*stands back and waits for the missles and bombs to fly between Snay's army of followers, and Omega's.*
What can I say? I'm bored and I need entertainment.
BTW, you have an odd sense of humor.
That said, I think that the argument raised in refutation of each of those five claims is a solid one. This isn't to say I'm a total prissy-wissy pacificist or that these points taken together make any action in Afghanistan morally bankrupt. But they should make us a bit more conscientious or who's doing what to who for what reason.
[ November 03, 2001: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
Dammit.
Hmmm ... now that I've got an army, I guess I should challenge Rob's army to a paintball match.
Calling them Left-Wing is like calling... em... Tyrannosaurus an 'extinct meat-eating lizard.'
Imagine all the things you think only the far-right does.. the paranoia, the conspiracy theories, the 'we're the only people who can ever be right, and all others are heretics who must be destroyed' mentality... and then imagine Liberals who behave that way. Now you're getting the picture.
Conspiracy and Paranoia run rampant, from the right to the left.
These guys do make some interesting points. Lie #4 is probably their strongest point, while Lie #2 comes in second and Lie #3 a distant third. I don't quite agree with the last two.
Before anyone accuses them of being "scum-sucking Liberals who have nothing better to do than whine and complain", keep in mind that they DO have evidence to support their claims. It does not mean you have to follow them.
If it's India et al who need the oil, wouldn't it be the Indian's impetus to get the pipeline? And Afghanistan would profit from the 'rent' for the pipeline, if it were to go through the country, just as the Northern Alliance finances their economy from the sale of lapiz lazuli and other gemstones from the hills and caves of Afghanistan (from what I hear, the Afghans could have greatly improved their economic situation by focusing on the mineral and jewel industries)
And Bush wasn't in charge in 1996, so blaming decisions made then on him is irrational at best. They haven't explained how the conspiracy serves the interests they claim it serves.
To be honest, the "agenda" they seem to be pushing is that the government lies to citizens, and is doing such now.
Well, at least we know THAT tradition hasn't changed in the history of human civilization.
But what do you think of the individual points?
What about "Lie #5" (The Food Lie) ... are we doing enough to be able to sit back and honestly claim that we're doing enough to the innocent Afghanis that we pledged to do?
What about "Lie #4"? You seem to think its a criticism against President Bush, Rob, even though its quite clearly a criticism against the Government of the U.S.
"Lie #3"? What kind of government are we going to establish once we get rid of the Taliban? We're not just going to turn it over to the Northern Alliance, are we?
And "Lie #2"? Why did we bail out the Airlines, and not provide any assistance for those people who lost their jobs as a result? One would hope some Red Cross money will get to them, for re-training or to help them until they find a new job, but, hey ... who cares?
"Lie #1"? Terrorism is a tactic. How do you fight a tactic?
Thanks, Rob.
#4: Horse puckey. I already covered this. Only the suicidally naive believe that governments are (or should be) always honest and straightforward.
#3: We haven't said that the N.A. would have free reign, have we? Like we said before, 'ask the UN, it's their baby.' Like I said before, 'multiparty parliament' is probably the best way to go.
#2: Not provide any assistance? I beg to differ, there's a new round of tax cuts in the bill, too. The idea is that if the companies laying off people have money, they won't have to lay off so many people, so there won't be as great a need for personal assistance. Pretty simple. But that's Libs for you... they just LOVE to put folks on welfare.
#1: By killing everyone who uses it. By making the expense of the use of that tactic too high to pay, for those who employ it and those who support those who employ it. If the cost of bombing two United States skyscrapers is having your entire country obliterated... very few people are going to see the logic in that course of action. And they're going to want to seriously distance themselves from the people who might.
quote:
But that's Libs for you... they just LOVE to put folks on welfare.
Conversely, that's Conservatives for you -- they'd rather prop up big-business and not give a rat's ass about the people displaced by it.
quote:
By killing everyone who uses it.
Horseshit. If that were true, we'd be propping Ron Reagan against a wall, tying a blindfold over his eyes, and reading the firing squad. The U.S. Government has very much been guilty of "terrorism", including our actions in Afghanistan against the U.S.S.R. What you've got here is a double standard: if the U.S. does it, it's okay ... if anyone else does it, it's terrorism.
quote:
If the cost of bombing two United States skyscrapers is having your entire country obliterated... very few people are going to see the logic in that course of action.
Ah, ... so it's not really "kill everyone who uses it", it's ... figure out where they're from, and blow the crap out of the country. Yes, that's logical. That'll certainly stop people from hating the West. "See, this bin Laden dude hurt the U.S. ... so the U.S. bombed me and my family -- even though we didn't do anything -- so now I'm going to over to the U.S. with some dynamite and kill some people."
Violence begets violence.
It's called accountability. Liberals want accountability in their government, a government that should be always honest and straightforward. But like you said in that quote "The Government Lies to Citizens".
From that article:
.....but when it came to aiding the thousands of workers laid off, Congressman Dick Armey said that that would be contrary to "the American spirit."
Care to defend this quote? And I would not be surprised if Armey is a Conservative.
Rob: But that's Libs for you... they just LOVE to put folks on welfare.
Jeff: Conversely, that's Conservatives for you -- they'd rather prop up big-business and not give a rat's ass about the people displaced by it.
You'll love Ontario, Rob. Programs designed to help the lower class get on its feet have been eliminated. So has affordable rental housing, in which the Conservative government not only stopped present housing projects, but has backed the demolition of existing affordable housing stocks in favour of luxury Condominiums. Thus you have a shortage in rental units, and an abundance of luxury units, and more people becoming homeless on the streets. Finally, you have the government tightening welfare rules which make it appear that less people are on welfare, but in reality, there are many homeless out there who can't qualify due to these strict rules, and the problems that the Conservative Government has created.
Thank God Mike Harris is resigning. Hopefully, the next Conservative leader has a bit more common sense and compassion than his predecessor.
[ November 08, 2001: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]
quote:
Liberals want accountability in their government
Then they should be working to make it smaller. The larger and more powerful it is, the less accountability it has.
quote:
Care to defend this quote?
Do they care to substantiate it, or provide accurate context?
quote:
So has affordable rental housing, in which the Conservative government not only stopped present housing projects, but has backed the demolition of existing affordable housing stocks in favour of luxury Condominiums.
Well... it's probably more cost-effective to spend money building apartments that the residents WON'T destroy within a few months of moving in, which is what's happened around here.
It's an odd coincidence that nobody ever wants to talk about... low rent attracts low-rents. I can tell you for a fact, that the 'public housing' areas down here, - that is, in the town in which I work, not necessarily everywhere, but definetely here - even though built to better standards than the apartment to which I am moving, are the most crime-ridden areas, whose residents commit the most petty theft, who destroy the surroundings at whim, and who abuse the slightest privelege or luxury given them (especially free access to the library). No wonder nobody wants them.
quote:
there are many homeless out there who can't qualify due to these strict rules,
How many? I know that the last 'homeless census' revealed that there were something less than half as many homeless people as the activists claimed. I also know that many - perhaps the vast majority - of the homeless are people with (let me use the politically correct term here) "reality-dysfunction/impairment," who were 'released' from treatment facilities by Liberal programs trying to 're-integrate' them into society (While Conservatives want to keep them 'shut away.')
[ November 08, 2001: Message edited by: First of Two ]
quote:
Well... it's probably more cost-effective to spend money building apartments that the residents WON'T destroy within a few months of moving in, which is what's happened around here.
It's an odd coincidence that nobody ever wants to talk about... low rent attracts low-rents. I can tell you for a fact, that the 'public housing' areas down here, - that is, in the town in which I work, not necessarily everywhere, but definetely here - even though built to better standards than the apartment to which I am moving, are the most crime-ridden areas, whose residents commit the most petty theft, who destroy the surroundings at whim, and who abuse the slightest privelege or luxury given them (especially free access to the library). No wonder nobody wants them.