back then. So does that mean we just pretend everything that happened back then is a fairy tale?

Originally posted by Radar
And it's sweet that you use linux. I like to play with it when I can but I've only got one box so I use Win2k. I'm a MCSE, MCT, A+, CNA, CNE. I'm not married to any OS but I like open source and I like linux. I have yet to see a web server better than apache. When I build my next box I'll probably make this one Linux. But there are a lot of flavors to use. The last one I used was Redhat and it installed in a snap. It recognized all my devices and had drivers for them. It required hardly anything to set up. Even easier than MS OS's

MCSE: Minesweeper Champion and Solitaire Expert?

I agree that Gates has done much more good than harm for society. We now have one prevalent personal computer platform instead of dozens -- and that's a good thing. He is largely responsible for bringing computing to the masses.

And he did it all out of greed. He stole others' ideas and used them as his own. He played the game harder and better than anyone else, made a fortune, and whoops, accidentally made the world a better place.

Then he went too far. And a groundswell of discontent finally exploded, and now Linux will eventually supplant both Microsoft and Unix in the server space.

Sun complained that Microsoft broke Java (no argument there), and got an injunction against them creating new, incompatible JVM's. They could continue to distribute their current JVM for a certain period. That is a case where we needed government intervention, and it worked the way it's supposed to.

So they decided to take the JVM out of Windows, and now Sun is bitching because it means a lot of Java stuff won't work out-of-the-box. So what do they do, develop a great JVM and work with OEM's to get it preinstalled? No, they go to court to force Microsoft to distribute it for them.

Why the hell should they? It's Microsoft's product, and Sun thinks they should be forced to distribute a competitor's product? Is Coke required to include a can of Pepsi in every twelve-pack they sell?

The libertarian position on these things is by its very nature, a selfish one, thankyou for pointing that out. Healthcare is not cheaper if you cannot afford it..

There's nothing selfish about Libertarianism. There's nothing selfish about allowing people the freedom to make their own healthcare decisions. It is selfish to think you're entitled to reach into someone else's pocket just because you want or need something. Healthcare is cheaper when you're not being robbed for half of your income. Then even those with the lowest paying jobs can afford healthcare. Others would get it from private charities, friends, family, neighbors, churches, etc. And there are plenty of people willing to provide these essential services if only they could afford to do it. But they can't when half of their income is being STOLEN from them to pay for unconstitutional social programs that don't help anyone. Yes, Medicare, medicaid, etc. don't help anyone. Not only that the most poor people can just walk into an emergency room and get treatment and never pay for it so yes those that can't afford healthcare are still getting it.

Frankly i find it a sign of a civilized society that we are willing to pay for the healthcare of those that cannot afford it, rather than going for the most cost effective option.

I don't find armed robbery very civilized. And that's what income tax is. Armed robbery. The threat of force is used against us to pay for social programs that don't help anyone and are illegal under the constitution. Private healthcare is better than socialized medicine 100% of the time. In fact private industry is more efficient and provides better service in all areas 100% of the time.

Here most of the healthcare is provided by the govt, the exception being public hospitals, it's just the govt picks up the bill. Yet somehow that is less efficient?

Canadian healthcare is absolutely less efficient, provides substandard healthcare, long waits for service, etc.

On the other hand if i made my money by supporting the faults of substandard operating systems i'm say something to that effect too.

Windows 2000 is the best operating system in the world. It's more stable than Linux and more user friendly. It's the most tested and secure piece of software ever created.

Mother Theresa - Selfllessly helped the poor for the vast majority of her life
Ghandi - Freed a nation of colonialism and pioneered non-violent protest
Bill Gates - made billions by developing other peoples software and ripping off their ideas, then gave a fraction of it away to charity.
Yea. very even.

Mother Theresa and Ghandi did a lot to help the poor. Bill Gates has done even more. Bill Gates has earned his money honestly and provided great products. He is a tough and astute businessman but that's how business works. The strong survive. He's given more money to charity than any other two people on the face of the earth. It's given close to 3 BILLION DOLLARS so far and intends to give his entire fortune. Just like Mother Theresa and Ghandi, Bill Gates had dedicated his life to helping others, especially the less fortunate.

Bill Gates isn't Microsoft. And Microsoft has only stolen 2 things in their entire existence; Stacker and Java, and I fault them for that. There are a lot of other companies that have done worse things. They didn't steal the GUI interface as Apple claims. They didn't steal Netscape as they claim. They haven't stolen anything wrong other than Java in the 90's and stacker in the 80's.

Microsoft are not a monopoly? That explains why they can bully OEMs and everyone else without fear of a backlash, that explains why they can use their overwhelming market share to quash any competition.

The definition of Monopoly means ONE CHOICE. There are many choices of operating systems and software. The fact that Microsoft has better marketing and happens to be the most succesful doesn't mean they're a monopoly. In fact Microsoft doesn't even sell the fastest selling Operating system. And don't blame Microsoft for exclusive OEM agreements. They give OEM's a choice. OEM's don't HAVE to sell their systems with Microsoft OS's installed. But if they want to Microsoft wants them to sign an agreement that says they will ONLY sell their systems with Microsoft OS's. The OEM's can easily tell Microsoft to forget it but they don't because they know their customers want systems with Microsoft OS's installed. There's no force, bullying, or coersion.

Microsoft is not, nor has it ever been a monopoly. Microsoft doesn't prevent competition either. Microsoft has embraced and encouraged innovation and standards not just for their own company but for everyone. Microsoft has used their influence in the software community to make things far better than they were before they were around.

Ohh sorry, I forgot, a free market could never let that happen, right

That's right. A free market PROMOTES an environment where even the smallest company can compete equally with the largest multi-national conglomerate and doesn't promote monopolies.

Even if it's going to create monopoly?

I didn't say I wanted a lawless market, just a free market. Companies that are not monopolies like Microsoft would be free to continue business, but the government WOULD get involved if say one company bought all the railroads in America. The government would still make sure we didn't have monopolies, that businesses didn't commit fraud, didn't sell faulty products, didn't misrepresent themselves to their customers, didn't pollute other people's land, etc.

Oh, dear, the mating cry of the cooercive collectivist: "It's so selfish of you to not give us what we want!".

Exactly! How selfish of you to not be happy when I try to rob you.

Bill Gates spends some of his money on the poor, while living his life in his mansions flying on private jets, crushing smaller companies, and refusing to give consumers the best products, all so he can squeeze a few more billions out of the public.

Bill Gates lives well. So what? Helping the poor doesn't mean you've got to be poor yourself. And Bill Gates doesn't crush smaller companies or even stop competition. Bill gates gives conumers great products that are feature rich and as stable as any other solution out there. You can't name a more stable OS than Windows 2000. And don't be an idiot and say Linux because you know that's a lie. I like Linux and find it very stable, but it's hardly as good as Win2k.

You really think he donates his money because he really cares, he does it to increase his public images, something that obviously has worked in your case.

People don't spend 3 BILLION dollars because they don't care. And Gates isn't stopping there, he's giving all of his money to the poor. All of it!

When gates gave that 3 BILLION DOLLARS, he did more in a single act for the poor than Mother Theresa and Ghandi did in their entire lifetimes.

Or does your definition of "seriously wrong" not include "dishonest" or "unethical" and embrace only "blatantly actionable"?

Microsoft does business honestly and ethically in almost all cases. The only exceptions were Java and Stacker. Everything else they've done has been above board.

But jaguar's right when he says that a civilized society does what it can to stop people from falling through the cracks. We, as Americans, do not do enough in this regard.

Americans are the most generous people on earth. We give more money to people in need than anyone else. When there's an earthquake in turkey, starving ethopians, WTC bombings, etc. Americans always come together to help.

The only thing stopping Americans from giving even more is our government stealing half of our income to pay for programs that don't help anyone.

The free market is not the answer to everything. I think it should generally be used for most industries, but there should be a close watch put on it. And certain things, like the health of the population, should not be left to the free market.

The free market is better, cheaper, and more efficient at ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING than the government. It makes no sense to leave the government in charge of healthcare. Everything the government touches turns to shit. The people who do healthcare the best and care about people the most (Free market) should handle important things like healthcare, retirement, charity, education, etc. Not glorified DMV workers who don't care and keep 85% of the money STOLEN for their own overhead.

I hate how people use the word "society" and forget that "society" includes those of us who want to keep our money and choose which charities we give to and which we don't. It's not selfish to choose where your money goes. It's very selfish to think it's ok to rob your neighbors for what you think their money should be spent on.

Whoops, almost forgot...

Originally posted by Radar
I like to play with it when I can but I've only got one box so I use Win2k.

You mean you don't have some spare 486 laying around, or a couple other boxes you could cannibalize? Linux doesn't need much, ya know. You wouldn't even need a monitor or keyboard; just SSH in.

I first cobbled together a Linux box when I wanted to set up a cheap firewall/router, because I got a cable modem and there was no chance in the world I'm gonna let Windows sit connected to a 24/7 big ol' fat pipe to the outside. Even ZoneAlarm can't lock it up tight enough.

And it just ballooned from there.. I got sick of my ISP screwing up my email, so I bought a domain and set up my own email server. Then a web server to share pictures with my family, and FTP server to transfer MP3's to work, etc. etc.

Gates is giving all of his money to the poor, and MSFT is always ethical and honest.

Except for the Java licence.

Oh, and Stacker.

And Netscape...

And... and...

Sooner or later, *everyone* MSFT embraces as a "busness partner" (including "customers") gets screwed. No exceptions.

It's a bit like a casino; there's a house percentage and the only winners are those who cash out immediately after a big win. The rest take it up the ass eventually. That includes those bearing a string of shell-game certifications....they are viewed as "food" too. When they start paying by-the-drink for proprietary development tools they may begin to understand. :-)

But of course, this is how business is done, isn't it?

Maybe. But the developer communities (well, execpt the kids who got free .NET infomercials desguised as for-credit courses) are maturing enough to see whose stewardship of technical standards can and can't be trusted.

You mean you don't have some spare 486 laying around, or a couple other boxes you could cannibalize? Linux doesn't need much, ya know. You wouldn't even need a monitor or keyboard; just SSH in.

No, at the moment I've just got this one box. It sucks. But Linux is sweet. You can install it on a toaster. It's very robust and has a lot of great features. Plus most of the software for Linux is opensource freeware. Very sweet.

Gates is giving all of his money to the poor, and MSFT is always ethical and honest.

Except for the Java licence.

Oh, and Stacker.

And Netscape...

And... and...

Microsoft didn't do anything unethical with Netscape.

It's a bit like a casino; there's a house percentage and the only winners are those who cash out immediately after a big win. The rest take it up the ass eventually.[/qoute]

I was a casino craps dealer in Las Vegas for 6 years. And one thing I'll tell you is nobody forces anyone to play. And nobody forces them to play in the Microsoft casino. There are plenty of places to play.

[quote]Maybe. But the developer communities (well, execpt the kids who got free .NET infomercials desguised as for-credit courses) are maturing enough to see whose stewardship of technical standards can and can't be trusted.

The technical standards Microsoft uses aren't created by Microsoft. They are just adopted and promoted by Microsoft and are above reproach when it comes to trust.

Radar are you a Micrsoft employee. Or even Bill Gates hiself. I'm not sure what to think, I don't think I've ever heard anyone staunchly defend Micrsoft or Gates like this since...well ever.


But your insistance on comparing Bill Gates to Mother Theresa and Gandhi has got to stop. That's bullshit, just becuase he gives a small percentage of his income does not make the man a good person. Not saying he isn't but he isn't anywhere near the person Mother Theresa was. You lose credibility making such ridiculous statements. He just throws money at a couple groups who help the poor. Really similiar to Mother Theresa.

Originally posted by Radar


The technical standards Microsoft uses aren't created by Microsoft. They are just adopted and promoted by Microsoft and are above reproach when it comes to trust.

Nope, they just adopt them, change them, and then close them so that no one else can use them.

I must admit, Radar, that your diatribe about the free market has made me want to research ways to counter you, because well-meaning rhetoric and everyday examples do not phase you. You just repeat the same thing. So my response is that I think you are completely wrong in your strict belief system, and I'll be thinking about an all-inclusive counter in a few days. I call it the slang approach (no offense, Slang).

PS - What part of California are you from? I'm from the Inland Empire. I believe the town I went to high school in is now run by a Libertarian mayor - not that that has any relevance, but the city's a pile of crap. It was before she got there though.

In my opinion, Bill Gates is as good a human being as Mother Theresa or Ghandi.

He just took the balloon payment option.:)

Originally posted by Radar

The technical standards Microsoft uses aren't created by Microsoft. They are just adopted and promoted by Microsoft and are above reproach when it comes to trust.

Oh, absolutely. *snicker*. Like SMB.

Surely you've heard the phrase "Embrace, extend, extingish."

How does that Kool-Aid taste? Aren't you a little old for this "true believer" act? The LP *and* Microsoft? What's your stand on Santa Claus? :-)

I hope I run into some LP folks from CA soon that aren't space cadets, I'm starting to form a stereotype, especially after l'affaire Starchild.

But your insistance on comparing Bill Gates to Mother Theresa and Gandhi has got to stop. That's bullshit, just becuase he gives a small percentage of his income does not make the man a good person.

When I compared Bill Gates to Mother Theresa and Ghandi I was giving Mother Theresa and Ghandi more credit than they deserve. Gates has done far more to help poor people than both of them combined. And 3 BILLION dollars isnt' a small percentage of anything.

must admit, Radar, that your diatribe about the free market has made me want to research ways to counter you, because well-meaning rhetoric and everyday examples do not phase you

Feel free to research all you like. I have.

PS - What part of California are you from? I'm from the Inland Empire. I believe the town I went to high school in is now run by a Libertarian mayor - not that that has any relevance, but the city's a pile of crap. It was before she got there though.

I'm not from California, I just live here. I live in Gardena at the moment. And all of the inland empire is a pile of crap. I lived there too. I grew up in Las Vegas and was in the casino business for years.

How does that Kool-Aid taste? Aren't you a little old for this "true believer" act? The LP *and* Microsoft? What's your stand on Santa Claus? :-)

Maggie: I'm not acting and every single thing I've said about the Libertarian party and Microsoft is an indisputable fact. I don't believe in Santa Clause, but if you believe in socialism or believe that Microsoft is a monopoly you probably believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny, and Bigfoot.

I hope I run into some LP folks from CA soon that aren't space cadets, I'm starting to form a stereotype, especially after l'affaire Starchild.

Starchild is hardly representative of all Libertarians. I've only spoken to him a few times with regard to youth outreach stuff. I don't get to the bay area very much but he's well known up there. Dave Moloney was head of the CA state LP for awhile and he absolutely hated Starchild. I used to do a lot of work for Dave at the CA LP office. I'm far from being a space cadet. My feet are firmly on the ground and I have no need to lie. What I say is the truth whether you want to admit it or not.

Microsoft doesn't invent standards, they just adhere to them and promote other developers to do it too.

Originally posted by Radar
Microsoft doesn't invent standards, they just adhere to them and promote other developers to do it too.

OK, now even I am starting to believe you're an MS employee or just having some trolling fun. You didn't have a comeback to Maggie's SMB comment; do you think they "adhered" to that standard?

What about their J++ java implementation? They adhered right to that standard as well, right?

Even simple things like Outlook's handling of email isn't standard. Their Kerberos implementation isn't standard. Their IE-specific HTML extensions aren't standard.

Need any more examples?

Originally posted by Radar
When I compared Bill Gates to Mother Theresa and Ghandi I was giving Mother Theresa and Ghandi more credit than they deserve. Gates has done far more to help poor people than both of them combined. And 3 BILLION dollars isnt' a small percentage of anything.

but its still a percentage. gandhi and mother theresa devoted their *entire* lives to helping people. im not saying bill should give it all away. but until bill does something more than throw some money at charities once in a while dont make him out to be a greater humanitarian than mother theresa. bill sacrifices a small percentage of his money. mother theresa and gandhi sacrificed their *lives* for what they believed in. their contribution was far greater. that is unless you can put monetary value on what thwey did. can you?

~james

Originally posted by Radar
When I compared Bill Gates to Mother Theresa and Ghandi I was giving Mother Theresa and Ghandi more credit than they deserve. Gates has done far more to help poor people than both of them combined.

What criteria do you use to determine who has done more in helping the poor? Certainly you use more than money, right?

Or do you?

I would like some evidence on how Bill Gates has done more to help poor people than Mother Teresa or Gandhi, including the criteria used to determine the "best helper," and any data analysis you might have used, such as ANOVA.

Thanks.

Shit! These threads expand too fast for those who only come here 3 times a day to keep up!

Now let’s clear something up here.

I am to a degree, a libertarian. Hell even on the issue of guns I am ambivalent, thought I’d rather blow off my own kneecap than throw a bone to some of the attached philosophies that are thrown around here. But when it comes to social policy, irrespective of whether you support such policies, they are by their nature selfish. It's not about freedom, it's about access. I think *only* having a public system is bad, but *only* have a private system is worse, as hermit put it, it's too easy for people to fall though the cracks. It's not a freedom if you cannot afford it, a fact that is easy to overlook in the name of abstract idealism or pure selfishness. It is not about absolutes, it’s about the best possible compromise, because either extreme is terrible.

By paying tax we all support services we do not want or need, the fact we are willing to contribute to something that may help others with no benefit to ourselves I think is a great reflection on our society.

Now radar has done brilliant job of proving my point. After a few pages of rubbish about efficiency, the truth comes out: he thinks income tax is 'armed robbery'. I assume therefore that he is an anarchist, not a libertarian, because I do not understand how government is supposed to function effectively (or efficiently?) without tax revenue? Or should government be turned into a competitive business maybe? So what radar is actually miffed about his hard earned money might be used to pay for someone else's healthcare, without his permission. As for a rebuttal for that - see above.

And last I checked Radar, I was talking about the system here which I described, not Canadian healthcare, so please, read what I posted and post a rebuttal to that, not what you assumed I wrote.

Windows 2000 is the best operating system in the world. It's more stable than Linux and more user friendly. It's the most tested and secure piece of software ever created

Bullshit. Sorry.

The rest of your post is a nice attempt to dig your head in the sand and pretend that theory, not business reality, is reality. Ironic.

Radar's last post convinced me that he just wants to disagree with everything everyone says.

Originally posted by hermit22
Radar's last post convinced me that he just wants to disagree with everything everyone says.

Okay hermit...let's test that theory.

The Libertarian Party is far superior to any of the other established parties.

Even simple things like Outlook's handling of email isn't standard.

Bullshit. Microsoft outlook handles pop3 and all other emails according to set standards. They do DHCP, WINS, TCP/IP, SNMP, and hundreds of other services, protocols, and software implementations according to standards they they didn't create. The fact that you don't like the way they handle a few of things doesn't mean they don't follow standards.

gandhi and mother theresa devoted their *entire* lives to helping people

So has Bill Gates. He worked hard to build the largest and most profitable software company in the world and he's giving his entire fortune away. And 3 billion dollars helps poor and sick people a lot more than non-violent protests and helping only a few sick orphans.

What criteria do you use to determine who has done more in helping the poor? Certainly you use more than money, right?

I use the number of needy people who got assistance and the level of assistance they got.

By paying tax we all support services we do not want or need, the fact we are willing to contribute to something that may help others with no benefit to ourselves I think is a great reflection on our society.

We don't PAY taxes. We don't get a tax bill in the mail and we don't choose which programs we support with those taxes. Nearly half of our income is STOLEN from us to pay for UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ILLEGAL social programs that don't help anyone. The government keeps close to 85 cents of every dollar STOLEN from us as overhead.

After a few pages of rubbish about efficiency, the truth comes out: he thinks income tax is 'armed robbery'.

I defy you to show me how it's different than armed robbery or extortion. Money is taken from you against your will and you have no choice about it and if you don't like it and try to avoid it, men with guns show up.

I assume therefore that he is an anarchist, not a libertarian, because I do not understand how government is supposed to function effectively (or efficiently?) without tax revenue?

100% of the constitutional parts of government can be run solely with the tariffs and excise taxes we already collect. But in order to make it a more free market for everyone the tariffs should be spread out evenly across all importers from every nation. A flat 3% tariff and the standard excise taxes on telephone, gas, power, etc. alone would pay for our military, judiciary, and the other constitutional parts of government. Everything else is unconstitutional and needs to go.

Under a Libertarian plan the poor, elderly, and infirmed would get MORE ASSISTANCE not less. Less people would fall through the cracks if people had more of their income and got to choose where it went. The government steals from us to pay tobacco farm subsidies and then to pay for no-smoking campaigns.

I don't want to pay for either of those. I'd much rather have the people who genuinely care about the poor, elderly, and infirmed like private charities, churches, friends, family, and relatives have more money to help them. And that's not a fantasy like trying to get the government to do everything for everybody like the socialists want. I think it's selfish of people to want to use government to steal from people and allow government to violate the constitution when a private system run without force or coersion would provide even more assistance. And it would without a doubt.

The government isn't here to clothe, feed, shelter, prepare for retirement, educate, give healthcare, or any of those other things. It's only here for those things specifically listed in the constitution and that's it. NOTHING MORE.

Bullshit. Sorry.

Well Win2k is better than any Mac OS, better than Linux, better than Novell, better than Unix, better than OS2, and better than any mainframe OS. So how is that bullshit?

The Libertarian Party is far superior to any of the other established parties.

Absolutely true. Libertarians won't sacrifice their principles to get elected and actually do what they promise when elected. (See Art Olivier) and it's this reason why they will come out ahead in the end not the reason they will fail. A Libertarian president isn't a dream, it's a certainty. It will happen in my lifetime for sure.

<a href="http://www.libertymall.com/Products/Books/federal_mafia.htm"> The Federal Mafia </a>

"Irrefutable - an expose to end all exposes"
—Irv Homer, WWD, Philadelphia

If you read this book, you will at the very least, understand why so many people feel the incometax is illegal. It is very well put together with hundreds of examples from tax forms and official IRS documents.

You may very well disagree with the idea that the income tax is illegal after completing Schiff's book, but you will admit that there is a strong case against it.

Originally posted by Radar
So has Bill Gates. He worked hard to build the largest and most profitable software company in the world and he's giving his entire fortune away. And 3 billion dollars helps poor and sick people a lot more than non-violent protests and helping only a few sick orphans.

oh yeah, i forgot about how bill wakes up every morning and spends all day making the world safe for orphans in india with his perfectly secure and stable operating systems.

radar, youre an idiot.

~james

Damn it perth I had put off saying that for a couple days.

Radar, if you want to discuss stuff, please be willing to listen to argument, no one agress with you, yet you have not given one source or any other form of information other than your opinionated bullshit. I'm willing to listen to about most everything you've said(excluded the ridiculous comparison of Bill Gates to Mother Teresa that's just complete fucking bullshit) but please give me some proof.

i became bored, i was surprised, i bought three books, i disavowed anarchism, i laughed once, and am now considering that i may be a libertarian. pray continue this very enlightening squabble.

HI mig, and welcome

Originally posted by mig
i became bored, i was surprised, i bought three books, i disavowed anarchism, i laughed once, and am now considering that i may be a libertarian. pray continue this very enlightening squabble.

I think you may enjoy Mr Jaguar's comments. You two seem to have a similar style.

mig, part of the problem is that there is big-L and small-l libertariansm. One is a party, the other is a general school of thought. Neither one is a fully-formed all-encompassing philosophy although many adherents to both believe that it is.

slang : i suspect you are a member of my family. specifically one of my uncles or my mother. if you are not, we should adopt you so i have somone else to argue against. if you know the name of a certain pony, tell me so i can razz you at Christmas.

undertoad : i have trouble with capital letters. i meant lower case. doesn't do to leap into a political party headfirst.

thank you Cam :D

Originally posted by Cam
Damn it perth I had put off saying that for a couple days.

sorry cam. feel free to follow up. :)

~james

*sighs*

So has Bill Gates. He worked hard to build the largest and most profitable software company in the world and he's giving his entire fortune away. And 3 billion dollars helps poor and sick people a lot more than non-violent protests and helping only a few sick orphans.

You're frigging insane.

We don't PAY taxes. We don't get a tax bill in the mail and we don't choose which programs we support with those taxes. Nearly half of our income is STOLEN from us to pay for UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ILLEGAL social programs that don't help anyone. The government keeps close to 85 cents of every dollar STOLEN from us as overhead.

I don't know the intricacies of constitutional law in the US to the validity of social programs I cannot comment on. I was not, after all discussing this on a legal level, but a moral level. I would love to see these social programs that don't help anyone, isn't that a self defeating statement? The difference with armed robbery is the money is not spent on my country and community, in theory for the benefit of all, and I can't leave the country if I dislike an armed robbery.
I'm also yet to see how by not having income tax the poor get more assistance. Private charities are often a vehicle for religious institutions and these days have become a competitive industry, with marketing budgets as big as their welfare budgets. I see you have no actually made any rebuttal to the healthcare sys I explained, that is in place here, but instead have continued with your unsupported rubbish.

slang: I have never, in any sense put any value whatsoever on the concept of anarchy, it's nothing more than protest politics for those too lazy to think about what they're protesting about.

Well Win2k is better than any Mac OS, better than Linux, better than Novell, better than Unix, better than OS2, and better than any mainframe OS. So how is that bullshit?

Easier to use than OSX? Riiiggghhtt. More secure than OpenBSD? Riiiggghhht. More stable than linux? Riiiggghhhtt. 'better' than True64unix and AIX in mainframes? tehehahahahHAHAHAHA you are a moron. I'm sorry, but if you think Win2k is the best operating system across the board on every system in every environment it is clear why you're so proud of your MCSE – you don’t have a bloody clue. I’ve worked a bit in IT, but there are people here who get their bread and butter out of HPUX and the like who I’m sure will enjoy ripping up your farcical statement.

I'll help you with the constitutional law, jaguar. I'm not an expert, but general readings have shown me that people who deal with constitutional law pretty much fall into 1 of 2 categories: strict constitutionalists and interpretists. Strict constitutionalists can be compared to some Islamic movements of the late 20th century: that the theoretical framework was complete in an earlier form, and the course of time has corrupted it. Interpretists believe that the Constitution is a living document, and that it was set up that way so that it would not become outdated: it could be adapted to fit the evolving nature of society.

This is a bit simplistic, of course; there are extremes at each end. But the people who claim that taxes or social policies are illegal are at the far end of the constitutionalist spectrum. They do not understand how much revenue is required to run the greatest (by size & influence) economic, military, political and ideological power in the world.

Again, I'm not an expert, so I'll be the first to admit that I may be wrong on parts of this typology.

Originally posted by hermit22
They do not understand how much revenue is required to run the greatest (by size & influence) economic, military, political and ideological power in the world.

I actually do have some idea how much revenue is required. Does that in itself make the tax system legal?

It is true that the current system funds almost all of the programs and policies many of us are against. Take the money away, the house of cards crumbles.

People far smarter than me are finding very little actual law supporting the tax system , while at the same time quite a bit of intimidation that keeps it going.

Schiff's book is a good resource for understanding the argument, whichever side you are on. I bought and read it years ago and no longer have a copy, but you would find it interesting , I'm sure.

Originally posted by Tobiasly

So they decided to take the JVM out of Windows, and now Sun is bitching because it means a lot of Java stuff won't work out-of-the-box. So what do they do, develop a great JVM and work with OEM's to get it preinstalled? No, they go to court to force Microsoft to distribute it for them.

Why the hell should they? It's Microsoft's product, and Sun thinks they should be forced to distribute a competitor's product? Is Coke required to include a can of Pepsi in every twelve-pack they sell?

Damn this thread grew faster then I realized, I just remember this post.
I kind of agree with Tob on this one. I've actually brought this issue up and everyone just kind of skirts the real subject. I remember thinking that what other companies wanted was similiar to what would happen if Sony suddenly deciding that all car companies should have to install their speakers and decks. Though I dislike Microsoft I always found some of the issues kind of iffy.

Sounds like an interesting topic to look into, if kind of irrelevent.

Originally posted by Tobiasly
Is Coke required to include a can of Pepsi in every twelve-pack they sell?

That's a lame simile. Coke never agreed to include Pepsi in every future twelve-pack during some hypothetical time when it was to their advantage to do so.

MSFT's bad-faith dealings with the Java licence created a situation where the market for Java support was structured around support being included in the OS platforms. MSFT even signed up to "implement the reference platform" for Java on their OS....which they actually did do, for a while.

When they finally twigged that Java would actually achieve a reasonable level of platform independance--something they undoubtedly thought impossible--they panicked and started looking for ways to poison the well--including that whole charade over at ECMA. They couldn't find one that worked well enough without completely violating their original contract, which they proceeded to go ahead and do figurung "Neener, neener, neener, we're MSFT and we can afford more lawyers than you can, by the time we're done in court we'll have crushed you like evrybody else."

I think Sun is perfectly right to insist on the remedy bringing them closest to "specific performance" of what MSFT originaly agreed to: develop a JVM to Javasoft's spec and distribute it with their OS platform, along with very specific compatibility requirements (which forbade extensions except in certain highly controlled ways, which MSFT flauted completely). and they are now throwing a tantrum and sulking because they haven't gotten their way. Since they can't be trusted to develop anything for Java without poisoning the well, Sun will develop for Windows and MSFT can bloody well distribute it as they agreed to.

Originally posted by slang


I actually do have some idea how much revenue is required. Does that in itself make the tax system legal?

Nope. Your opinions are no more or less important to the legality of the legal system than mine is. :)

It's always an interesting exercise to try to figure out what needs to be cut from the budget. There's a summary of it here:
http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2003/pdf/bud34.pdf
and more here:
http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2003/maindown.html.

And I'll look for that book. It sounds interesting.

Maggie, it's a bizarre world - we agree on something. :)

(final comment of the night)


2 TRILLION dollar budget......and they couldn't keep 4 planes from being used at weapons. Maybe 5 trillion will do the trick. Or 7......or 12.....or 20..........

slang, Schiff's book is a good text for understanding that no matter how much we think we understand the law, ultimately it's the judges who interpret the law. And thusly, I've just heard that an old LP acquaintance of mine was raided. He felt he was following Schiff to the letter. Now he faces years in federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.

It scarcely matters what Schiff thinks if the judges disagree on the loopholes that Schiff believes he's found. The judges are, for better or worse, the final arbiters. That's how the system works.

(falling asleep)

The book isnt about loopholes UT, it's about legal foundation. Read the book, it's entertaining. There is no doubt that if you stop paying the IRS will imprison or kill you, the question is, how could this be with the existance of the US BOR.

I dont disagree in regards to the judges, but I think we've been hoodwinked.

Imprison i can understand. Kill? Do please back that one up.

2 TRILLION dollar budget......and they couldn't keep 4 planes from being used at weapons.

We should make a cellar silly quotes of shame board. I'm sure i'd have a few on there too. Although i'd be pushed off pretty quickly by Radar and Cairo at this rate.

Originally posted by Radar
Absolutely true. Libertarians won't sacrifice their principles to get elected and actually do what they promise when elected. (See Art Olivier) and it's this reason why they will come out ahead in the end not the reason they will fail. A Libertarian president isn't a dream, it's a certainty. It will happen in my lifetime for sure.

Here's a tissue, Radar...you might want to clean off those rose-colored glasses of yours.

Originally posted by Radar
Windows 2000 is the best operating system in the world. It's more stable than Linux and more user friendly.

Stability is a pretty subjective issue. I have never had Linux crash to the point where I had to reboot the server. Ever. In fact, the only time a reboot is required is when you upgrade the kernel. That's what I call stability; I'd be interested in hearing your definition. (That's not sarcasm.. I am really interested by what measure you find Win2k more stable than Linux.)

Bullshit. Microsoft outlook handles pop3 and all other emails according to set standards

I never said pop3, now did I? I admit, "handling of email" is pretty vague. So how about their <B>NTLM authentication scheme</B> for starters? Could you please show me an RFC where that is documented?

And what about that horrible Rich Text Format that Outlook uses? Granted, it's a published standard, but it's still something Microsoft created, with minimal support elsewhere. Care to revise your earlier statement, "Microsoft doesn't invent standards, they just adhere to them and promote other developers to do it too."?

Originally posted by MaggieL
MSFT even signed up to "implement the reference platform" for Java on their OS....which they actually did do, for a while.

OK, I'm admittedly fuzzy on all of the history leading up to now.. what do you mean when you say Microsoft "signed up" to implement Java in their OS, and how does that mean they should be forced to include it today?

That all depends on the wording of the contract now doesn't it. :)

Originally posted by Cam
That all depends on the wording of the contract now doesn't it. :)

Actually, that's exactly my point. And I'm not familiar with the contract, or whatever else they may have signed, so I'd be interested in how it binds them to supporting a competitor's product.

I'm willing to listen to about most everything you've said(excluded the ridiculous comparison of Bill Gates to Mother Teresa that's just complete fucking bullshit) but please give me some proof.

You want proof that Bill Gates has given about 3 billion dollars to charity? That won't be too tough to provide.

http://www.glf.org

http://www3.sympatico.ca/truegrowth/gates1.html

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_707992.html?menu=

oh yeah, i forgot about how bill wakes up every morning and spends all day making the world safe for orphans in india with his perfectly secure and stable operating systems.

No, he goes to India personally and gives them $400,000,000 for AIDS research. And it's paid for with the best operating system on earth, Windows 2000.

sorry cam. feel free to follow up.

I will. You're an asshole.

The difference with armed robbery is the money is not spent on my country and community, in theory for the benefit of all, and I can't leave the country if I dislike an armed robbery.

Wrong! If someone robs me and says they're going to use the money to feed their starving kids and give medicine to their elderly mother, it doesn't make it any less robbery. And the money that's stolen from us does not benefit everyone or anyone. Welfare doesn't help people, it keeps them in a self-perpetuating cycle of poverty. Public education doesn't help people. It makes Americans less educated than most other countries when private education costs half of what is spent per student in public schools and provide a superior education. Medicare and Social security don't help people. If someone put the same money into a savings account over their working career as they do into social security they'd have more than a million dollars to retire on, have more money each month, and be able to leave it to their family. You can't name a single government program that has done it's job. Welfare was created to end poverty. Has it? Social security was made to provide a retirement that people can live on in their autumn years. Does it?

The answer on all these is NO!!!

Private charities are often a vehicle for religious institutions and these days have become a competitive industry, with marketing budgets as big as their welfare budgets

Bullshit. Private non-profit charities RARELY keep more than 20% of money collected for overhead while the government keeps 85% of every dollar stolen. There are also hundreds if not thousands of these non-profits that aren't related in any way to any religious organization. The Red Cross, The United Way, and hundreds of charities to fund research for AIDS, Cancer, Abused Children, food banks, and other such things.

I see you have no actually made any rebuttal to the healthcare sys I explained, that is in place here, but instead have continued with your unsupported rubbish.

I see you're still talking shit even though I've backed up everything I've said with actual numbers and indisputable facts.

I’ve worked a bit in IT, but there are people here who get their bread and butter out of HPUX and the like who I’m sure will enjoy ripping up your farcical statement.

I've been in IT for 17 years and you're a complete idiot if you think any of those OS's provide more security, are more user friendly, or are more stable than Win2k. I can talk about anything you want in the computer realm and put you and most others to shame. Now sit down little boy, you've been schooled.

This is a bit simplistic, of course; there are extremes at each end. But the people who claim that taxes or social policies are illegal are at the far end of the constitutionalist spectrum. They do not understand how much revenue is required to run the greatest (by size & influence) economic, military, political and ideological power in the world.

I'm not extreme in any sense of the word. Let me help you out. Read the 9th and 10th amendments. They say that anything not specifically listed in the constitution is a right of the people or a power of the states. And that the fed may not take part in anything not enumerated (specifically listed) in the constitution. Government funded charity, education, healthcare, retirement, etc. ARE NOT LISTED IN THE CONSTITUTION AND ARE THUS ILLEGAL FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO TAKE PART IN!

Yes the constitution can be changed, but only with a constitutional amendment. Not an act declaring a change of government powers like the war powers act, or the homeland security act. Only an actual amendment can change the powers of government or add new parts to government. Nothing less is acceptable or legal. The constitution doesn't require "interpretation". It's written in simple English and it means what it says; nothing more and nothing less.

That's a lame simile. Coke never agreed to include Pepsi in every future twelve-pack during some hypothetical time when it was to their advantage to do so.

It's a metaphore. And it's legitimate. Microsoft never agreed to sell their product with anyone else's product included. Especially a competing browser or even Java. Microsoft did break their license agreement not to change Java. But they didn't make any promises to distribute Java. They merely got a license to use it.

2 TRILLION dollar budget......and they couldn't keep 4 planes from being used at weapons. Maybe 5 trillion will do the trick. Or 7......or 12.....or 20..........

Exactly. The military budget is FAAAR to big. Every single American military base outside our own borders should be shut down immediately. The constitution provides for a DEFENSIVE military not an OFFENSIVE show of force spread out all over the globe like the Roman empire.

(That's not sarcasm.. I am really interested by what measure you find Win2k more stable than Linux.)

It's from personal experience. I am a consultant that literally sees thousands upon thousands of machines of all operating sytems. And don't get me wrong I really like Linux. But I've had 1 or 2 linux machines crash on me. But have never seen a Win2k machine crash. I will give Linux this, it almost never has to be rebooted. And while win2k rarely has to be rebooted, it still does on occasion when you install software packages. Win2k has a lot of features Linux doesn't have such as R.I.S. and other stuff included as part of the operating sytem.

Could you please show me an RFC where that is documented?

I never said everything they do is based on standards, but nearly everything is. I am sure I can name a dozen things Microsoft does by standards that have RFC's you can look up for every one you can provide that doesn't have one. And I'd look for that RFC but I've got to get to bed. As it is I'll get 4 hours of sleep before work if I leave right this second and immediately fall asleep.

Radar, he wasnt asking for proof about bills charitable giving. he was asking for proof regarding all the other bullshit youve spewed since arriving here.

1. you say the libertarian party is bigger than ever. undertoad calls you out on that statement. you challenge the veracity of his numbers and when he does, you choose to ignore them for the sake of your fragile ego. whos been schooled?

2. you start this little flamewar about how win2k is better than any other os on the planet. maybe it is, but i have yet to see you back that up other than taking someone elses statement, turning it into a question, and disagreeing with it.

3. the only facts you *have* thrown out are irrelevant. nobody cares how much bills given. what everyone cares about is this:

bill has given a percentage of his wealth to charity, lets say 3 bil, for your sake. mother theresa and gandhi gave 100% of their lives to charity. you said, and i quote:

Gates has done far more to help poor people than both of them combined.

so what youve essentially done is put a value on not one but two human lives. and its less than 3 billion.

i may be an asshole. but at least i can turn that on and off. youll always be an idiot.

~james

p.s. ive just remembered that i can turn *you* on and off. congratulations on the dubious honour of being the first person on my ignore list.

Radar you are an idiot.

*now where is that ignore button*

" he wasnt asking for proof about bills charitable giving. he was asking for proof regarding all the other bullshit youve<a href="http://us.f1.yahoofs.com/users/21b7c626/bc/spew.wav?bchDi89AOk7ysQVg"> spewed</a> since arriving here. "

:)

Originally posted by slang
" he wasnt asking for proof about bills charitable giving. he was asking for proof regarding all the other bullshit youve<a href="http://us.f1.yahoofs.com/users/21b7c626/bc/spew.wav?bchDi89AOk7ysQVg"> spewed</a> since arriving here. "

:)

dammit slang. now i have to go find a copy of that movie. :)

~james

Guys, please let me know when my rants get that stupid... Dude fantasizes about being the first LP President when even LPers find him completely offensive.

Originally posted by Tobiasly

OK, I'm admittedly fuzzy on all of the history leading up to now.. what do you mean when you say Microsoft "signed up" to implement Java in their OS...

They signed a contact with Javsasoft (the division of Sun in control of Java) to be permitted to include Java tech in Windows and to be the developers of the reference JVM implementation for Windows. Sun gave them total access to source code, and developers all over the planet did many man-years of development work relying on MSFTs promise that a compliant JVM would ship with every copy of Windows.

When MSFT realized--years down the road--that Java was actually beginning to deliver on its promises of platform portability, they decided the contract wasn't such a good deal for them after all and began to put code into their JVM to break compatibility: there would be one way to code some things for Windows and another way everywhere else. This was explicitly forbidden by the licence agreement.

Sun began beating on them to comply with what they'd promised to do in the licence agreement, and MSFT refused saying what they were doing "worked better".

When Java released Remote Method Invocation (a technology underlying J2EE and EJB), a means of calling code in another JVM or in another machine across a network, Microsoft saw a looming threat to the future dominance of their own DCOM technology (a .NET predecessor), because RMI works across *all* platforms, not just Windows. They flat out refused to implement it in their Java support as they had comitted to doing many years before--their contract called for them to imlement new revs of the Java API within a specified time limit after the Java platform was revved by Sun, and thier imlementations were required to pass compatibility test suites written by Sun...the same tests required of all other Java implementors. .

I think requiring MSFT to ship Sun's Java implementation with Windows is a suitable remedy for the damages calculatedly and deliberately caused by MSFT's bad-faith breach of the contracts they freely entered into.

By the way, Radar? I was working in computing before you were born..so your "17 years, you've been schooled" riff impresses me not at all. So you can sit down too, "little boy."

In my opinion, it's the delivery that makes a post offensive.

If something is wonderfull to you, it's probably NOT to many others. Please explain in detail why you like it without making me sound like a dumbass for NOT liking it.

Opinion is great but supprting opinion or supporting facts are better. When someone presents opinion as fact, it's annoying, not interesting.

I really dont care what your opinion is, just dont bullshit me and yourself by posting it as divine wisdom.

It's also helpful not to become<a href="http://us.f1.yahoofs.com/users/21b7c626/bc/numnuts.wav?bcihr89A.8vGZK5i"> confrontational</a> when attempting to make you point.

So , I hope Radar and Cairo will continue contributing, I just wish they would improve the delivery so I can agree with them without looking like an ass.

Originally posted by Radar
And I'd look for that RFC but I've got to get to bed.

Don't bother. It was a rhetorical statement because there isn't one. Instead of using any of the other numerous existing email authorization schemes, they decided to use their own, and not publish the specs.

So any open-source program that wants to authenticate against MSN or anything else that uses NTLM must reverse engineer the protocol.

Originally posted by slang
In my opinion, it's the delivery that makes a post offensive.

Yeah, Radar at first seemed like he'd be an interesting addition around here, but now he just sounds like a dick. I still don't know whether he actually believes his "Win2k never crashes" statement, but I don't really care.

I've been in IT for 17 years and you're a complete idiot if you think any of those OS's provide more security, are more user friendly, or are more stable than Win2k. I can talk about anything you want in the computer realm and put you and most others to shame. Now sit down little boy, you've been schooled.

Win2k is the most secure OS on earth? That statement alone deomnstrates your insipid and arrogant stupidity.

i'm not going to waste any more time on you.

Tob: The MSN api is availaible from msft.
Doesn't mean your point is incorrect, just thought i'd point that out.

Which MSN API are you referring to? I'm talking about their NTLM email authentication protocol. You won't find a specification anywhere. Ditto for their proprietary SMB extensions.

No sorry, i meant the general chat one.

Hermit22,
Your comprehension black outs seem intentional, since you are the only one "playing dumb" when it's convenient, then understanding fully when you wish to rebut! So when you "play dumb" I will reply "How convenient!"

1. How convenient! Charter 6 violations are suggestions by the UN to keep peace...Charter 7 violations are backed up with the use of force by UN members and they required unanamous votes...
Israel has never violated Charter 7 resolutions, Iraq has!
The UN is irrelevant and a joke, History has proven this. But I'm not going to let you get away with giving Saddam excuses and comfort he doesn't deserve, especially when it's idiots like you who demand that we jump through these irrlevant hoops in the first place!!!!
I didn't call anyone vermin, my husband did...
How convenient!
2. "Colorblind" when it comes to the truth? Hell YES! Colorful truths are lawyer-speak for defense lies!
3. Kashmir, Columbia, Israel, and America are all in the "During War" phase...if their enemy has not been defeated and still wants to defeat them, what do you call it?
No, sometimes the State is under the impression that the enemy has surrendered, when in fact, he was buying time to get his ass out of the sling!
4. Hey little boy, I already am an active member of society, and have been since 1981...when your contributions amounted to about 7 diapers a day, right? How many employees do you have? How much in taxes do you contribute per year? How many houses, property, cars, stocks,and insurance policies have you paid for and OWNED?....None yet? THAT'S what I thought, little boy!
Oh, my mind is open...just not to Socialism! Your mind(thanks to liberal indoctrination) is so open, your brains FELL OUT! That's not a good thing! Pour that in and swirl it around awhile!
Yes, my husband used to think and act exactly like you. So much so, that he was about to join the French Foreign Legion and before that, held such little regard for human life, he carried a bullet for the purpose of suicide! Then we had children, and he says, the Lord found him and awakened his purpose. Now he spends everyday righting his past wrongs. You seem to be at your Anti-America stage of your life, my husband was there too...with age comes wisdom.
5. Wrong! The Parliment Lenin was going to install never came to be because he was shot in the neck!
6. How convenient! America would be a better place to live if some people had a sense of shame or guilt! A healthy fear of ostracism leads to individual accountability!
7. How convenient! They couldn't find a single trace of some 9/11 victims either, do we assume that they too are indeed alive as well?
You don't understand what a bunker buster does to surrounding oxygen, do you?
WOW! Stop the presses! I dare to disagree with our Government!...So sue me!
8. The Bush Administration has always claimed that Saddam has proven ties with terrorists, in fact, he IS A TERRORIST! Many other Countries say the same!
The Bush Administration has also said from the beginning that some Countries will help US in secret for their own safety, the Czech Republic is one such Country, and President Bush will not, nor should he, betray their trust! When the Czech Republic says we can make the satellite tapes public, we will, otherwise the proof is a need to know basis...Countries who have come on board with US after being against, have seen the proof. Our own Congress, made an about face after perusing the proof! I'll side with the inner-circle who has all the intel available to them since I don't.
9. If you consider lawyer-speak, deception, and smooth talking like a cheating boyfriend trying to get you back is a "better speaker" then Bill"it depends on what the meaning of is, IS" Clinton is your guy! And Algore is such an IDIOT! In 1998 he said that regime change in Iraq was the only solution for Saddam...what's changed since '98,
Al? IDIOT! Algore is a perfect example of our F-ed up "higher education"! And you are another for considering lying under oath in a court of law, and getting others to perjure in order to obstruct justice is "relatively trivial"! Breaking the law is only "relatively trivial" to CRIMINALS!
10. Excuse me Stalin, BUT Self-defense is not terrorism! "propaganda by deed" Indeed! Tell it to the Japanese Shinto's...Bin Laden's and Saddam's terrorist network weren't the first quasi-religious fanatics to challenge US with homicide bombers, hell they weren't even the first to slam planes into US! We defeated the Shinto fanatics without destroying the Religion itself...and we will defeat these Islamic fanatics without destroying Islam itself. Japan polices itself, now fist-fights break out in the Japanese Parliment anytime the idea of deploying troops beyond their shores is brought up!

It's amazing the attitude adjustment that a stout ass-kicking will produce!

Earth by birth
American by the grace of God!

Radar,
A court order is still required to judge the Constitutional Rights of the American citizen.
The Patriot Act gives our Government the tools it needs to take terrorists who want to kill US off our streets and stop them from killing US. So, if the Patriot Act stops one terrorist from killing you, me, the rest of New York...it has effectively upheld our Right to Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of Happiness. See?

All your other posts are excellent reads, I agree!!!!
LOL...These wankers actually think they are Libertarian, all the while, they spout Socialist mantra....what a hoot!

Hermit22,
You say,"I think Healthcare is far too important to leave to the free market."
You do comprehend that the free market, as well as Bill Gates, are We the People of these United States, right?
Just like the DemocRATS stating that We the People are too stupid to handle 2% of our own Social Security, and that overcharging We the People doesn't merit a refund or "change back" because that money belongs to the Socialist Government now!!!! Hermit22 declares that We the People are not capable of taking care of ourselves without the proverbial Government rectal exam!

Sycamore,
The Bible is a Historical journey of events that happened from Third Century B.C.E. thru 68 C.E.
Sounds like History to me...unless you haven't the faith that it happened. The Bible is also a book of instructions by God.

http://cweb.loc.gov/exhibits/scrolls/toc.html

No, 6 months ago some councilman here petitioned the court to revise the History of the Alamo to omit parts of the last stand because some Hispanics might be ancestors and be offended at the slaughter, or some such B.S....He lost and the courts upheld the true History!
How does a perspective born out of lies enhance ones knowledge? I contend it "dumbs-down" our children because the truth is erased.

As for Jefferson...there ya go propagating the truth again! Seems the revisionist fabrication into History fooled even you!
The link clearly states that Eaton Hemings has the same Y-chromosome as 25 different Jefferson males in that area at that time, who ranged in age from 16-68 years old, Thomas Jefferson being the oldest at 68 years when this boy was conceived! 68 years old back then, is equivalent to 88 years by todays standard of life, and there was NO VIAGRA back then, Dumbazz!

I believe I was asked Why do "you think" or How do "you know" binLaden is dead...ask for my opinion, and you get it! That's what this forum is for, 'nes pas?
Debating the issue is NOT crying about it, crying about it is what you do when I check your sorry socialist rear! Typical!

The bottom line is...
If Bill Gates DBA Microsoft has broken the law, prove it in court and he/they will be punished! If not, you're just jealous and envious like the Devil that you failed to be as successful as you perceive him to be!

Healthcare...you should be angry at lawyers and patients who commit fraud! Lawsuits are what causes costs to rise through the roof. A lot of Americans are realizing that the choice to not carry insurance is less expense in the long run. Example: If I pay $340.00 per month for 80% full coverage, and I see the doctor 2 times that month, it costs me $368.00. If I don't have insurance, and I see a doctor 2 times in a month, it costs me $156.00.
Maternity...with insurance, your 20% cost is $1,500.00 plus you have paid $4,080.00 for that year of insurance. No insurance, save up $2,500.00 and your baby is paid for! We are getting smart,
just realize that the insurance industry is like the retail industry in that those who don't shop at Macy's cause Macy's to have sales to pull them in, those who do shop at Macy's and steal from them cause Macy's to mark up prices, and those who are honest buyers pay that price!
This analogy may be too intellectually advanced for some here to comprehend, so don't even try!

The link clearly states that Eaton Hemings has the same Y-chromosome as 25 different Jefferson males in that area at that time, who ranged in age from 16-68 years old, Thomas Jefferson being the oldest at 68 years when this boy was conceived! 68 years old back then, is equivalent to 88 years by todays standard of life, and there was NO VIAGRA back then, Dumbazz!

So all older men need viagra. Hmmm, seems a little unrealistic to me, sounds like Bob Dole has gotten into your head.

The Bible is a Historical journey of events that happened from Third Century B.C.E. thru 68 C.E.

The bible is not a record of facts. It's a record of faith. Big difference. When you start to confuse the two your spitting in the face of God given intelligence.

ust realize that the insurance industry is like the retail industry in that those who don't shop at Macy's cause Macy's to have sales to pull them in, those who do shop at Macy's and steal from them cause Macy's to mark up prices, and those who are honest buyers pay that price!
This analogy may be too intellectually advanced for some here to comprehend, so don't even try!

Yep that flew right over my head.

Oh, my mind is open...just not to Socialism!

So your mind is closed?

Originally posted by Cairo
Maternity...with insurance, your 20% cost is $1,500.00 plus you have paid $4,080.00 for that year of insurance. No insurance, save up $2,500.00 and your baby is paid for! We are getting smart,

Apparently they redefined that last word there.

Sure, there are lots of cases where it's not cost efficient to have insurance. I'm pretty healthy and I haven't been to the doctor in a few years now. I've still been paying for insurance, and by your reasoning, I'm getting totally ripped off. Fortunately it's called "insurance", and I pay for it so that I am assured coverage in the case of an accident.

Here's an example for you: seven years ago, I was shot in the face by an irresponsible neighbor. I spent a week in the hospital and had probably thirty doctor appointments over the next eight months. At that point, I was an add-on to my father's insurance, and I was probably costing $50 a month. Now, let's assume $20,000 for the helicopter, hospital stay and surgery (which is on the low end, but I don't recall the exact numbers). And we'll go ahead and add $78 per appointment thereafter, totalling $2,340. So our grand total for that fiasco comes out to about $22,340. If we divide that by the amount my father paid each month to have me on his insurance, we come out to 446.8 months (I'll round down, so that the numbers are more favorable to you). 446 months is 37 years and 2 months, meaning that if that one incident was the only reason I ever visited a doctor in my entire life, my dad would break even after 37 years of paying for my insurance.

Now, suppose you're paying $340 each month for 80% coverage (that's from your example). They're only covering $17,872 from that $22,340 medical bill, which leaves you with $4,468 in up-front costs. Plus, you're paying $340 each month. Divide that into your $17,872 of coverage for that particular incident and you'd have to pay for 52 months (4 years, 4 months) to cover it. That's assuming you have no other medical visits whatsoever over that period of time. Plus, you got stuck with a shitty $4,468 bill.

Insurance exists because the world doesn't necessarily work the way we'd like it to. I'm not happy that I got shot, but I'm thankful that hospital bills didn't bankrupt my father.

Whether or not you like it, there's a place in this world for insurance. And whether or not you'd like to admit it, it's smart to have it. Because you can never <b>know</b> whether or not you'll need it.

By the way, the quote in your signature is wrong. I'd appreciate it if you'd fix it. The actual words are "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."

Cam,
The fact that you want so badly to demonize a Founding Father of this Country on speculation and probability that flies against the odds, is unrealistic at best, to me! The odds against TJ being the father are 96% not. Common sense tells us that Sally fell in love with one of the 20+ year old Jeffersons and got pregnant...she was no stranger to sex, this was her 2nd child!

So you base your faith on...what? Truth? And truth is found through....FACTS!!!!
As children we believe in the tooth fairy, based on what our parents tell us to be truths. When we get older and find, in fact, our parents are the tooth fairy, we no longer believe...or are you saying you do?
I said, a Historical journey of events...it's up to each reader to decide the truth or facts of the Bible's record for themselves.

Over your head?...Doesn't surprise me. LOL...
I have closed my mind to Socialism because I've read and researched what it does to a Country of the People, for the People. And it ain't pretty!

I was just pointing out the fact that your argument above was pretty much worthless. Do I think there is a 100% probability he is the father, no. The media overplayed the DNA test. It’s been too long for the test to be a fool proof method of Jefferson being the father. But to discount it because Viagra wasn’t available….

Faith is faith, if you start basing your faith on facts your going to find yourself believing in science as the true answer. Once you do that your life is going to be pretty meaningless.

I was being slightly sarcastic, as your use of grammar was about the skill level of a 4th grader. I doubt anyone understood that sentence.

dave,
Of course I agree with you that having the choice is always best, because some need insurance and some do not. My beef is with the affordability of choosing to have it. I don't think you are getting "ripped off" because you have coverage, I think you are getting ripped off because your cost is hardly affordable due to insurance fraud perpetrated by lawyers.(As the mark up of clothing is due to shoplifters)

Those who choose to not carry insurance are not poor or unable, they are taking a stand, and saying to the lawyers to stop the lawsuit frauds that drive up doctor/hospital insurance so our coverage can again be affordable. I also have to add that in an emergency(such as yours, and I'm very sorry you had to go through such a horrific experience, I'm glad you are O.K..) people with no insurance can make monthly payments of as much as you can afford...be it $10.00 or $100.00, they have to accept it. That's why I stated "in the long run."
because most of the time we are healthy without incident as you are now.
Thanks for the reply, and spelling out the importance of having the choice.

As for my sig....not bad recall from only hearing it once, eh? The meaning is the same, and I'm not sure how to get back in to fix it, can you tell me how? Thanks.

As the mark up of clothing is due to shoplifters

See now if you would have said that the first time I wouldn't have had to say anything. That anyone with a brain can understand. I understood your previous analogy but I had to read it 4 times to figure out what you were saying.

My impression of Cam's "adult" reply....

"Whaaaaaa, I can't justify how a 68 year old man is as studly as 24 younger, more able bodies...Whaaaaa, I still believe in the tooth fairy....Whaaaaa, so I'll call you a fourth grader, and Whaaaaaa, claim IGNORANCE.....whaaaa haaaa ha."

WHO'S worthless???? Piss off!

I never claimed to be an adult, I'm just a 20 year old college student trying to survive another semester. And yes I do claim ignorance. I know very little of the world. But then again I know enough that I take the time to see both sides of an argument and listen to reason. I also know enough to see that my finals are more important then listening to you. Time to say goodbye to cairo for the next two weeks.

Cam,
I did say that in the first place, almost word for word...who else besides a shoplifter "steals from Macy's"???
Here's another puzzle that boggles the anti-corporate mind...If you don't want We the People to run and privately control business, and you don't want Government to run and control business, and a mix of the two causes bankruptcy and power struggle for one to dominate.....who's left? What's the solution? Just something to ponder.

Originally posted by Cairo
Of course I agree with you that having the choice is always best, because some need insurance and some do not.

Those lawyers don't give a rat's ass whether you carry insurance or not. How is refusing insurance taking a stand against them?

Cam,
I understand, good luck on your finals!
C-ya later.

I did say that in the first place, almost word for word...who else besides a shoplifter "steals from Macy's"???

As the mark up of clothing is due to shoplifters

just realize that the insurance industry is like the retail industry in that those who don't shop at Macy's cause Macy's to have sales to pull them in, those who do shop at Macy's and steal from them cause Macy's to mark up prices, and those who are honest buyers pay that price!

Tobiasly,
Refusing to carry insurance causes the insurance company to "have a sale" to pull you in, like Foley's department stores are notorious for their Red Apple Sale, which brings in people who never set foot in Foley's otherwise. But insurance can not do this until lawyers are reigned in from their free for all fraud...torte reform. They do give a rat's ass about torte reform!

Well golly gee, do we have ourselves a Holy Roller here?

Originally posted by Cairo
The Bible is a Historical journey of events that happened from Third Century B.C.E. thru 68 C.E.
Sounds like History to me...unless you haven't the faith that it happened. The Bible is also a book of instructions by God.

That is your interpretation. There are at least 2 interpretations with which I am familiar (and there may be even more): The first is literal interpretation, which is used by more conservative Protestants. They tend to take the Bible word-for-word, and as a history book (i.e. The Earth was created in 6 days, everything that Revelation describes is indeed going to happen). The second is contextual interpretation, which is used by Catholics and more liberal Protestants. They tend to believe that the Bible is a book of faith, not a history book, and that many parts of the Bible are more symbolic than anything.

Which one is right? No one really knows...it all depends in how you look at it.

Your link is not working now, and was not earlier as well.

No, 6 months ago some councilman here

Where is here?

He lost and the courts upheld the true History!

I'd certainly be curious to learn more about this. Do you have any links or references?

How does a perspective born out of lies enhance ones knowledge? I contend it "dumbs-down" our children because the truth is erased.

It depends on if it is actually "lies" or not. You haven't provided any real detail on the situation yet, other than some of your cute color commentary...

Originally posted by Cairo on 12/9/2002
No, 6 months ago some councilman here petitioned the court to revise the History of the Alamo to omit parts of the last stand because some Hispanics might be ancestors and be offended at the slaughter, or some such B.S....He lost and the courts upheld the true History!

Given your penchant for slant, I'd love to see some sources for this.


Then you threw this out...

As for Jefferson...there ya go propagating the truth again! Seems the revisionist fabrication into History fooled even you!
The link clearly states that Eaton Hemings has the same Y-chromosome as 25 different Jefferson males in that area at that time, who ranged in age from 16-68 years old,

Call me crazy, but...

Originally posted by Sycamore on 12/5/2002
the only definite link is that a male descendant of Sally Hemings has the same Y-chromosome DNA as the Jefferson males.

Male descendant--a male-line descendant of Eston Hemings
Jefferson males--the "s" at the end of "males" means "more than one." I am well-aware that there were many.

So, where is the revision in my above quote? Go ahead, try and find it.

Thomas Jefferson being the oldest at 68 years when this boy was conceived! 68 years old back then, is equivalent to 88 years by todays standard of life, and there was NO VIAGRA back then, Dumbazz!

Viagra was not necessarily needed. Men can father children well into their later years, as opposed to women. (e.g. Tony Randall)

I merely provided the statement from the Monticello folks for further information. Again, I think it's worthy of talk in the annuls of history.

I believe I was asked Why do "you think" or How do "you know" binLaden is dead...ask for my opinion, and you get it! That's what this forum is for, 'nes pas?

I did not ask for your opinion.

Originally posted by Cairo on 12/4/2002
Our forces killed bin Laden during the attack on Tora Bora. Bin Laden is dead

As I mentioned previously, this is considered by most folks to be a statement of fact. I merely asked you to back up this "fact" you were claiming. Sources...you know...BBC, Fox News, MSNBC, The Washington Times, etc.

Then you come back with...

Originally posted by Cairo on 12/4/2002
I can tell you how I reached my opinion that bin Laden is dead...

And you added to this what appears to be your opinions on why bin Laden is dead. No sources, nothing. Just a bunch of shit I could hear on any cable news channel.

Debating the issue is NOT crying about it, crying about it is what you do when I check your sorry socialist rear! Typical!

Checking me? Please! I don't get checked too much on shit like this b/c it's unwarranted. When I come to the table, I tend to either qualify myself (by using "I think," "I believe," etc.) or back it up with sources. (Go ahead, look through my 2900 posts.) Therefore, there is little need to check me. And when I do stumble, I admit my fault and roll on.

In the end, you're just a sad oxygen-stealing puke who was fortunate enough to get an internet connection so that you can spew your shit online. You could stand to take a cue from others in the community in the areas of diplomacy and responsibility of your posts. You apparently have no diplomacy, and that's why I have no desire to try and converse with you in an overly diplomatic and respectful manner.

So, why don't you wrap yourself up in that big blanket of ignorance for now, get your shit together, and come back when you're ready to play some real ball, mmmkay? Until then, I can no longer spend time dealing with your insanity.

Most of your post is pretty garbled and worthless, and I don't feel like fellating your ego anymore by giving you a real response. So I'll respond to your vague insults and little else.

Originally posted by Cairo

3. Kashmir, Columbia, Israel, and America are all in the "During War" phase...if their enemy has not been defeated and still wants to defeat them, what do you call it?
No, sometimes the State is under the impression that the enemy has surrendered, when in fact, he was buying time to get his ass out of the sling!

Most of these countries are in war in the same way that the whole world is constantly in conflict. I would get philopsophical on you, but it's not really worth it. Look up some Clausewitz if you're really interested. What I was referring to was the higher level; not the low level state. I'll go into further discussion of this if you figure out how to ask me nicely.

4. Hey little boy, I already am an active member of society, and have been since 1981...when your contributions amounted to about 7 diapers a day, right? How many employees do you have? How much in taxes do you contribute per year? How many houses, property, cars, stocks,and insurance policies have you paid for and OWNED?....None yet? THAT'S what I thought, little boy!

So you've proved that your argument is based on insults. How humourous. About as funny as you not mentioning how much you contribute.
And yes, I have had and currently do have many of those things.

Yes, my husband used to think and act exactly like you. So much so, that he was about to join the French Foreign Legion and before that, held such little regard for human life, he carried a bullet for the purpose of suicide! Then we had children, and he says, the Lord found him and awakened his purpose. Now he spends everyday righting his past wrongs. You seem to be at your Anti-America stage of your life, my husband was there too...with age comes wisdom.

I'm about as far from being anti-American as it gets. I'm training to spend my life directly serving my country. So go blow your smoke up some other chimney.
And it sounds like your husband was a pretty close minded liberal - maybe he did fit into the far left/communist group. My version, and the one that I suspect most progressives believe in, respects humanity above all else.

5. Wrong! The Parliment Lenin was going to install never came to be because he was shot in the neck!

No, actually, you're wrong. His Testament was a series of letters suggesting what he thought should be done, and nowhere in there did he suggest a brand new, full Parliament. The official story is that he died of a stroke - which is completely plausible considering the number that he had been having in the years before his death.

7. How convenient! They couldn't find a single trace of some 9/11 victims either, do we assume that they too are indeed alive as well?

I think we all saw the footage of that on tv.

8. The Bush Administration has always claimed that Saddam has proven ties with terrorists, in fact, he IS A TERRORIST! Many other Countries say the same!
The Bush Administration has also said from the beginning that some Countries will help US in secret for their own safety, the Czech Republic is one such Country, and President Bush will not, nor should he, betray their trust! When the Czech Republic says we can make the satellite tapes public, we will, otherwise the proof is a need to know basis...Countries who have come on board with US after being against, have seen the proof. Our own Congress, made an about face after perusing the proof! I'll side with the inner-circle who has all the intel available to them since I don't.

So you don't trust them when they say bin Laden isn't dead, but you do when they say Saddam's a terrorist (and then later drop the line)?

In 1998 he said that regime change in Iraq was the only solution for Saddam...what's changed since '98,

Hmm. A Second Intifada, a few major terrorist attacks, increased hostilities in the region coupled with increased information access (ie. al-Jazeera, Internet)...nope, nothing new.

"higher education"! And you are another for considering lying under oath in a court of law, and getting others to perjure in order to obstruct justice is "relatively trivial"! Breaking the law is only "relatively trivial" to CRIMINALS!

Look at Eisenhower, or Johnson, or Reagan's aides, who all lied to the public or had their aides perjure themselves. History is full of leaders whose lies sent people to their death. So why is a blowjob so important?

btw, I have no patience for anti-educationalism. I think that's a pretty good indication of intelligence level. Anti-establishmentism, however, is completely different, and is often practiced by those in higher education - sometimes to extremes. You seem to not be able to figure out your own opinion on these things. For example -- do you want your children to go to college?

10. Excuse me Stalin, BUT Self-defense is not terrorism! "propaganda by deed" Indeed! Tell it to the Japanese Shinto's...Bin Laden's and Saddam's terrorist network weren't the first quasi-religious fanatics to challenge US with homicide bombers, hell they weren't even the first to slam planes into US! We defeated the Shinto fanatics without destroying the Religion itself...and we will defeat these Islamic fanatics without destroying Islam itself. Japan polices itself, now fist-fights break out in the Japanese Parliment anytime the idea of deploying troops beyond their shores is brought up!

It's amazing the attitude adjustment that a stout ass-kicking will produce! [emphasis added]

I believe that was Stalin's tactic, yes.

And please tell me of the other examples of people "slam[ming] planes into US!"

Quit making yourself look like an idiot. Even the best people, or the best countries, have a soiled history. It's foolish to think otherwise, and close your mind off to anything but yourself and your beliefs.

The scrolls that were later compiled and translated (twice - once from ancient Aramaic to Greek, and then from Greek to old English) for the King James Version of the bible were written 400 - 500 years after the supposed death of Jesus of Nazareth. During those hundreds of years, the stories were told from father to son for generations upon generations. I've read the bible several times among other religious texts. I prefer the NIV version for accuracy because it was translated directly from Aramaic to English and the King James for it's poetry.

I don't know if any of you remember the telephone game children play, but it goes something like this. You line up 10 or so children and the first one whispers something in the ear of the child next to them and they pass it on until it gets to the end. By the time it gets to the end it's completely different than the original message. This is undoubtedly the case with the bible stories. They've surely been embellished and changed to the point where they're hardly recognizable from anything that may or may not have happened in reality.

I don't recognize the bible as "divine" or as "factual". I don't recognize it as a moral authority or as an accurate historical record. I see it as one of many religious texts out there with some well known stories and parables intended to teach a set of values. The same is true with Zen Buddhism, Islam, and every other religion. They all have similar stories.

I personally believe that if you boil all religions down to their essence they teach the same thing. Once you remove ignorant things like restrictions on diet, wardrobe, grooming, etc. you find that they all have the same universal message. Whether you call that message the golden rule, karma, or something else the message is far older than any organized religion. Far older than Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, or any other religion that has ever existed. The 10 commandments are based on this rule. Thou shalt not steal. Why? Because you wouldn't want other people to steal from you. Thou shalt not commit adultery? Why? Because you wouldn't want your spouse to do it and you wouldn't want someone else to do it with your spouse. Thou shalt not kill? Why? Because you don't want to be killed and you don't want your friends or family killed. It goes on and on and it's all about being a decent human being. The worse part is that more people have been killed in the name of god than for anything else in the history of the world. This is ridiculous when you consider the basic message is the same and people can't focus on similarities, but rather differences.

I’m personally sickened by all organized religion. I’ve seen far far far too much hypocrisy in the Christian religions. And I’d rather just be a decent person who makes a genuine effort to treat others the way I’d be treated. At least those I care about and aren't so offensive personally that they deserve nothing more than my contempt.

Cairo -

In the upper right hand corner of your browser window, you should see six buttons. On one, the text "user cp" appears. This stands for "user control panel" - ambiguous at best. Click it and wait for the page to load. On the new "user cp" page, look at the strip of options across the top - "My vB Home", "Edit Profile"... that's the one you want. Click "Edit Profile". Half way down the page, there's a large text area. That's where the signature goes. I'm sure you can figure it out from there.

Originally posted by Radar
Once you remove ignorant things like restrictions on diet, wardrobe, grooming, etc.

Just curious how you would justify labeling these things as "ignorant".

Originally posted by dave

Just curious how you would justify labeling these things as "ignorant".

<h2>A friendly note to Radar</h2>
This is not confrontational or insulting, please respond in a friendly way. :)

(Dave can be insulting, and this aint it ;) )

I don't see any problem here...after all, Radar is here to educate us fools.

Actually, I think Radar is mostly correct on this one. The only part he got wrong is in summarily dismissing the dietary, etc. restrictions. Most scholars believe those were put into religion to act as a stabilizing force for the society they were serving. For example - the whole idea of kosher, or clean products, was probably put in to protect the society from getting sick, etc.

Of course, I'd like to add - to each their own. The reason there are so many different religions is because the same idea needs to be taught in different ways. There's an idea in some of the more contemporary interpretations of Islam that the religion can be interpreted in different ways because God wants to ensure everyone has the opportunity to accept Him. I believe that this is the best way to look at religion, no matter which particular one you believe in.

Originally posted by hermit22
Actually, I think Radar is mostly correct on this one.

I agree...although what do you and I know? We're idiots. :)

Dave: 2000-4000 years ago (the time period in question) people didn't have refrigerators and the middle-east tends to be hot. Eating pork was a genuinely dangerous thing. So when people started dying off they most likely assumed they were being punished by god. At that time the most scholarly people were the religious leaders. When people had trouble this is where they came for help. These leaders most likely figured out the common element in these deaths was pork and in order to stop those people from dying said something like, "God says eating pork is evil" which worked then but now pork isn't such a dangerous thing.

Now if I'm to assume that there's an all powerful creator of all things and that all my deeds on earth will be judged, I refuse to believe that my diet, fashion choices, or grooming habits will come into consideration. Maybe it's just me, but I happen to believe if we're to be judged by a supreme being, they won't be that petty and small. I would like to believe if there's a god, the way we treated those around us and the legacy we left behind will be judged rather than our meals, haircuts, and wardrobe. It's become painfully obvious that nobody on this board is allowed to have a personal opinion without being attacked, but I have them and will express them as I see fit. I personally think the ultimate power in the universe would be far too concerned with things like genocide, racism, war, priests raping alter boys, etc. to be concerned with what we ate for dinner, the outfit we wore to the restaurant, and whether or not our hair got into the soup.

I hope this explains why I consider things like dietary, fashion, and grooming restrictions to be ignorant. They mean nothing in the grand scheme of things; at least in my own personal opinion.

I don't disagree, but I guess I wasn't clear enough. That's not really the question I'm interested in.

My question is about <b>semantics</b>. I want to know why you would ever use the word "ignorant" to describe those things. The word "ignorant" is the most important aspect here, and your justification of why you used that word instead of others available to you is the only argument that really interests me.

Originally posted by Radar
It's become painfully obvious that nobody on this board is allowed to have a personal opinion without being attacked

Kinda like calling people who disagree with you "idiots"?

Originally posted by Tobiasly

Kinda like calling people who disagree with you "idiots"?

in all fairness, i think i called him an idiot first. i could be wrong.

~james

ignorant

\Ig"no*rant\, n. A person untaught or uninformed; one unlettered or unskilled; an ignoramous.

I suppose I used the word "ignorant" because I think people who consider dietary restrictions vitally important to be ignorant about the nature of an all powerful creator, or at least ignorant of how something so petty and small as the menu we order from would be to such an all powerful entity that, according to every religion, is concerned with our deeds in terms of good and evil. I think it's ignorant to consider food, clothing, or a hiarcut evil. I find the notion that an all powerful creator of the universe would be as concerned with what people eat for lunch when there are things like murder, rape, theft, adultery, and other things going on. This is my personal opinion to which I'm entitled. You may or may not agree with me which is of no concern to me. But you asked why so there you go.

Originally posted by perth

in all fairness, i think i called him an idiot first. i could be wrong.

Truth be told, I think it started with Shepps saying, "Let the kool aid wear off." But then again, he has issues, according to Radar. :)

So those "things" are ignorant?

See, I'm getting this feeling like you really didn't know exactly what the word meant, but you've heard it misused so many times that it kind of becomes this sort of de-facto derogatory adjective. "Don't be so ignorant!" when someone makes a tasteless joke. Which, of course, is really not in line with the meaning of the word.

There are certainly better words to describe both the seemingly arbitrary restrictions on diet, clothing & grooming and the people that place faith in them. I question the use of the word "ignorant" because surely someone as intelligent as you claim to be would never use it in such a manner. Now, to explain your usage, you have seemingly wrapped a reason around your usage and not the other way around. In other words, it seems to me as though you fabricated your justification for usage of the word because I called you on it and you realized that "ignorant" doesn't really mean what you think it means.

The reason I find this particularly ironic is because it seems as though you misused a word that itself would be used to describe someone who didn't know what they were talking about.

Of course, that's just what <b>I'm</b> getting from you.

Dave:

There's no irony and no misuse of the word. I'm well aware of the proper definition and usage of the word. Nice try though.

Not that I need to justify myself to you, but the word ignorant is used to describe those with little or no education on a topic. That doesn't mean they're incapable of learning, just that they don't have relevant information about the subject in question.

I consider anyone who thinks dietary restrictions are vitally important in their final judgment to be ignorant about the nature of a supreme creator of the universe and the motives of such a being. Clearly an all knowing, all powerful, omnipresent being would care about how well we treated each other and not about what we ate.

I think you were just making a feeble attempt to discredit me by claiming I didn't know the proper usage of the word and you've failed miserably. Better luck next time.

No, I think you're incorrect. Dave pointed out that you were name-calling a group of people simply because you do not agree with some of their practices. There are several religious leaders with extensive education on the topics you're discussing who still find them to be important.

While I agree that many of these practices are not as applicable to modern day life, I think many people hold onto them out of a sense of tradition and deference to their ancestors. That doesn't make them ignorant by any sense of the word.

What this really comes down to is acceptance of other people's practices. Dismissing them as ignorant does not show acceptance.

Folks of the Cellar:

Beginning January 1, 2003, I will begin charging each of you every time you reply to one of my posts. This should root out who is worthy of my attention. Kindly forward your billing information and a major credit card (MC/VISA/AMEX accepted) to me via PM.

Thank you.

Originally posted by Radar
Clearly an all knowing, all powerful, omnipresent being would care about how well we treated each other and not about what we ate.

Wow...it must be nice to know with such certainty what an omnicient, omnipotent and omnipresent being would do. *Some* folks would call a claim to that knowlege delusional (or blasphemous, depending on their own belief system). But not me.

That would be WWOOOBD, right? :-)

Originally posted by Radar
I consider anyone who thinks dietary restrictions are vitally important in their final judgment to be ignorant about the nature of a supreme creator of the universe and the motives of such a being. Clearly an all knowing, all powerful, omnipresent being would care about how well we treated each other and not about what we ate

All they may be ignorant about is YOUR understanding of the nature of a supreme creator of the universe and motives of such a being.

Religion is belief, which is effectively a special, often impereable to change, OPINION about the world, how it works, and what meaning is assigned to it and to the individual participants in it.

I'd be wary of issuing a proclamation to all the peoples of the world on the right and wrong way to worship until you've walked a mile in everybody else's mocassins ...

You get a very different sense of a religion from the inside, vs. even a very critical look from the outside.

I can read Torah, Talmud, Kaballah ... and I will never have a full understanding of what it truly means to be an observant, or particularly, an Orthodox Jew. Ditto for any understanding I may gain of Islam by reading the Koran. However, despite my "lapsing" I do have an understanding of what it means to be Catholic.

I'm not being a cheerleader for religion here. I'm quite the happy heathen, as it happens. Just because you think some practice is silly or outdated or nonutilitarian, does not invalidate it.

I'm just suggesting that just maybe you come up a few answers short of omniscience yourself, is all.

**Oh shit, where'd that soapbox come from, and how did i end up standing on it??**

Originally posted by sycamore
Folks of the Cellar:

Beginning January 1, 2003, I will begin charging each of you every time you reply to one of my posts. This should root out who is worthy of my attention. Kindly forward your billing information and a major credit card (MC/VISA/AMEX accepted) to me via PM.

Thank you.

will you be accepting paypal?

~james

Originally posted by Radar
There's no irony and no misuse of the word. I'm well aware of the proper definition and usage of the word. Nice try though. [ ... ] the word ignorant is used to describe those with little or no education on a topic.

It is. And you used it to describe <b>things</b>. I'll quote it back to you.

Also originally posted by Radar
Once you remove ignorant things like restrictions on diet, wardrobe, grooming, etc.

Now, how are "things like restrictions on diet, wardrobe, grooming, etc." "those with little or no education on a topic"?

Don't worry; I fully expect you to carry this until the very end, refusing to admit that you misused a word. There is an adjective we use to describe people with that characteristic; it is "immature".

*gasp!*

Dave, what the hell are you doing?!

You're going to wind up on the Ignore List!!!

Aaaaaahhhh!! *runs*

Originally posted by sycamore
You're going to wind up on the Ignore List!!!

He can't put himself on his own ignore list, can he? :-)

I wasn't going to say anything, but now that syc picked up on it I better get my reply in while the rates are still low. After 1/1 I won't be able to afford it. :-)

Originally posted by MaggieL
He can't put himself on his own ignore list, can he? :-)

Hmmm...

"You know, I just can't stand myself, so I'm gonna just ignore myself for a while."

Actually, now that I think about it, Radar's ignore list should be the "in" thing. You know, all the cool people are going to be on the ignore list. If you're not being ignored, you're not cool. :)

I wasn't going to say anything, but now that syc picked up on it I better get my reply in while the rates are still low. After 1/1 I won't be able to afford it. :-)

Perhaps we can set up a bulk rate for replies...you know, you pay for 100, you get a discount. ;)

Funny that you mentioned paypal James...I just set up my account fully last week. I'm going to start taking donations for the Sycamore General Wellness Fund soon. :)

Hey, maybe that's why we haven't heard been hearing as much from Radar lately...he's put everyone on the ignore list!

And Sycamore, can I pre-pay in bulk?

I'm telling you hermit...we are now officially "big ballers" as rappers might say. Maybe we can create a secret handshake next.

And yes, I will sell pre-paid bulk packages.

Originally posted by sycamore
Beginning January 1, 2003, I will begin charging each of you every time you reply to one of my posts.

Let me know when I owe too much so I can declare bankruptcy. Then you too can wade through reams of bankruptcy court filings.

Funny that you mentioned paypal James...I just set up my account fully last week. I'm going to start taking donations for the Sycamore General Wellness Fund soon.

is it okay if i just pretend i paid, and when you ask me why you havent received my payment, i can just say that it must be a problem with paypal? :)

~james

It is. And you used it to describe things. I'll quote it back to you.

The things I described are beliefs followed by ignorant people such as those I described.

Don't worry; I fully expect you to carry this until the very end, refusing to admit that you misused a word. There is an adjective we use to describe people with that characteristic; it is "immature

I'll be the first to admit when I'm wrong, but that hasn't happened in our discussion yet. And there's a better word to describe people like me; it's "correct".

Don't worry though. I fully expect you to mistakenly make false accusations of a grammatical error where there isn't any while completely avoiding the topic at hand. There are more than a few adjectives that spring to mind for you such as "anal", "wrong", "pathetic", etc. But why waste our time going back and forth. You'll never admit you're wrong even though you clearly are. So what's the point?

Originally posted by Radar
You'll never admit you're wrong even though you clearly are.

Radar, I don't happen to agree with you here ... but you might consider how your statement quoted above applies to yourself.

The definition of "ignorant" is not "doesn't agree with Radar's worldview."

And there's a better word to describe people like me; it's "correct".

Wow that's a hell of statement.

There are more than a few adjectives that spring to mind for you such as "anal", "wrong", "pathetic", etc.

I love this line, the "wrong" just sets it apart from everything else. First time I've ever heard someone just called plain "wrong" usually they stated something "wrong", or making the "wrong" assumption. So if Dave was to agree with Radar would that make Radar "wrong".

So if Dave was to agree with Radar would that make Radar "wrong".

which would cause a paradox unraveling the fabric of time/space. c'mon, dave, do it!

~james

Originally posted by sycamore
Actually, now that I think about it, Radar's ignore list should be the "in" thing

Oh..I was talking about *dave's* ignore list. Isn't that the fate of people who pursue those who "refuse to admit they misused a word"? :-)

I'm not worried about Radar's ignore list...how much should I think about a bartender who's known among the rave crowd as MrE_Man and once held an email address of [email]jablowmi@hotmail.com[/email] ?

Originally posted by Cam


I love this line, the "wrong" just sets it apart from everything else. First time I've ever heard someone just called plain "wrong" usually they stated something "wrong", or making the "wrong" assumption. So if Dave was to agree with Radar would that make Radar "wrong".

This is causing my head to hurt in precisely the same way as Daffy Duck's "If this week was next week last week" speech.

Nurse, I need some aspirin.

Oh, and could you loosen this strap here a bit. I'm okay with my arms being crossed, but it's just a hair too tight. Thanks. What's that? No, the walls are plenty soft.

So if Dave was to agree with Radar would that make Radar "wrong".

Actually if Dave agreed with me, he would admit he was wrong and he would thus be right. But since he won't admit it he continues to be wrong.

I'm not worried about Radar's ignore list...how much should I think about a bartender who's known among the rave crowd as MrE_Man and once held an email address of [email]jablowmi@hotmail.com[/email]

I don't know how much you should think about me, but it's obvious you think about me enough to search around for information about me. It's flattering to know I'm so important to you. And since you seem to care so much I'll share more information with you.

Yes, I bartend on the weekends and I'm a computer network engineer during the week. This is helping me save for my upcoming marriage. After I graduated with a degree in computer science engineering from the University of Nevada - Reno, I was pretty broke and started dealing craps in Las Vegas casinos. The money was pretty good so I did that for a number of years. Then I decided to go back into the computer field so I got my Novell and Microsoft networking certifications in 1995 and renewed Novell once and have kept renewing the Microsoft certs. I'm also a certified trainer so I can help others learn to be skilled networking professionals. I'm not married to any operating system and I know what's best for any given situation. I'm paid pretty well for consulting, though not as well as I was 2 years ago when people were begging me to work for them which is why I'm doing some bartending. There's certainly nothing wrong with being a bartender, nothing wrong with dealing casino games, and nothing wrong with being a computer networking consultant. I attended raves for a number of years because I like electronic music. I have won awards for doing youth outreach information booths at raves and registering young people to vote. My old email address [email]jablowmi@hotmail.com[/email] was what I used to register on websites so my junkmail wouldn't come to my regular email address. It was a joke between me and a friend. We chose porn star names. His is Hugh G. Rection, and mine was Heywood Jablowmi. My beautiful fiance and I will soon be married and we will probably have a few kids.

Is there anything else you'd like to know?

I wouldn't make fun of what I do for a living if I were you. I might go to your job and slap the dick out of your mouth.

Seriously though, I wouldn't hazard to guess what you do for a living, mostly because I'm genuinely not interested in you in the slightest.

Originally posted by Radar
Is there anything else you'd like to know?

Yes. If a turtle doesn't have a shell, is he homeless or naked?

I'm guessing both. But I've never seen a turtle without a shell. I imagine they'd look pretty freaky. ;)

Originally posted by slang

Yes. If a turtle doesn't have a shell, is he homeless or naked?

My man, You thoroughly crack me up. :thumb:

James, I *might* be willing to give an extra discount to you, since Casey posts here too. You try and stiff me on the paypal account though and we'll be fightin'. :)

Currently in the VIP room, we have lots of cold beer, the finest wines, and a boatload of cheesesteaks from Jimmy's.

I was going to have guns in there, but I don't think mixing guns and alcohol is the best of ideas. :)

Originally posted by Radar
I wouldn't make fun of what I do for a living if I were you. I might go to your job and slap the dick out of your mouth.

So much for "noninitiation of violence".

As long as we're exchanging advice, I would recommend if you are planning to assault me that you wear *good* quality body armor; I might have the +Ps in my side arm that day. Folks wear heavy clothing around here in the wintertime.

As for the dick-in-mouth-at-work idea, you may have confused me with Starchild, another LPer from CA, discussed in another thread here. He was proud of being a "sex worker" (rather than thinking it was suitable for use as a random insult) and didn't advocate that his vegetarian beliefs should be imposed on others...yet.

But he was all for it once "his people" were solidly in power.
It's really disappointing how quickly LP principles seem to desert some party members...some of them only have to think you're making fun of them.

Don't worry, you'll know when I'm *really* making fun of you; it will be something like <i>Overheard at the rave: "See that guy behind the bar? He's Mr E-Man. He does our 'youth outreach'. He'll take care of you."</i> :-)

Originally posted by sycamore
I was going to have guns in there, but I don't think mixing guns and alcohol is the best of ideas. :)

How's about you allow guns, but restrict ammo?

Youth outreach at raves....hmmm...*sycamore thinks of the twisted possibilities*

--
"Hey dude! Just sign this membership form and I'll give ya two tabs!"

"Duuuuude! Sweet!"
--
"If we get the Libertarians in office, you can do as much X as you want b/c it will be available at Starbucks!"

"Oh man! I am soooo voting for you guys!"
--
"You feelin' good right now?"

"Oh my God! I'm floating!"

"I've got an even better high! Vote Libertarian!"

"Ohhh....wow! I need to be touched!"

I don't know if this is how it's done or not...but Tob, maybe we should do something like this for the Aloysius Party. We could gather everyone around that little outdoor stage next to Academic Hall and pass out a bunch of weed, listen to Pink Floyd, and sign up members.

Originally posted by wolf
How's about you allow guns, but restrict ammo?

Look, we get slang in there, and he gets a few pints in him, and there's no telling what could happen! He'll have rounds hidden on him...you just know it!

Oh, wait a minute...slang can't come anyway...he's not on the VIP list...yet.

Griff...are you smelling a new one sentence story here? I am. :)

Originally posted by sycamore
I was going to have guns in there, but I don't think mixing guns and alcohol is the best of ideas. :)

Oh come on....alcohol, tobacco *and* firearms, It's a trifecta. Fire, firesticks and firewater. Of course the *other* trifecta is "sex, drugs and rock-n-roll".

Griff...are you smelling a new one sentence story here?

Is *that* what that is? I was wondering....:-)

Originally posted by MaggieL
Is *that* what that is? I was wondering....:-)

It's like being in a room full of manure, but then you smell something sweet, like Krispy Kremes. :)

I'm not sure, but I think Maggie meant "youth outreach" in a Catholic Church kind of way, rather than a "get them into the LP when they're young and they'll vote LP as adults" kind of way.

That's how I read it, anyway.

Originally posted by sycamore
Oh, wait a minute...slang can't come anyway...he's not on the VIP list...yet.

If necessary, I'll hook him up through my paypal account. I'm already signed up.

Heck, I'm ready to pay his bail resulting from any problems arising at the living poetry experiment, so I'll happily cover him in the VIP room.

Oooh OOH OOH!! (Mr. Kotter, Mr Kott-tair!!) Can I be ammo monitor? I won't drink (*much*) and I'm already trained to do searches. It's part of my job.

Originally posted by wolf
I'm not sure, but I think Maggie meant "youth outreach" in a Catholic Church kind of way, rather than a "get them into the LP when they're young and they'll vote LP as adults" kind of way.

Possibly. When I was reading that bit in Radar's post about youth outreach and raves, I just put 2 and 2 together and got 83. :)

Sycamore,
Golly Gee Whiz....Why pretend like you know me,
when clearly...ya don't! If you want to whine and stomp on sour grapes, take your ball and don't play anymore...but spare me the dramatics, mmmK?

Here's where you have strayed from the Bible and the word of God...the Bible is NOT up for interpretation, that's something lawyers do to get the guilty off the hook. The Bible is translated. If one interprets the Bible, it is now man's word, not God's. In my opinion, people who interpret the Bible or interpret the laws have problems translating the true meaning of it, whether that is intentional is a case by case answer.
The Bible is a book of History,Faith, and Instruction all together, you can not separate one from the others. It's all or nothing...
History: Nations who turned against God were wiped out. Noah built an ark and survived the flood. Jesus lived and preached and was crucified. God spoke to Moses. Sodom and Gomorrah rained brimstone and fire, etc...etc.
Faith: Belief and trust in.(If you don't believe in the Historical happenings, you don't have faith.)
Instruction: Follow His Statutes, and do them.

Here's the link, thanks for the heads-up.

http://www.lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/scrolls/toc.html

And the ark.

http://www.wyattmuseum.com/noahs-ark-05.htm

And Sodom and Gomorrah.

http://www.wyattmuseum.com/cities-of-the-plains-02.htm

Here is the link to the attempt to rewrite the history of the Alamo. I live in San Antonio, and am highly offended and appalled, this doesn't include the words of the Houston councilman, but he was all over my T.V. every night for a week talking proudly of deception and lies!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,53968,00.html

Radar congrats on the marriage :)

Originally posted by wolf
I'm not sure, but I think Maggie meant "youth outreach" in a Catholic Church kind of way...

Well, that wasn't quite what I was thinking, actually. If you identify somebody dispensing intoxicants at a rave as "Mr E Man", I bet most people don't think of the comic book characters--whether they're "utes" or not.

But if *you* want to think it...go ahead. :-) I remeber the guy who was the "VP of membership and outreach" for the local swingers...I mean, excuse me, "polyamory support group". He did indeed take the word "outreach" pretty literally....although there we were talking about consenting adults.

As for Cairo's assertion that the Bible can be translated--much less *read*--without interpreting it, well, that's a quaint idea. I suppose it's of vital interest to those who want to put forward their own understanding of the Bible as carrying the Authority of The Word Of God to deny that any "interpretation" at the hands of a human has taken place. But that doesn't make the notion any more plausible; any use of language results in interpretation by the listener or reader.

Interestingly enough, one of my-Daddy-the-clergyman's most prized posessions was a highly respected and authoritiative multi-voume Biblical encyclopedic reference, commentary and concordance called "The Interpreter's Bible".

Actually if Dave agreed with me, he would admit he was wrong and he would thus be right. But since he won't admit it he continues to be wrong.

But Radar you specifically described dave as "wrong” you didn't say his statement was "wrong" you just said he was "wrong". Second, you just described yourself as correct, therefore negating any chance of anyone listing to any statement you make. Just trying to point out you lack of diplomacy. :)
Oh yeah you also resorted to name-calling. Come on Radar lets just all get along, we could be one big huge dysfunctional family.

Originally posted by wolf
Oooh OOH OOH!! (Mr. Kotter, Mr Kott-tair!!) Can I be ammo monitor? I won't drink (*much*) and I'm already trained to do searches. It's part of my job.

Oh,. my. What an interesting thought. :-)

<h3>Cairo</h3>
nice post, links help a lot. The extra time spent in finding and inserting them into the post is worth having people know WTF yer talking about (even if they dont agree). :)

Originally posted by sycamore
I don't know if this is how it's done or not...but Tob, maybe we should do something like this for the Aloysius Party.

That sounds like a tempting idea, but the vet discovered that our poor mascot, while in for his neutering, also had an umbilical hernia. So not only is his empty sack pathetically dangling around with no useful purpose, his belly is shaved and has a 2-inch incision with stitches.

It's really rather sad. I just can't think of politics with him in this state, so I'm disbanding the Party. I'd rather have it disbanded in its prime anyway, instead of dwindling away like the LP.

Originally posted by Cairo
Here's where you have strayed from the Bible and the word of God...the Bible is NOT up for interpretation, that's something lawyers do to get the guilty off the hook. The Bible is translated. If one interprets the Bible, it is now man's word, not God's.

Really, God's language is English? Kinda like how all aliens speak English in the movies, huh?

Because I thought most of the Bible was originally written in Hebrew. Which means that Man had to translate it, and Man is prone to error. Are you saying that translation is an exact science, and does not involve interpretation? Even today, translators do not agree on some of the passages.

God's language cannot be written with ink and paper for humans to fully comprehend. Haven't you seen Dogma? Our head would explode if we heard the true word of God.

So it follows that the Bible is also the work of Man. It was inspired by God, and the teachings of Jesus, but it was still written down by Man, in Man's language. Whenever you go from God's language to that of Man, you're gonna lose something in the translation.

Originally posted by wolf
Oooh OOH OOH!! (Mr. Kotter, Mr Kott-tair!!) Can I be ammo monitor? I won't drink (*much*) and I'm already trained to do searches. It's part of my job.

Originally posted by MaggieL

Oh,. my. What an interesting thought. :-)

Don't forget ... another part of my job is tying people down. I get paid to do it AND it's legal.

I look in wonderment at exactly how far off topic this thread has wandered.

Pretty amazing really.

Oh wait.

Perhaps not.

When exposed to matter as dense as a black hole, time, space, and light bend ... so I guess it's the same with topics too, eh?

Sycamore: It's more like this. We setup a booth with information pamphlets, stickers, signs, etc. and we enjoy the music. Someone comes by to ask what we're doing and we tell them we're trying to end the drug war and keep the government out of places they don't belong, like our wallets, bedrooms, and gun cabinets.

We sometimes have discussions regarding various Libertarian positions, we ask if they're registered to vote and if they aren't we offer to register them.

So much for "noninitiation of violence".

I wouldn't be initiating violence toward you or anyone else. It might be my own dick I slap. Who knows?

As long as we're exchanging advice, I would recommend if you are planning to assault me that you wear *good* quality body armor; I might have the +Ps in my side arm that day. Folks wear heavy clothing around here in the wintertime.

Gosh you're scary.

Don't worry, you'll know when I'm *really* making fun of you; it will be something like Overheard at the rave: "See that guy behind the bar? He's Mr E-Man. He does our 'youth outreach'. He'll take care of you." :-)

That wouldn't be much of an insult. While I don't use any drugs or sell any I don't see anything wrong with people who do. That's their personal choice and it's no more wrong than people who choose to be vegetarians. Nobody can tell anyone else what they may or may not consume, not even the government.

And the name isn't “Mr E-Man”. It's MrE Man as in Mystery Man you fucking twit.

How's about you allow guns, but restrict ammo?

Free people don't ask permission to own gun or ammo. People aren't GIVEN rights by the constitution. We're born with rights and the constitution merely defends those rights. The 2nd Amendment defends our right to own an unlimited number of guns of any type including fully automatic machine guns, with an unlimited amount of any type of ammunition including Teflon coated armor piercing hallow tipped rounds, without any permission from or notification to the government.

That's how I read it, anyway.

You read it correctly wolf. It's my way of introducing them to Libertarian ideas before they're corrupted or entirely turned off of politics by the two major parties.

*** NEWSFLASH FOR CAIRO ***

The bible IS THE WORD OF MEN AND NOT THE WORD OF GOD!!! It was written BY MEN hundreds of years after the fact. It's not historically factual, not an authority of any kind, and not any more important than any other religious text.

Radar congrats on the marriage

Thanks Cam. That's nice of you. I have a good friend named Cam. He's Vietnamese. So is my fiancé. I already speak some Spanish, and Japanese, and I'm currently working on Vietnamese, but it's much more difficult.

But Radar you specifically described dave as "wrong” you didn't say his statement was "wrong" you just said he was "wrong".

He was wrong in his false accusation. Not only was his statement wrong, but his actions were wrong. He himself was wrong.

Cam, don't get caught up in semantics so much that you miss the message. What I said regarding trivial things such as dietary restrictions in the grand scheme of things is truthful, honest, and insightful. Christianity is no more valid than Islam or any other religion because in the end it's all about the golden rule. I can recite bible verses with the best of them and show you how Jesus of Nazareth taught that church and state should remain separate. Or he Jesus of Nazareth taught that people shouldn't pray in public (in a public school or an official government meeting for instance), but would it change your mind?

I posted my personal beliefs. You have posted yours and I respect your right to do that. But when you claim that a religious text with more holes than Swiss cheese as historical fact I've got to call bullshit. I hope you'll understand. If you merely say it's your opinion that every word in the bible is true I lump you together with all the other Christian fundamentalists. But saying the Bible is historical fact is like claiming Peter Pan is non-fiction.

I'd rather have it disbanded in its prime anyway, instead of dwindling away like the LP.

The LP may have few less members, but we’ve got more members in elected office than ever before. It sounds like the members we still have are doing a better job at getting elected. Those that left were the equivalent of friends that don't attend your wedding because it's raining outside. Not much of a friend at all. Those that stayed (nearly all of them) were the friends that help you move.

The attrition rate for the LP is far lower than that of the major two parties. In fact normally the party is growing. It's just the last couple of years with highly questionable elections that have thrown things off a bit.

Hi MaggieL,
I'm glad you brought up the "to deny that any "interpretation" at the hands of a human has taken place."...I never denied it because it has taken place, and that is the precise reason why I do not follow the new books.
The Dead Sea Scrolls prove beyond doubt that the Torah of today is word for word the Torah of Third Century B.C.E. because all these years it was translated at the hands of man...men who understood and feared the Wrath they would bring upon themselves if they "interpreted" what God meant. A sense of conscience, if you will, that is sorely lacking today.

Sure, the reader or listener applies the words of God to their own lives, to put forward their own understanding...to themselves. But the Bible itself is purely God's words and will, and is not subject to interpretation. The ones who do this, end up with a book of man's words and will....
And having to follow man's laws of this land alone, is enough for me! ;)

Currently in the VIP room, we have lots of cold beer, the finest wines, and a boatload of cheesesteaks from Jimmy's.

well, why didnt you say so in the first place? where do i sign?

~james

Christianity is no more valid than Islam or any other religion because in the end it's all about the golden rule. I can recite bible verses with the best of them and show you how Jesus of Nazareth taught that church and state should remain separate. Or he Jesus of Nazareth taught that people shouldn't pray in public (in a public school or an official government meeting for instance), but would it change your mind?

I completely agree with you that all religions are based around the golden rule. And I agree with you that all religions are equal. I'm catholic, but I find other religions interesting, especially Islam, which is so much like Christianity, it's scary once you get past anything to do with jihad.

When you say you can find passages that say something you want you do not comprehend the vastness of the bible. Anyone who wants to prove anything can probably something to back it up in the bible.

You say you can find passages where Jesus said do not pray in public, I'll agree in fact I'll even provide a link for you since you once again failed to provide any proof. Matthew 6 . Now see if you can prove your statement about church and state. I believe you but I want to see if you can do your own research.
I don't see how reciting these versus are going to change my mind about anything. We were not arguing these things.
Then you threw in this thing about me saying the bible is historical fact. Which if you read my statement from earlier in the thread you would see I specifically said it wasn't. It's a book of faith; it's based on historical events. Read the gospels, they don't agree on everything, but their general message is usually the same.

Cam, don't get caught up in semantics so much that you miss the message. What I said regarding trivial things such as dietary restrictions in the grand scheme of things is truthful, honest, and insightful.

I'm not caught up in the semantics, I'm pretty sure I got your message. You called everyone who disagrees with you wrong. You called us a bunch of idiots. And you made it perfectly clear you are "correct". I was just trying to helpfully point out that this probably isn't the best way to go about things. Being able to admit your wrong, listening to arguments, and not throwing other random bullshit out every time someone pokes a hole in your argument is something you definitely need to work on. I've just reread this board from when you joined and I noticed a few things. You provided very few facts, and just repeated what you said before and then threw something else out as a distraction technique. Nobody wants to listen to that.

originally posted by radar
You read it correctly wolf. It's my way of introducing them to Libertarian ideas before they're corrupted or entirely turned off of politics by the two major parties.

uh, radar, YOU might want to reread MY post, which actually was more on the order of speaking about libertine ideas rather than libertarian ones.

Originally posted by Cairo
Hi MaggieL,
I'm glad you brought up the "to deny that any "interpretation" at the hands of a human has taken place."... But the Bible itself is purely God's words and will, and is not subject to interpretation. ;)

Well, you may be happy that I brought it up, but unfortunately you don't seem to understand what I said. Assuming for the moment that the original texts are in fact "God's word", they can not be understood by Man without interpretation; the very process of understanding language requires interpretation. To simply proclaim it "not subject to interpretation" betrays an ignorance of how language works.

My own belief is that the best understandings of the Transcendant and Her "works" use language only as a feeble adjunct, and maintain an awareness of and humilty about the functioning and limitations of language. I find religions based soley on veneration of ancient texts largely fall short of effectively conveying truth.

Wtttgenstein once said "Whereof one cannnot speak, thereof one must remain silent."

When you say you can find passages that say something you want you do not comprehend the vastness of the bible.

I do comprehend the "vastness". I don't think you comprehend the lack of accuracy, the holes in the bible, or the hypocrisy of those who claim to be Christians yet want to prayer in public schools, 10 commandments posted at courthouses, etc.

You say you can find passages where Jesus said do not pray in public, I'll agree in fact I'll even provide a link for you since you once again failed to provide any proof.

I have never failed to provide "proof". I gave my personal opinion about those who placed something as trivial as dietary restrictions on a par with not killing other people. The mere fact that I gave that opinion is all the proof you need. And I said I COULD provide you with bible verses but that there would be no point in doing so. Now step back and look at what I said again.

believe you but I want to see if you can do your own research.
I don't see how reciting these versus are going to change my mind about anything.

DUH!!!

That's exactly what I said in the first place. I do more than my own research. I do it for most other people and I provide sources whenever I make factual statements. If it's a statement of opinion, I am the source. I already said there was no point in me providing bible verses when they wouldn't change your mind. You're obviously a Christian fundamentalist. My personal opinion is that Americans are in far more danger from these people than from any "jihad" from even the most twisted group of Muslim extremists. I am the source for my opinion. So don't claim I'm not giving sources.

You called everyone who disagrees with you wrong. You called us a bunch of idiots. And you made it perfectly clear you are "correct"

Everyone who disagrees with me having a personal opinion is wrong.

was just trying to helpfully point out that this probably isn't the best way to go about things.

Wow, you're such a giver. How helpful of you. I'm here to win arguments, not friends. Perhaps I could do it in a different way, but that's not my style.

Being able to admit your wrong, listening to arguments, and not throwing other random bullshit out every time someone pokes a hole in your argument is something you definitely need to work on.

Given that I've only been wrong once since I got here and admitted it when given a verifiable source you're lying. I've also provided sources for everything I've said. And you can't point out a single hole in my arguments. Try again.

You provided very few facts, and just repeated what you said before and then threw something else out as a distraction technique. Nobody wants to listen to that.

<BZZZZ> Thanks for playing we've got some lovely parting gifts for you. I have repeated myself only when it was clear someone was so thickheaded they didn't get it the first time. I've never used "distraction techniques" either. Perhaps you can provide an example of this as proof unless you want to do what you're falsely accusing me of doing.

Nobody is listening to me Einstein. They are reading what I've written and nobody is forcing them to do so. You don't speak or write for everyone on this board. And even if you did it wouldn't matter to me.

I've got nothing against you Cairo. You seem like a fairly decent person. I'm just trying to point out that the bible isn't a "historical journey" or "instructions by god" him/her self as you claim. But since you're so hung up on providing "proof" I'm sure you can provide measurable and verifiable proof that god exists. Not the deeds you attribute to god like, "look at the world around us", but evidence that an actual entity of god exists. Perhaps you can provide measurable and verifiable proof that gods own hand wrote the bible and not the hands of men.

I'm all about providing proof now. Give me some actual evidence that isn't circular like most Christian logic. Give me some physical proof that the entity of god exists (not deeds you attribute to god) and I will become a Christian.

And since you want me to provide bible verses despite the fact that we both agree it won't change your mind here goes.

Jesus and the separation of church and state:

John 2:13-16

Matthew 22:19-22


Jesus and public prayer:

Matthew 6:5-6

Matthew 26:36


Jesus and hypocrisy:

Matthew 7:3-5


I could go on and on but we've both agreed that there is no point.

I got a question, who exactly what the post directed at. I'm confused, you quoted me, then stated that you have nothing against Cairo. :confused:

Originally posted by Radar
The 2nd Amendment defends our right to own an unlimited number of guns of any type including fully automatic machine guns, with an unlimited amount of any type of ammunition including Teflon coated armor piercing hallow tipped rounds, without any permission from or notification to the government.

It doesn't say "guns", it says "arms". Should we also assert our right to an unlimited amount of flamethrowers, rocketlaunchers, grenades, and nuclear missles?

Originally posted by juju

It doesn't say "guns", it says "arms". Should we also assert our right to an unlimited amount of flamethrowers, rocketlaunchers, grenades, and nuclear missles?

I think you should have special a permit for nukes. Possibly a waiting period also. All the others hardware though should only require the PICS (Pa instant check system) and an ATF4473 (the yellow sheet you fill out for a firearm purchase).

In many states you can still legally own machine guns/full auto rifles. The requirements are a clean record (no felonies) the fee for the special permit ($200) and you must actually purchase a full auto to get the permit. The full autos arent cheap, 2k to 100k.

I dont know if the ATF grants permits for "destructive devices" such as handgrenades.

Originally posted by slang
I think you should have special a permit for nukes. Possibly a waiting period also.

Permit, schmermit. It's my constitutional right!

Cairo, I heartily disagree with you on the Texas history book revisions! ¡Pienso su magnífico! Thanks for letting me know about it! Often I only hear about revisions that attack evolution or that insist on bluring the nudity of landmark statues.:)

Originally posted by juju

Permit, schmermit. It's my constitutional right!

Nukes are a little different from the other weapons. Where exactly would I "target practice" with a nuke? It may be our constitutional right to own them but the cost and power makes them too impractical.

A good 155mm howitzer on a mobile platform might be nice though. I think they are called Palladins. They sell for (? guessing ?) 2.5 mil a piece. PLUS you get machine guns with the package. Now this is practical, the nukes are not.

<a href="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m109a6.htm"> Now this is a good investment. </a>Good commincations sysems, NBC (nuclear,biological,chemical) protection, and it totally eliminates your parking worries. What better vehicle could you ask for in this current environment of terrorism

Thanks for pointing that link out warch, since Cairo refused to bother to do so. I have no idea what she sees wrong with providing a supplement that will connect students to history. Would she care to explain?

In all fairness, when I did a few searches for the "rewrite" deal, the link to the Houston situation was all I could find.

Originally posted by Radar
I wouldn't be initiating violence toward you or anyone else. It might be my own dick I slap. Who knows?

Allow me to introduce you to a new bimodal probability distribution. The two modes are tagged "Slim" and "None", and "Slim" just left town. This is the function that describes the probablity that your dick will ever be close enough to my mouth to be slapped out of it.

That's possibly the lamest backpedal I've ever heard. Don't struggle--that's quicksand you're in.

Maggie, that's just too funny.

Originally posted by slang
<a href="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m109a6.htm"> Now this is a good investment. </a>Good commincations sysems, NBC (nuclear,biological,chemical) protection, and it totally eliminates your parking worries. What better vehicle could you ask for in this current environment of terrorism

[SIZE=4]I WANT ONE!!!!![/SIZE]

On second thought ... I would like TWO please. You never know when you'll need a spare.

Originally posted by hermit22
Maggie, that's just too funny.

It may be funny, but she's wrong. You're wrong. I'm wrong. We're all wrong. We can only hope to be as cool as Radar...he's going to lead a one-man revolution.

Glad to see you're finally coming around Sycamore. j/k. :D

At least things are starting to lighten up in here.

maggie, that is easily one of the funniest goddamn posts ive read in a while.

~james

Cairo, I'm feeling the tug of conscience for some cheap shots I've lobbed toward you. It was bad form on my part to go personal and I appologize.
You do push my buttons.:)

dave,
Thanks for the info. I appreciate the correction. :)

Oh, I understood what you said, basically you said that interpretation of God's words and will are fine...even though The Bible forbids interpretation and demands TRANSLATION.

Revelation, 22:18 and 19
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of the prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the Holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

See? Interpretation is a lawyers term used to add to and subtract from the truth to get the guilty off the hook. If you don't know the difference between interpretation and translation, you happen to be part of the problem.

Radar,
I've already proven existence of Historical remains found by scientists, and our Founding Fathers agreed that the 10 Commandments are instructions by God...Proving that God's words and will as written in the book of prophecy is true, is proving that God exists.

BTW, I'm not Christian.

Originally posted by Cairo
BTW, I'm not Christian.

What would you classify yourself as?

Oh, I understood what you said, basically you said that interpretation of God's words and will are fine...even though The Bible forbids interpretation and demands TRANSLATION.

Revelation, 22:18 and 19
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of the prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the Holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

To get this verse required translation. Which in itself requires interpretation? Why becuase all languages have different words, these words mean different things. Some languages just don't contain a word that means the same as another word in another language. Therefore it is up to the translator to come up with the best choice of words that carry the same meaning. This means that sometimes meaning can be changed. Why? Humans make mistakes.

Translate a phrase to another language and back again using an online translator of some sort, the words don't come out right, there is different grammar, phrases that make no sense. When a human does this they take the time to rephrase the language so it makes sense, and through this interpretation meanings change.

warch,
I'm always happy to inform...even if it is a different subject altogether. The important thing is knowledge...knowledge is power.

So, you really disagree "wholeheartedly" with me when I say that our schools should teach FACTS only, and leave the "feel good" opinions alone.

I've already had to deprogram my son(7 years old) when he came home from school devastated that the world was going to end because loggers cut down trees!!!! Upsetting and distressing my son with their agenda-driven OPINIONS, and the fact that I teach him reading, writing, and math because their too busy with homosexuality, trees, recycling, and condoms! When a child graduates from High School unable to fill out an application and not well-rounded...it's time to scrap the Social(ism) experiment!

Hey warch, good debate pushes buttons because when the arguments make sense they threaten our views.
If the argument doesn't push your buttons it's because it makes no sense and is not a threat.
Don't worry, I've been called a lot worse by a lot more threatened. ;)

So, global warming is just an opinion, eh?

Global warming is an opinion and the bible is fact.
Right.

*pauses for a few seconds*

Condoms?!?! *gasp* next they'll suggest the pill and that'll make baby jesus cry!

If the argument doesn't push your buttons it's because it makes no sense and is not a threat.

Right........

good debate pushes buttons because when the arguments make sense they threaten our views.

Nah. Its the senselessness and limited understanding that I find button-pushing- The lack of sensible debate. That, coupled with the self-righteousness of your proselytizing- like you're reading from a tract. Plenty of people around here with views drastically different from my own, but they make their cases well, and I respect that.

don't worry, I've been called a lot worse by a lot more threatened.

Well then....I'm glad? ;) I would say I was more intolerant than ever threatened.

You say schools should teach only FACTS but not facts like global warming. Hmm. Why don't you want your son to learn,to read, write, or calculate about recycling? Wouldnt that action help assuage fear, rather than ignoring or denying the problem? Or sex ed? I just dont get the threat. Is the evil agenda you mention wanting to prepare your kid to be responsible for his own consumption of resources, or preparing him to live by not contracting a STD, or preparing him to not hang himself if he's called a "fag"?
You're the one who pointed out that knowledge is power.

Originally posted by juju
So, global warming is just an opinion, eh?

Yep...another opinion created by commies like you!

Now I'm going to have to call the FBI on you for your unamerican BS. Then I'll have to let OHS know that jag should never be allowed in this country. And since the UK is sniffing up our asses, we'll get him booted from there and every other Commonwealth country except his own.

It's for your own good...surrender your mind to the finality of the obvious.

Those damned scientists! Always spouting off their agenda driven opinions. Where's the evidence?

I was going to try and stay out of this, but I just can't. Admit folks, Cairo is the big, fat, juicy crackrock of the Cellar. You just can't get enough.

Cairo:
Give me an example of a fact. Anything. I will then show you that that fact is not, in fact, a fact. It really isn't that hard.
In fact,
[challenge]
Show me a fact.
[caveat] don't give me something that necessitates disproving a communicative assumption (i.e., 1+1=2). It can be done, but it's irritating and a waste of everyone's time.
[/caveat]
[/challenge

The basic idea is that communication necessarily involves interpretation. You are not communicating in a vacuum. You are communicating as a part of a conversation, within a particular culture. That means that you are accepting conventions about what you should say and how. How you deal with those conventions is an extremely personal thing (so personal, that no two people do it exactly the same way).
What does this mean to you in your particular situation?
It means that even though the original texts may be in the ancient Hebrew, the fact that you are not an ancient Hebrew necessitates that there be some interpretation on your part (assuming that YOU are reading the ancient Hebrew, and not a translation, in which case you are interpreting what someone else has interpreted. Neat, huh?)

And now (for something completely different), as a theological question:
Is there a knowable God?
God is supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent in the Judeo-Christian theology. So, given this completely different level of awareness, above and beyond what humans can comprehend, can we TRULY understand God (or, are humans just some sort of vastly incomprehensible cosmic fart joke)?

Finally:
Do you live under a bridge? Because you honestly look like a troll to me.

Cairo, I have two separate points which require your attention.

1. Many times we must work out truth on our own, but more often facts are communicated to us via other people, and those people bring their point of view and frame of reference to the table. In order to truly understand what is going on, unless you are involved, you benefit from multiple points of view. Even though one or more of the points may well be wrong, except in the case of knowable, provable items, one is enlightened immeasurably by the addition of a second point of view. This is why it is a bad idea for the school to tell your son that they are dispensing the sole truth. But it is also why it is a bad idea for YOU to tell your son that YOU are the final arbiter of truth.

Otherwise, the first time he figures out something where you're wrong, the entire stack of cards will come tumbling down.

2. There are hundreds of points upon which the bible directly contradicts itself. For example, here's one list of 962 direct contradictions. Sure, some of them are nit-picky, but it's not that long a book and one would think He would be a stronger writer. If the bible is really meant to be instructions from a loving supreme being on how to avoid eternal torture, you'd think He could get His stuff together in a way that doesn't need much translation or interpretation and is understandable by all. It is, after all, rather important.

I've already proven existence of Historical remains found by scientists, and our Founding Fathers agreed that the 10 Commandments are instructions by God...Proving that God's words and will as written in the book of prophecy is true, is proving that God exists.

You haven't proven anything. Where are the remains of the body of Jesus of Nazareth? How about the bodies of the apostles? I know that the body of Paul is supposed to be buried under the vatican but that hasn't been proven. What remains have you proven to exist? As far as I can tell you haven't provided a single shred of physical evidence. The dead sea scrolls aren't proof of anything, nor is the bible.

By the way, our founding fathers DID NOT AGREE THAT THE 10 COMMANDMENTS WERE INSTRUCTIONS BY GOD!! The overwhelming majority of our founding fathers WERE NOT CHRISTIANS, they were almost all Unitarians and Diests. Neither of these is Christian or is based on the bible or the 10 commandments.

And even if the founding fathers did believe in god it wouldn't mean god exists. You haven't proven the existance of god, nor has anyone else in the history of the planet earth.

The United States was built on the principle of religous freedom. Both freedom of religion and freedom from it. Our founding fathers believed in NATURAL rights as described by Locke, not divine rights.

One of the founding fathers (in fact THE father of America) that actually was a Christian knew full well that our laws and our governement weren't based on the 10 commandments or any parts of Christianity said the following:

"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
- George Washington

Originally posted by Radar


You haven't [b]proven anything. [/B]

<H4>Jesus Christ! How long are you two going to argue about this?....:eek: </h4>

Until he admits the bible isn't an accurate historical document and that there is no physical proof of the existance of god.

Well then, you might as well start a thread labeled the never-ending argument. Don't you realize that there is no way anyone who believes in God is going to agree with you Radar, you cannot provide any proof that God doesn't exist, it's not possible, the same as no one can provide proof that God does exist. Attempting to get people to not believe their religion is like trying to make a tiger eat a carrot when there is a hunk of beef lying on the ground near it; it's not going to happen.

Moreover, asking someone to admit the bible isn't historical fact may be possible, but once again if someone believes it is so then most likely it's a deeply ingrained belief, you’re not going to change it. Believe me I've tried to change people religious beliefs if you can't do it in person there is no way in hell you're getting someone to do it online. Just accept that someone believes something different then you, it's not like your world is going to come crashing down around

Don't you realize that there is no way anyone who believes in God is going to agree with you Radar, you cannot provide any proof that God doesn't exist, it's not possible, the same as no one can provide proof that God does exist.

You can't prove a negative. That's impossible. But luckily the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of those who believe and expect others to believe. I don't have to prove god doesn't exist, he (or anyone else who wants others to believe) must prove that god does exist.

If I claimed there was a purple gorilla that could fart flames and crap golden bricks running around the mountains and playing in his gingerbread pyramid that aliens created, I wouldn't expect anyone to believe me without actual proof. And the belief in an invisible, all powerful, all knowing, omni-present, creator of all things is just as unbelievable.

Attempting to get people to not believe their religion is like trying to make a tiger eat a carrot when there is a hunk of beef lying on the ground near it; it's not going to happen.

I'm not asking anyone to not believe in god. Just that they don't expect me to believe in god without any physical evidence of the existence of the being of god. Not what they claim to be the deeds of god. But the actual entity of god. I'd also like them to admit the bible isn't historical fact which should be a given since it's so full of holes and contradictions.

If I claimed that I was a purple gorilla that could fart flames

Then you would be my little brother.

You misquoted me.

If I claimed there was a purple gorilla that could fart flames and crap golden bricks running around the mountains and playing in his gingerbread pyramid that aliens created,

Wouldn't you be describing a Gamecube title?

Oh for the love of God Radar pull the stick out of your ass

and it goes on and on my friends....
[THREAD HIJACK]
WARNING! To all of those faint of heart, weak of mind, body, or soul: DO NOT PROCEED. The following will most likely rupture major internal organs, causing you to bleed profusely from all sorts of unpleasant places. Your eyes will melt, your central nervous system will start doing things that it hasn't done since the last time you were hopped up on the Special K, you will probably start gibbering like you OD'd on percoset and lithium, you may begin to enjoy 'The View' and wonder why it isn't on more often, Jerry Springer will become your best friend in the whole world, you might start selling Amway products, you find the keys to your personal Nirvana (Nerdvana?) are available on eBay (with no reserve, and just one other bidder who appears to enjoy outbidding themselves), Garfield will be funny again, you will stop understanding the Simpsons, Pres.George Bush Jr. will become comprehensible and you will start to refer to him completely unironically as 'Our Fearless Leader,' sarcasm will be wasted on you, you will have an uncontrollable urge to drown puppy's and kitten's, children will scream at your face (and that is why I say, 'to the ears!'), you will never be wrong again, you will never fall in love, you will never have a broken heart.

You will die.

that is all.

Originally posted by Radar
You misquoted me.

I know, it was for effect. I am sorry for not apologizing if it was in anyway offensive to you personally or to those of your race and or ethnic background. I grew up in an environment that condoned policies and views that we now know were wrong and immoral, and I repudiate them. Atonement and concession are immoral, and I again apologize for not apologizing much sooner than this. It is my hope that you will understand that this was a mistake of my ass and not my heart. I regret not having shown more heartfelt regret much sooner and I apologize again, for not apologizing. I’m really sorry for my words, they were poorly chosen and insensitive, and I apologize for not regretting not apologizing.

Cairo is a she believe it or not...:)

Your apologies and your apologies about your apologies are accepted. :D