Celebrate.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
We will soon see if this administration is an improvement or not.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
Realy? Unless he nukes somewhere, or sells all the white folk into slavery for revenge how could he do worse?
First Blair, now Bush! (Pulls party popper)!
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
The hole in the ozone hasn't repaired itself, global warming hasn't reversed, the economy still stinks, and war still exists. Can we start complaining now? Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
So long George, you were a worthy opponent.
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
As of now, Rainbows are NOT coming out of my ass.
So much for the Obama supporter's promises.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Hey... my bosses ordered us all pizza and we sat around for an hour watching the inauguration. That's pretty much all I was hoping for.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vanguard: As of now, Rainbows are NOT coming out of my ass.
So much for the Obama supporter's promises.
You sure it was Obama supporters and not The Village People. Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: George Bush is no longer President.
Dick Cheney is no longer Vice President.
Celebrate.
YIPPEEE!!!!!!
The inauguration was playing on the projector in the school auditorium all day, so I got to watch snippets of it between classes, and during health, my teacher took us down as a class to watch it. I got to see the oaths of office, and the composition by some of the top classical musicians in the world. Pretty cool. Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
My brother thought Bush looked pretty happy on TV. I didn't see it, but I figure he must be - something like "Ohh my God I'm going home to Texas and I'm never ever running for anything in my life oh my GOD" probably went through his head. He may not be able to read, but I'm sure the TV tells him how hated he is. Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
Wouldn't you be happy to get rid of all that stress? I'm sure *every* former President has been quite relieved at the end of their term.
Oh, and I don't know why I thought of this, but I thought it was funny: Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
Y'know, it makes me wonder if its still Marine One when the outgoing president boards it for the last time to go home?
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I have to admit, all the way through the ceremony the dark humoured cynic in me kept expecting to hear the crack and echo of a gunshot. We'll see if he's able to turn the world's opinion of America back around from outright hatred to casual dislike where it belongs.
quote:Wouldn't you be happy to get rid of all that stress? I'm sure *every* former President has been quite relieved at the end of their term.
Nor every one. I think Nixon still wants back in...
Which reminds me, we're still stuck with Gordon "nobody voted for me" Brown.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fabrux: Y'know, it makes me wonder if its still Marine One when the outgoing president boards it for the last time to go home?
The channel I was watching said that it wasn't; just like the plane that flew him to Texas wasn't Air Force One (even though that's what's painted on the hull). Those call signs are only used when the President (the current one) is on board. (Didn't you watch that Harrison Ford movie?)
Maybe they used the call sign "Marine Don't-Let-the-Door-Hit-You-on-the-Way-Out One"?
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
"Air Force One" is not painted on the hull. It has "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA", the Presidential Seal, "28000" or "29000" depending on which plane it is, the American flag, and the USAF roundel. Any aircraft of the USAF that carries the president is called Air Force One, as any Marine Corps craft carrying the president is called Marine One. The plane used to carry Johnson and Kennedy's body back to Washington was not called Air Force One until Johnson was sworn in during midflight. Only then, during midflight, did the call sign switch from SAM 26000 to Air Force One.
Posted by HopefulNebula (Member # 1933) on :
Well, I survived Bush. My parents survived Nixon and Bush. My grandparents survived Hoover, Nixon and Bush.
I think there's a pattern here...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I'd have paid anything if only Obama had booted Bush in the ass as he escorted him to thte helicopter.
The NPR commentators noted that there were "boos" from many in the crowd when Bush was annou8nced.
...and the announcer sounded exactly like the boxing announcer that says "Lets Get Ready to Rumble!". Could have been a free-for-all. Obama beating up Bush then body slamming him into the crowd as his finishing move, Biden kicking Cheney's wheelchair into the sea of people to be torn apart....
The preferred scenario would be the Secret Service arresting Dick Cheney as an impostor, moving his massive bulk from the wheelchair and slumping it over the podium, proceeding to try and sandblast the tattoo of Whistler's "Mother" from his buttcheek.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
I really liked Obama's inauguration speech, it was very tightly packed with focus points for the administration, a comparatively small amount of "pretty rhetoric" and a lot of lines drawn, it seemed, he didn't try to have the cake and eat it. Emphasis on communication and mutual goals, a lot of not-so-veiled criticism of the Bush administration.
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
Obama: Day Two Stock Market still not at record highs.
(In fact, the Stock Market had it's worst drop ever for an inauguration, but in raw numbers and in percent.)
Obamaniac promises still not fufilled.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Give him a chance. He said it would take a while.
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
It's not OBAMA that's the problem, it's the idiots who think they're electing a King of Sunshine that will suddenly perform miracles while simultaneously (literally) demonizing anyone who isn't a hard-left liberal.
The legacy of to many Obama supporters is one of hatred and malice (up to and including supporting and advocating terrorism and murder) for their fellow countrymen, and now they want to revel in it.
And while it sounds like 'fun and games' to some of these idiots, people are going to be killing one-another soon. Unless things change, I give it no more than a decade before there's real bloodshed in this country. Because that's the legacy of this kind of hate. Death.
So I'm going to call these guys out every fucking day on the hypocrasy and bullshit. And I'm going to do it every fucking day until they either grow the fuck up, or I'm literally forced to kill them because their antics turn even more violent than they already have.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
And you can watch Nemesis while your at it. Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
Liking the new look for Cheney:
Er, sorry:
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
I wonder what was in those boxes he was supposedly lifting when he hurt his back.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
So he matches Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy now?
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vanguard: It's not OBAMA that's the problem, it's the idiots who think they're electing a King of Sunshine that will suddenly perform miracles while simultaneously (literally) demonizing anyone who isn't a hard-left liberal.
The legacy of to many Obama supporters is one of hatred and malice (up to and including supporting and advocating terrorism and murder) for their fellow countrymen, and now they want to revel in it.
And while it sounds like 'fun and games' to some of these idiots, people are going to be killing one-another soon. Unless things change, I give it no more than a decade before there's real bloodshed in this country. Because that's the legacy of this kind of hate. Death.
So I'm going to call these guys out every fucking day on the hypocrasy and bullshit. And I'm going to do it every fucking day until they either grow the fuck up, or I'm literally forced to kill them because their antics turn even more violent than they already have.
Isn't that a little...I dunno...vehement? I guess the word I'm searing for is "if I met you in a bar and you went on like that, I'd think you were a crazy drunk old man regardless of your age." But that's just me.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Practically anything will be better than what we've had, but the pervasive Obama fanaticism is quite tiresome. And the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans in many ways. I will never trust politicians or the government, no matter who's in office.
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
Daniel... considering how I've personally been treated over the past four years, and the amount of sheer hatred that 'red staters' have had to live with for no other reason than thinking Kerry and Gore were a little bit more of gits than Bush was... well, fuck it.
If these asshats can't even be gracious in victory, I see no reason left to be friendly. They drew the battlelines, threatened terrorism, advocated violent acts, squelched freedom of speech, etc, and so on, and spent the majority of their lives dwelling in hate. Why should I respect them?
Anyway, day Three of Obama (posted early since I've got a full plate tommorow): Gitmo detainees trials' cancelled, will be held without trial for 120 days.
Hope and Change!
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mars Needs Women: I wonder what was in those boxes he was supposedly lifting when he hurt his back.
It wasn't boxes, it was his man-sized safe!
Posted by Diane (Member # 53) on :
Vanguard: Call these people out on their hypocrisy, yes. Though I think this has little to do with Obama. I voted for him and contributed to his campaign because he's inclusive and fair, and he does not model or encourage that sort of behavior. Not everybody listens though - being on the "winning" side can bring out the best or worst in people (think of the kid who gets abused at home then turns around and bullies classmates).
Those who don't get it think that Obama is the Savior and going to solve all our problems. Those who get it know that real change is not going to be easy, and it takes effort from all of us, starting with ourselves. He has been saying this all along: "We are the ones we've been waiting for." A good leader with a vision can inspire us to achieve the kind of changes we need as a collective, but he can't do it for us.
Posted by Ventriloquists Got Shot (Member # 239) on :
Vanguard is the reason people hate the USA. Christ.
You supported a twat. Big whoop. Get off your horse, chill the fuck out and draw some fake spaceships. Touch a boob.
Nobody here (of what few here still remain) cares nor needs your imbecilic reports on the Stock Market.
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
Aaaand.... QED
I didn't support McCain.
And if you don't want to see what people post here, then shut the fuck up and go the hell away. Puh-lease.
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
quote:Originally posted by Diane: [QB] Vanguard: Call these people out on their hypocrisy, yes. Though I think this has little to do with Obama.
It doesn't, which is even more frustrating. It's the insane support and this BELIEF (TM) that suddenly all the worlds' ills will be relieved in a series of 30 minute sit-coms with Obama as the star.
It also doesn't help that so many idiots really do think that Bush was worse than Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao Tse Tung combined. The perspectives are completely and royally screwed up here.
There's never been in our history, with the possible exception of Buchanan, a President more set up to fail spectacularly than Obama. The main reason is that it's just IMPOSSIBLE for him to live up to the hype his supporters have created. Even if he does, on the score, do an incredible job as President, he'll fall short of the 'left-wing utopia' that the worst of his supporters demand.
And the same supporters are insanely flighty. When Obama fails to deliver EVERYTHING by .. hell, this time next year at the outside, they'll be starting up the 'derangement sydrome' all over again. Only this time, there's literally NO Republicans that they can pin it on.
An ugly, ugly mess to come.
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
I fail to see how UM proves your point. Given that he's in the wilds of Saskatchewan and all. Canadian born and raised. Plus he mostly lurks and only posts when something should be said. Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vanguard: Daniel... considering how I've personally been treated over the past four years, and the amount of sheer hatred that 'red staters' have had to live with for no other reason than thinking Kerry and Gore were a little bit more of gits than Bush was... well, fuck it.
If these asshats can't even be gracious in victory, I see no reason left to be friendly. They drew the battlelines, threatened terrorism, advocated violent acts, squelched freedom of speech, etc, and so on, and spent the majority of their lives dwelling in hate. Why should I respect them?
Anyway, day Three of Obama (posted early since I've got a full plate tommorow): Gitmo detainees trials' cancelled, will be held without trial for 120 days.
Hope and Change!
What in fuck are you even talking about? What asshats? Who's hating you? You're awfully bitter, aren't you?
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vanguard: It doesn't, which is even more frustrating. It's the insane support and this BELIEF (TM) that suddenly all the worlds' ills will be relieved in a series of 30 minute sit-coms with Obama as the star.
It also doesn't help that so many idiots really do think that Bush was worse than Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao Tse Tung combined. The perspectives are completely and royally screwed up here.
There's never been in our history, with the possible exception of Buchanan, a President more set up to fail spectacularly than Obama. The main reason is that it's just IMPOSSIBLE for him to live up to the hype his supporters have created. Even if he does, on the score, do an incredible job as President, he'll fall short of the 'left-wing utopia' that the worst of his supporters demand.
And the same supporters are insanely flighty. When Obama fails to deliver EVERYTHING by .. hell, this time next year at the outside, they'll be starting up the 'derangement sydrome' all over again. Only this time, there's literally NO Republicans that they can pin it on.
An ugly, ugly mess to come.
With the extreme polarization that is occurring in the not-so United States, I really see there being a potential for a second civil war. There just seems to be no moderation anymore, only extremism. America was supposed to be a 'Melting Pot' of different cultures but instead it has turned into 'Vitriolic Stew'. The sheer amount of desperation that is being attached to the Obama administration will ensure that only further dissolution will occur. What bad things occur the next four years will be laid at the feet of the former administration, whether rightly or wrongly.
To me, watching the worldwide reaction and acceptance of BHO sets a precedent for the move to a voice to speak great things and put itself in position to rule the planet. While I know that many if not a majority of my fellow Flareites are typically anti-religion or anti-christian, it is rather eerie that things are seemingly coming into place that would allow the events of the Apocalyptic end times prophecies to be fulfilled.
Please do not confuse that as me calling Obama the Anti-Christ. I am merely trying to point out the similarities of the meteoric rise of a political force with seeming worldwide support and acceptance with what would have to occur for an Anti-Christ to take control. What will happen in the next few years if the desperation of the world population only grows?
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Vanguard:
quote:And if you don't want to see what people post here, then shut the fuck up and go the hell away. Puh-lease.
He didn't tell you to shut up, he told you to chill out, so that childish and quite embarrassing response of yours actually provided his QED.
Vanguard always talks in hyperbole and black/white language, "blogspeak" as I call it, it's the way he thinks he'll get his point across.
I watched Rush Limbaugh's "I hope Obama fails"-speech this morning, it was so entertaining. Apparently he's scared and angry at the coming de-privatization of certain areas in society at the hands of the new administration, and hearing that made me glad. I hope these fatcats, Halliburters, neocon-libertarians and lobbyists of the US really squirm and suffer in the coming year, seeing their abilities to stuff their pockets without supervision slowly wither away, and I'll be watching it with a not insignificant amount of satisfaction. Of course, those people always find a way to cheat the system, but at least it's a step in the right direction.
I get the libertarian/objectivist attitude to Obama, they are only interested in private gain and not that of society, of course they hate him. Doesn't change anything though, which is nice.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
quote:Originally posted by WizArtist II: With the extreme polarization that is occurring in the not-so United States, I really see there being a potential for a second civil war.
I've thought about that before, but I've often wondered exactly how that would happen. Even in the 1860s, opinions weren't exactly divided up along state lines, but a lot moreso than now. Our opinions may be pretty polarized, but for the most part, we're all mixed together.
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
quote:He didn't tell you to shut up, he told you to chill out, so that childish and quite embarrassing response of yours actually provided his QED.
But you feel the need to defend his childish and embarassing response.
quote:I watched Rush Limbaugh's "I hope Obama fails"-speech this morning, it was so entertaining. Apparently he's scared and angry at the coming de-privatization of certain areas in society at the hands of the new administration, and hearing that made me glad.
And this is a lot of what I'm talking about. You don't want to have Obama succeed because it would be good for the nation, or your family, or so on, you want him to succeed out of your hatred for those on the other side of the poiltical aisle.
Me? I've got three kids to worry about, one enterting the workforce for the first time. I definately want Obama to succeed. To his credit, he seems to be cloning Clinton as much as possible, which eases my concerns somewhat.
You're confusing my contempt for the 'Obama Supporter' that sing his praises as is he was Christ (literally), start dressing their kids in Obama uniforms (which, sadly enough, were BROWN), and start printing out huge posters to hang in their houses like he was Kim Jong Ill. They adopt all the trappings of fascism while all the while decrying anyone who disagrees with them about ANYTHING as the 'real' fascists.
quote:I get the libertarian/objectivist attitude to Obama, they are only interested in private gain and not that of society, of course they hate him. Doesn't change anything though, which is nice.
Libertarian's are NOT just interested in private gain, they're interested in the government getting out of so many aspects of our lives. Considering the federal government's success record in how it microlegislates, as well as the success records of other nations with more socialist or outright communist leanings, Libertarians do have a point.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
quote:You don't want to have Obama succeed because it would be good for the nation, or your family, or so on, you want him to succeed out of your hatred for those on the other side of the poiltical aisle.
Haha, again with the black/white. I don't have to defend or explain the nature of my appreciation for the new President to you, despite you putting words in my mouth. Furthermore, there is no way he can improve my rights or standard of living. My wish to all americans for wellbeing and a new chance, and the idea of seeing pundits bite their own tongue and taste the poison, the two are not mutually exclusive.
Yes, I don't know how you will be able to survive the terrible onslaught of Obama lackeys and their quest to quench free will and wield absolute power and steamroll kittens, but I suspect the solution might occupy a medium sized fanfic or two. Maybe Ron Paul can establish an underground railroad to New Hampshire for self-appointed martyrs. Either that or a subterranean vault.
Vanguard:
quote:start dressing their kids in Obama uniforms (which, sadly enough, were BROWN)
You broke Godwin's Law, you lose the argument.
Did anyone see that interview with people on the street in Israel, the day after the election? Apparently many of them discount Obama completely on the grounds of his name, thinking him muslim. How uphill does that feel.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
You're confusing my contempt for the 'Obama Supporter' that sing his praises as is he was Christ (literally), start dressing their kids in Obama uniforms (which, sadly enough, were BROWN), and start printing out huge posters to hang in their houses like he was Kim Jong Ill. They adopt all the trappings of fascism while all the while decrying anyone who disagrees with them about ANYTHING as the 'real' fascists.
I live in New York City, a place I guess you can say is a bastion for liberalism. Yet I don't really see what your describing. I don't see Obama uniforms or large crowds beating up on conservatives, and believe me there are quote a few in this town. So what your experiencing is either relegated to where you live, or your overreacting, or your exaggerating the truth.
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
You can't invoke Godwin unless it was unrelated. The 'brownshirts' those guys in California did... I didn't know to be worried, just creeped out, and concerned for their lack of intelligence.
And, oddly, I see this more in the 'neveaux rich' areas, those suburban areas where people flip houses annually, have lawn you can mow in seconds, etc... the 'upper middle class' as you will, who seem to have latched onto Obama as a spiritual focus.
I can probably dig around for more local pictures and rallies and stuff, but it's just a bizzare melding of Baby Boomer narcissim, 'rich man entitlement', and WASP self-loathing or something. Thing is, the thinking is actually so alien to me that I really can't rationalize it or explain it.
These are moderately successful upper-middle class people for whom Obama has become their God, their focus for all things 'great and beautiful' in the world.
And, of course, I don't mean that all people who voted for Obama are like this (hell, I very nearly voted for him myself, and would have if the GOP controlled Congress). It's a subset from a group of should-bes that really seem to be looking at Obama not as a political figure, but as their personal redeemers.
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
I volunteered for Obama. I met a lot of other volunteers in the process. And even more supporters.
And I haven't met anybody like who you describe (and I live in Los Angeles).
May I respectfully suggest that you misunderstand Obama supporters' enthusiasm?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"You don't want to have Obama succeed because it would be good for the nation, or your family, or so on, you want him to succeed out of your hatred for those on the other side of the poiltical aisle."
Or, it's possible that some people want him to do what we on the left think is best for the country because it's what we think is best for the country, and seeing asshats like Limbaugh freak out is just icing.
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
I might believe you, if you haven't focused and fixated on your hatred of all things on the other side of the aisle first and foremost. See how it keeps coming back to that?
'Cause I got news for you, at the end of the day, if it isn't good for all of the country, it's bad for all of the country.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
What?
Posted by shikaru808 (Member # 2080) on :
I'm extremely confused.
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
Simple...
The moment you start doing good only for the part of the country you like, is the moment you actually worsen the situation for everyone in the country.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Well thank you Captain Obvious.
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vanguard: I might believe you, if you haven't focused and fixated on your hatred of all things on the other side of the aisle first and foremost. See how it keeps coming back to that?
'Cause I got news for you, at the end of the day, if it isn't good for all of the country, it's bad for all of the country.
Did you miss the part where Obama talked about the necessity of the president serving and being responsible to all Americans and not just the ones that voted for him, which is the opposite of what George W. Bush and Company believed?
And I don't know about anyone else, but there are a few Republicans I don't mind so much. Ray LaHood ain't so bad. Vernon Ehlers is a pretty decent guy. I certainly have an affinity for my mom.
So there's that.
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
OnToMars, you have two fallacies in your statements here.
First, you're assuming AGAIN that I'm talking about Obama when I'm actually talking about his supporters, and a subset of them at that.
Second, you lioniize Obama based on nothing more than his intro speech, then demonize Bush based on ... nothing. (Show me where Bush made Republicans happy, much less made ONLY Republicans happy please... )
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
Why would the views of Obama supporters be substantially different from those of Obama himself? But never mind that.
Listen, I won't deny that there are people in this nation whose political views and opinions I cannot stand. I have my reasons and I think they're quite sufficient, though I'm sure you disagree.
But this is the important point:
I can't stand them because they're lousy for the country. They're what got us into this mess in the first place. And their arrogance and misanthropy is the real hate that drives the division and regression in this country.
Did I enjoy beating them? Absolutely. But it's because they're the ones that embody the hateful attitudes you're mistakenly attributing to me.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vanguard: 'Cause I got news for you, at the end of the day, if it isn't good for all of the country, it's bad for all of the country.
Which is admitting that the Bush administrration was bad for the country.
Just after the inaguration Rohm the Spaceknight zipped to the White House and put a stop to all those assinine "midnight resolutions" the Bush administartion had thrown in as a gift to big business....too bad he cant stop all the apointments of Bush's cronies to various commities.
On his first official day in office he signed the order to close Gitmo (total closure within one year).
There- already he's done more to restore our place as a world leader than the Bush administration has in a year and upheld a major campaign promise.
Shows the new President is nothing if not cool.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Show me where Bush made Republicans happy, much less made ONLY Republicans happy please..."
I think you might be begging the question here. You're assuming we only hate Bush based on his being a good conservative. Which he wasn't. Therefore, we shouldn't hate Bush.
We hate Bush because he's a war criminal, he broke the country, and he's kind of a prick.
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
No you don't. You hate Bush for no more reason than it's 'en vogue' to do so. You're 'part of the clique' and that's how you get along with your peers. You've never really thought about the issues, you cannot honestly cite any laws or anything that hasn't been regurgitated and disproven already. You have no opinion about Bush, or Obama, that isn't crafted and shaped by 'the crowd'.
You hate Bush because you're nothing but a spineless sheep who's desperate for internet affirmation. You've shared in the invention of a character that all of you can hate in order to feel vindicated about your own life.
And you reveal this, at all times, by using the same tropes over and over again, because all your 'Bush hating friends' use them.
And please do me a favour and stop pretending to know jack shit about politics or issues, because you don't know. Your brain STOPS at 'Hateful Rethuglicans' and everything else you say is self-justified from there, including going so far as to say everything 'those guys' do is hateful and wrong... but NOTHING we do is.
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
Also, I think you're forgetting about the years 2002 to 2006.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
You can't sit here and tell me that Bush's unpopularity was totally unfounded. If so then your more full of it that I thought. And incidentally, what are your credentials to be telling other people they don't know shit about politics.
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
Most of which were under *gasp* a democratic Congress... which never was responsible for anything, ever. It's always Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush. Also, Bush.
Anyway, Obama: Day Four Waterboarding not considered torture for counter-intelligence techniques.
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mars Needs Women: You can't sit here and tell me that Bush's unpopularity was totally unfounded. If so then your more full of it that I thought. And incidentally, what are your credentials to be telling other people they don't know shit about politics.
I didn't say it was totally unfounded, but YOUR objects (and that of many 'en vogue liberals') are not. Is that simple enough for you?
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vanguard: Most of which were under *gasp* a democratic Congress... which never was responsible for anything, ever. It's always Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush. Also, Bush.
No, not really. Bush's immense unpopularity started BEFORE 2006, which is why Democrats were elected in such big numbers that year. Cause and effect a bit?
And for the record, I'm as hardcore a Democrat as they come these days and I've been tremendously dissatisfied with the job they did in the last two years of Bush's administration. They could've done a lot to stop him and didn't. So to sit here and claim that everything bad about Bush was the fault of a Democratic Congress in its last two years and I'm not assigning any blame to them anyway, is ludicrous.
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
"I'm mad at the Democrats for not stopping the evil that is Bush" ... yeah, THAT's not drinking the Kool-Aid.
Puh-leaze. And if you want to check on 'popularity numbers', you DO realize that Democrats remain twenty points DOWN, in general, from Bush, right?
But let not the facts dissuade you from your group-think! There is only the One.. the One.. the One...
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
What facts precisely? When you say "Democrats" you mean the Democratic Congress. Obama has a 68% approval rating at the moment.
And I've already agreed with you that I don't approve of the job Congress is doing, albeit for different reasons. So I'm a liberal, what makes my point of view any less valid than yours?
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
One of the issues I find rather amusing, being conservative myself, is that whenever I speak my opinion on particular issues I am typically blasted by the liberals as being 'closed-minded' and wrong. They then proceed to tell me that I should be tolerant and accepting of ALL points of view and should not chastise someone based on their opinions or tell them that they are wrong.
Ironic.
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
Vanguard: stop with the personal attacks. This is a civil discussion. Keep it that way.
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
It's never been a civil discussion. I'm just being direct where 'the other side' (as it were) is being more indirect.
If I said "All liberals are scum-sucking communist wannabees without the testicles to put their Stalinist agenda on the floor", I'm pretty sure that would still warrant a warning.
Now, the liberals here get to say that about Conservatives in a general sense, but that's just okay, right? It's happened in this thread, not even obliquely.
This is why I don't repsect the viewpoints of Nim, Mars, and so on. It's not because they're liberal. It's because they'll regurgitate the talking points (Bush is a War Criminal), often using the most vitriolic propogandist rhetoric possible, and you can't so much as ask a question about where that stance comes from without also being tarred and feathered.
So, Fabrux, the moment it really is a civil discussion, where a conservative point of view is not automatically equated with the worst elements of human and demonic history, I'll take your concerns more seriously.
Until then, the way I see your use of 'civil' is nothing more than 'agree and accept everything the groupthink has to say, regardless of what it is, else YOU are the trouble-maker.'
Posted by Ventriloquists Got Shot (Member # 239) on :
I think am going to see how well this "ignore" frature works.
Also: last night, when I went to bed, the last thing I thought of was how I need to complete the "Wasteland Survival Guide" quest in Fallout 3 tonight. Apparently, Vanguard here went to bed and thought "I need to tell four people, anonymously, on the internet, on a Space Ships forum, with a colon, a running tally of what I think some President Man is doing wrong."
Let me know when your funeral is, from all the burst anyeurisms you have trying to crush that coal into diamonds with your bare hands.
Posted by Ventriloquists Got Shot (Member # 239) on :
I think it just ignores PMs?
Horseshit!
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
How sweet, now I've got a 'liberal' actively advocating and celebrating my impending death. Charming.
Posted by Ventriloquists Got Shot (Member # 239) on :
Don't presume you know anything about my political leanings, please.
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
Wait, so that's the ONLY thing you feel was out of line? Daaaaamn...
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ventriloquists Got Shot: Also: last night, when I went to bed, the last thing I thought of was how I need to complete the "Wasteland Survival Guide" quest in Fallout 3 tonight.
Yeah I've been neglecting Fallout 3 as well. It's just that I get so engrossed I forget other responsibilities, like eating. Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Hi, Vanguard. Ten years ago I was you. I was absolutely convinced I was right and everyone here (more or less) was against me. I was also convinced that those that disagreed with me just did so because they followed the talking points, not because they were well informed or had formed their own opinions.
These things are not the case. Your enemy, and the enemy of all thinking people, is the same as ours: people who perceive all who disagree as stupid and dangerous. This includes Rush Limbaugh, the Obama supporters you seem to have run into, and Muslim extremists.
I know that people who don't think through issues and hold onto dogma instead are frustrating. But I can tell you from personal experience that the people here aren't like that. But you need to know that if you're seeing people like that everywhere, there's a very good chance that you're becoming one yourself.
Let me give you an example. I think Bush was an awful President, and I can tell you exactly why. Iraq, torture, war crimes, all of that can be debated. One thing, though, is a matter of simple fact: Jose Padilla. Bush took a US citizen, arrested in a US city, transferred him into military custody, and held him for three and a half years without charge. He stripped one of us of all rights, and thought he never had to justify to anyone why. That alone is grounds for his impeachment for violating his oath of office, and conviction and imprisonment for wrongful arrest.
See? My impression is that you would disagree with that. But you can see that my reasons are from undisputed facts, not from talking points someone handed out. If he would treat one man like that, you have no reason to think he wouldn't treat any other the same. But for at least the next few minutes, we don't have to worry about that.
George Bush is no longer President.
Dick Cheney is no longer Vice President.
Celebrate.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
THANK YOU! Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vanguard: It's because they'll regurgitate the talking points (Bush is a War Criminal)
Dear god, did somebody really say that?
It's kind of a litmus test thing. There are levels of another person's mental absurdity and your own required defense condition level.
DEFCON 1: NUCLEAR WAR
"9/11 Truth"ers who claim Bush destroyed/allowed-the-destruction-of the towers. This is Bush Derangement Syndrome to its maximal extent, and a majority of the time is indicative of the emotional problems shared by most conspiracy loons.
(This is not necessarily a leftist problem, mind you, as conspiracist lunacy of this level can be shared among those holding any philosophical extremes.)
No attempt to reason with such people is going to be effective. Even attempts to reason with or trick the individual toward their own self-interest is fruitless, as their looniness is invariably self-destructive, and they could snap at any moment. Back away slowly with defenses raised.
DEFCON 2: CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS
"Bush is a war criminal", or "baby-killer", or "hates black people", or whatever . . . extremist speak is the mantra of this group. This is a somewhat less crazed version of Bush Derangement Syndrome, but still absurd. The same irrational exuberance and extremist talk exists, but whether honestly or merely to be able to feign rationality these people don't go all the way to 9/11 ignorance.
An example of this is a guy I heard on the radio the other day calling for the arrest of Bush on war crimes charges as part of some San Francisco group he runs. He claimed it gave him no pleasure to levy such charges against a president and country, but that's total crap and obviously so. He's devoted his life to that mess.* Clearly he gets his jollies by believing he (almost alone) knows the truth the hoi polloi has failed to realize, and it gives him a hippie mind-stiffy to "speak truth to power" and all that Alinsky-ist babble. Not to mention the pleasure of making the extreme (shock) statements, which is (I believe) and under-studied realm of psychology.
(*Hell, me, I just have an old decrepit website featuring various verbal asskickings of loony fanboys by use of reason and their own rule set. Now suppose I claimed it gave me no pleasure to do it, ever. I'd be full of shit, wouldn't I?)
However, these are the people who seriously claimed or believed it plausible that Bush had secret plans to declare martial law so as to suspend the election and remain in power. Instead of now recognizing that this idea was obviously false, leading to possible questions of the premises about Bush and his staff that led them to such erroneous claims, these folks probably believe that the plan maybe got cancelled because it was outed before it happened, or maybe some secret event occurred where Dear Leader Obama cleverly out-maneuvered the coup attempt, or some other such stupidity.
But certainly the falsity was not because Bush actually *isn't* as bad as I heard from Kos, HuffPo, MSNBC, NBC, and NPR! No, never that!
How to deal with this kind? I am really no expert on it. Ideally one should, as with DEFCON 1, leave them to their own absurd devices. However, the intartubes is awash in these addle-brained individuals, so frequent encounters are impossible to avoid.
This is why I avoid threads swarming with leftists excepting those occasions where I'm feeling particularly masochistic/selfless.
They cannot be fully reasoned with but you can 'buy them off' with a strong enough case for self-interest. We call this "compromise" in American politics.
Just try to have fun with it and try not to let them agitate you. Don't feel bad if they *do* agitate you, but try to remind yourself that they *want* you so shocked and angry that you can barely think straight.
These are the people who want us all to drive Priuses (Prii?), ignorant of or ignoring the fact that the infrastructure to make their specialized parts is more energy-intensive and environmentally damaging than that for a normal car.
These are the people who wanted the disadvantaged to have "affordable housing", ignorant of or ignoring the fact that their policies produced a housing bubble (e.g. less-affordable housing) and permissive credit system which has now burst into a worldwide credit problem, meaning that even their "affordable housing" is no longer affordable because the disadvantaged got laid off, and the house costs half-again as much anyway, even after the recent value drops.
Unbridled emotionalism is the fundamental basis of the leftist philosophy. It is child-like wants unfettered by logistical or rational concerns.
Hence the unstated goal of leftist argumentation styles (be it Alinsky-ist sort of stuff or just internet trolls) . . . to short-circuit your reasoning faculties and those of any readers. "Shock, mock, and produce disgust."
After this you get to DEFCON 3 and below, which are largely not worth concern.
DEFCON 3 is for reasonable people who vote Democrat because they don't know that the Democrat leadership is full of leftist Che-corpse-blowing loonies, or haven't heard of the tingly sensations shooting up the media's collective leg at the thought of Obama, or that sort of thing. These people are just ignorant, but can be educated. Depending on how interested or interesting they are, you can actually have a great conversation with these people and learn a lot back and forth. Might even change your mind as you change theirs.
But that's the natural result when both minds are open.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The problem here is that some people are merely cheerleaders for their team- both sides suffer from these wonders that assume their party is infallable or that all members of one side or the other are corrupt/soft/ignorant, etc. without looking into what their own "team" is doing.
That's when people start calling the other party by deragatory nicknames and making broad generalizations.
Vanguard, you've obviously got your hackles up (Guardian too) over this thread and you're coming across as a "cheerleader" type- an easy thing to fall into when you feel like the only person on a forum with your set of beliefs.
For the record: I like you. I respect you. I dont agreee with ANYTHING you've said on this thread so far but I am reading your posts and being polite. Lets try to site facts and not radio-show talking points.
As to Bush, He presided over a huge decline in morality in our government, comitted many unlawful acts -some, such as warrantless wiretapping without FISA order and the suspension of Habeas corpus for gitmo detainees have been expressly noted by the Supreme Court. Many members of his administration have shown themselves to be corrupt and, in many cases, broke the law to further Republican political agendas: J. Steven Griles, David Safavian, U.S. Representative Bob Ney, Mark Foley, Tom DeLay, Alberto Gonzalez, Scooter Libby and Dick Cheney...the list goes on and on. Here's a list of the top abusers.
This does not indite ALL republicans- certainly there are many elected officials that serve this country from a desire to do right and defend America. But the Bush administration was a cesspool of corruption, devisivness and lies- and despite the feverent wishes of Mr. Bush himself, he will not be somehow vindicated by history- history will likely continue to uncover much more dirt as time goes by.
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
Even if you agree that 'Bush's Cesspool of corruption' was indeed a legitimate charge, how come Obama's administration, which has already had numerous scandals (taxes, illegal immigration, and, yes, sex scandals) get a complete pass?
Bush's record on corruption, indeed, was BETTER than that of Clinton. (Stuffing pants full of top-secret documents to hide 9/11 materials?) Yet there's never - EVER - a hint of self-criticism about the Democrat party's behaviour coming from the same people who are openly advocating Bush's summary execution.
And, what's more blatant, is that the same court and people who were so angry about Bush having the powers to do warrantless wiretaps, etc, are happily giving Obama not only those powers and even more without any real critique of the blatant hypocrasy.
I'm telling you, this can very easily be a very bad situation, but so many people are so enraptured by 'The One' or 'Hope and Change' that they're not paying a damn bit of attention to what exactly the Change is going to be.
Remember, every tyrant in history got into power by promising his people... hope and change.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Just like Reagan, Clinton, and WBush. If things are going badly, you promise they'll get better. That's politics.
Nobody here is saying Obama is perfect, or that he's going to solve all our problems. (For that matter, nobody here is at the moment saying Bush is better or worse than Clinton, so I'm not sure where that came from.) If you run into people like that, I'm sorry, but they're not here. I think the problem is that you're criticizing people here as if they're people you've apparently run into elsewhere.
All I know is that so far, Obama is a hell of a lot better than Bush was. After five days, he'd have to be. We'll see whether it stays that way.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Bush is a war criminal. He had war prisoners waterboarded. Waterboarding is torture. Torturing war prisoners is a war crime. I'm not sure at what point people have trouble following that.
"...people who vote Democrat because they don't know that the Democrat leadership is full of leftist Che-corpse-blowing loonies..."
How astonishingly far to the right do you have to be to think Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are communists?
Posted by Krenim (Member # 22) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: How astonishingly far to the right do you have to be to think Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are communists?
Good question. Maybe we should have another round of Political Compass?
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: [QB] Bush is a war criminal. He had war prisoners waterboarded. Waterboarding is torture. Torturing war prisoners is a war crime. I'm not sure at what point people have trouble following that.
Ask Obama, then, because his administration has found that Waterboard is NOT torture as defined under the Geneva Convention. Ooops.
So, I'll wait for you to call for Obama's summary execution as well, then.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Where exactly are you getting this information from? Link in a news story- dont just repeat what Rush or someone spouted. Obama's team has already begun the long process of restoring the system of checks and balances cast aside by Bush's cronies- starting with the declaration that waterboarding IS torture and will not be done by US personell.
After all, the United states has put people in prison for waterboarding in the past, it seems crystal clear that it's a crime.
But dont take my word for it- Bush Sr. outlined many guidelines for CIA operative's behavior during his tenure as Director and that was one of them. As was the passing of a law making the outing of CIA operatives a crime (which his son seems not to have understood). Bush Sr. called those taht would out a CIA operative "the worst kind of traitors". AND references to the position as Vice President as part of the Executive Branch of government (someting Cheney disputes to thumb his nose as pesky disclosure laws and FOIA requests). AND he said ""I can tell you this: If I'm ever in a position to call the shots, I'm not going to rush to send somebody else's kids into a war." I guess George Jr really did not follow in his dad's footsteps after all.
The best advice he has is something yuo should take to heart: ""I'm conservative, but I'm not a nut about it."" Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
Jason, you're making a lot of assumptions here, many of which are simply factually untrue.
Valerie Plame was outed by her husband, and that connection was made by a reporter (Novak), and NO ONE IN TH ADMINISTRATION. This is an oft-repeated lie. Libby was convincted, very scurriously, on 'lying' about remembering a conversation.
The Vice President is defined as an excutive, though he has no defined executive powers by viture of his office. Cheney's half-right here. He can, however, be given tasks by the President (like anyone else can) and be made a part of the executive branch of the government in that way. But there's nothing about the OFFICE that's empowering.
I cannot call a decade a rush into war. Hell, the buildup for the actual attack on Iraq was nearly a year long, with negotiations continually tried all along. The "rush to war" meme is simply a lie.
Waterboarding was declared 'torture' by NONBINDING measures by the House as a political statement. The house, under the same leadership, has now OVERTURNED that decision to 'enable Obama to have all the tools he needs to fight Terrorism'. Suddenly, since Obama's in charge, it's not a crime anymore apparently. Publically, they'll continue to count it as 'torture', but they will NOT prosecute it as such during Obama's term, nor expressly prohibit it in law.
Funny, that.
Posted by Doctor Jonas (Member # 481) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vanguard: First, most of my news for politics starts from www.instapundit.com .
I wouldn't tell you to get references from mainstream media necessarily, but please, not from such an obviously leaning website.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Your linked website is so far to the right as to be direct issuances from the GOP- how about you link in some quotes from ekected officials backing up those claims? The author of that "article" linked is Roland Radosh , an author that only attacks Democrats -what he sees as leftists and communists. He's just shy of Ann Coulter for crazy.
Obama's new director of national intelligence, Dennis Blair, told Congress there will be no torture and no warrantless wiretapping either, anymore. Blair called Guantánamo "a damaging symbol to the world," and promised to restore Americans' trust in the agencies he'll head. "The intelligence agencies of the United States must respect the privacy and civil liberties of the American people, and they must adhere to the rule of law."
Four days into office and the Obama administration has ordered Gitmo closed, stopped the sham trials being carried out there, declared torture illegal, restored sensible funding to planned parenthood organizations, stopped Bush's unethical "midnight regulations" which undermined several laws, stated before congress (and the official public congressional record) that there will be no illegal wiretapping, met with Mexico's president (bout their drug-gang crisis mostly), and helped push through the SCHIP expansion that republicans were so opposed to (while they gave huge tax cuts to the most wealthy).
If he can keep up this frantic pace, gets two terms and the republicans start doing what's right for the country instead of obstructing everything, Obama just might undo most of the damage caused by the Bush administration.
Also in the news, House Republicans want huge tax cuts for the wealthy and big business to stimulate the econemy: 'cause that's worked so well already.
Also, (Rep chair of S. Carolinia) Katon Dawson wants chairmanship of the Republican Party. So after the GOP's crushing defeats over the past two cycles, what is his platform? To smear the "Democrat Party" and to become President Obama's "worst nightmare." At a time of national crisis - created by George Bush and the Republic Party. So much for setting aside partisanship to do whats right for the country in a time of crisis. Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Valerie Plame was outed by her husband, and that connection was made by a reporter (Novak), and NO ONE IN TH ADMINISTRATION. This is an oft-repeated lie."
I think the best response to this is the one attributed to Wolfgang Pauli : "That's not right. It's not even wrong."
Joe Wilson's column in the New York Times that started the whole thing never mentions his wife. It never even hints that he's married.
Bob Novak's Washington Post column specifically says that his information on Valerie Wilson came from "two senior administration officials". There's no way Novak could have figured out on his own that Joe Wilson had a wife working undercover for the CIA. Even if he could have, it still would have been a crime for those "two senior administration officials" to confirm it.
"So, I'll wait for you to call for Obama's summary execution as well, then."
I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the phrase "as well". For it to work here, I would have to have called for someone else's summary execution. Since I happen to know that I oppose executions, I think it's very unlikely that I did so.
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
TSN, nice of you to skirt facts, though I'm not remotely surprised by the tactic. Joe Wilson outed who his wife was, himself, in Who's Who in Washington - even going so far as to identify WHERE she worked. Valerie Plame, for her part, was ALREADY GIVING INTERVIEWS about her involvement with the CIA and Iraq, before this 'outing' could have occured.
TSN, also, you cannot say "Bush is a war criminal" if you're not also going along with the Geneva Convention mandated punishment for war criminals... their execution. So, by your own logic, which is A) The Geneva Convention is Holy Writ. B) Bush is a war criminal. C) Obama is continuing Bush's policies which made Bush a war criminal. D) Both Bush and Obama should be punished by the Geneva Convention's rules. E) Both Bush and Obama should face execution.
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
Okay, this is my last post on this, since I'm behind getting other things done (such as Jaynz, which I'm sure you would all RATHER me be doing), but I'll finish up here.
To me, Obama is just a Democrat. He's got Clinton's charisma, Kennedy's acumen, and Carter's policies. I'm predicting that he's going to be a one-term president that will wind up over-regulating the country so much - particularly for left-wing agendas - that our economy and well-being will be devastated. I'm already seeing shades of 1976-1979. But that's actually it for my opinion on Obama, and I honestly didn't see McCain as much better of a choice, except for the chance to 'balance the capitol' a little bit.
What concerns me is the adoration this man, who has literally no track-record to speak of, to degrees that are eerily reminiscent of Germany in the early 1930s. There's a video on YouTube out where a number of holllywood celebs swear the absolute loyal to Obama and then Mankind as an afterthought. This is a cult of personality taken to degrees which, frankly, scare the shit out of me.
You guys deny that it even exists. This is despite the fact that I'm not talking about the typical loonies here, but outlets such as CNN which actually refer to his inauguration officially as "The Moment", or the NYT which refer to him as "The One" in serious terms.
The degree of this has never happened in American politics before, particularly at the levels that it is happening. As someone who's family came close to being wiped out by a fascist three generations ago, understand that I'm very troubled by the number of Americans willing to march to Der Furher, even if the man they're worshipping doesn't happen to actually be one.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"TSN, also, you cannot say 'Bush is a war criminal' if you're not also going along with the Geneva Convention mandated punishment for war criminals... their execution."
For one thing, as I understand it, war criminals don't get executed anymore. And, even if that is ostensibly the punishment, I'm still allowed to disagree with it. I live in a state where murder is punished by execution. I can still say that someone here is a murderer, even if I don't think they should be killed in exchange.
Also, I would point out that you referred to "summary execution", which is not at all the same thing as an execution resulting from a properly conducted trial. (Although, I would oppose either type.)
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
Bush would not be a war crimininal. Perhaps crimes against peace, due to him instigating a war in contrary to international laws, etc, etc. by starting the Second Iraq War.
As a side, so would Blair. A war crime is one that takes place during a war and is against the rules and laws of warfare. Mistreating POWs is a warcrime, but I think it wolud be the people doing, rather than their president.
One last thing - at the Nuremburg Trials, not every defendant found guilty of war crimes hung, so while you can execute a guilty party, you don't have to.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
Oh, one other thing, I don't know where international law stands on the Taliban etc. As an irregular terrorist force at worst, and an un-uniformed irregular army at best, are they subject to international laws regarding enemy combatants?
Back on subject - I'm not sure where Obama will go. He seems to be trying to placate the electorate who disagreed with Bush's policies, but it's too soon to realy come up with a coherent picture, as he's got no previous example.
I don't think he'll ruin the economy, but I question Bush's innocence in the economic myre that the Western world see itself in.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
Within all of this, where is First of Two? What would he be saying right now of all this?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
So...you completely failed to show how Obama is continuing any of the abusive policies of Bush, then you compared him (laughably) to Hitler because some hollywoood flakes support him and said he "will wind up over-regulating the country so much - particularly for left-wing agendas - that our economy and well-being will be devastated" although he's so centrist as to have Republicans on staff and ask their input on policy matters (going so far as to have seperate meetings with the senior republicans for their input without democrats in the room) and you miss the point that so far, there has been NO new regulations implemented untill their potential damage to the already devastated econemy can be assessed.
In a nut shell, you've put yourself in with Rush Limbaugh in hoping the President Of The United States "fails". That means you hope he fails at stopping the two wars that get American servicemen killed every day. That he fails in getting the nation out of the worst recession of our lifetimes. That he fails to restore America's prestige and respectability.
It's saying you hope our country fails, for no other reason than that President Obama is a Democrat and you root for the other team blindly.
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
You mentioned a Youtube video of these celebrities. Link please?
You've made a lot of claims and precious few citations.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Wow, how things crop up after the weekend.
quote:As someone who's family came close to being wiped out by a fascist three generations ago, understand that I'm very troubled by the number of Americans willing to march to Der Furher, even if the man they're worshipping doesn't happen to actually be one.
Willing to march, like "Freedom Fries"? I agree, it's astounding how many people can suddenly take up the lingo, "drink the koolaid" because they feel the rush of solidarity and purpose, even when it means polarization.
Are you the same person that just a few pages back insulted and slandered people arbitrarily with blanket statements like "You hate Bush because you're nothing but spineless sheep who's desperate for internet affirmation", using magic conjecture that no one else saw? And you said that you don't need to have any respect for me because I "regurgitate the talking points (Bush is a War Criminal), often using the most vitriolic propogandist rhetoric possible". I suppose it is high praise coming from you, but it's still a lie.
You said that you've been treated badly and unfairly for years when voicing your conservative views, yet you insist on jumping into a thread and starting off with "The legacy of too many Obama supporters is one of hatred and malice (up to and including supporting and advocating terrorism and murder) for their fellow countrymen, and now they want to revel in it".
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
1. Captured terrorists are not war prisoners.
2. I did not say Reid and Pelosi are communists. I don't think it would hurt their image for them to go ahead and take the full plunge, but for the time being they are merely full-fledged American leftists, which basically involves emotionalist mental mush leading to stuff like socialism, peacenikism, misguided environmentalist lunacy, and a whole bunch of identity politics and lip-service for the minorities or under-privileged.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I did not say Reid and Pelosi are communists."
Well, you were the one making the Guevara references.
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
And what's wrong with peace, sustainable living, and equality?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: 1. Captured terrorists are not war prisoners.
Bush has said literally hundreds of times that we are AT WAR. If prisoners caputred during a war are not war prisoners, what are they? If they are not prisoners of war- and entitled to certain rights under Military Code of Justice (as affirmed by the Supreme Court last year) then the Gitmo prison is, by definition, a Gulag: any prison or detention camp, esp. for political prisoners.
Political Prisoners- making us just as bad as the so-called "Axis Of Evil" countries that inprison people without giving them fair trials or allowing the accused to face their accusers and review evidence being used against them.
And if you're one of the people that believe the hysteria about the "dangers" of incarcerating such terrorists on US soil, I have some examples of terrorists that have been tried in Federal courts with all due process: Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, convicted, 1996, U.S. District Court (before then-U.S. District Judge Michael Mukasey) -- plotting terrorist attacks on the U.S. (currently: U.S. prison, Butler, North Carolina);
Zacarias Moussaoui, convicted, 2006, U.S. Federal Court -- conspiracy to commit the 9/11 attacks (currently: U.S. prison, Florence, Colorado);
Richard Reid, convicted, 2003, U.S. Federal Court -- attempting to blow up U.S.-bound jetliner over the Atlantic Ocean (currently: U.S. prison, Florence, Colorado);
Jose Padilla, convicted, 2007, U.S. Federal Court -- conspiracy to commit terrorism (currently: U.S. prison, Florence, Colorado);
Iyman Faris a/k/a/ Mohammad Rauf, convicted, 2003, U.S. Federal Court -- providing material support and resources to Al-Qaeda, conspiracy to commit terrorist acts on behalf of Al Qaeda (currently: U.S. prison, Florence, Colorado);
Ali Saleh al-Marri, accused Al Qaeda operative -- not yet tried, held as "unlawful enemy combatant" (currently: U.S. Naval Brig, Hanahan, South Carolina);
Masoud Khan, convicted, 2004, U.S. Federal Court -- conspiracy to commit terrorism as part of Lashkar-e-Taiba and Islamic jihad (currently: U.S. prison, Terre Haute, Indiana);
John Walker Lindh, convicted, 2002, U.S. Federal Court -- providing material support to the Taliban (currently: U.S. prison, Florence, Colorado).
In fact, None of these convicted terrorists are inprisoned at Gitmo- "Supermax" facilities serve just fine and have never had a escape.
So there's no reason to not treat prisoners of war as such unless you're looking for a loophole that allows for human rights abuses.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: [qb] 1. Captured terrorists are not war prisoners.
Bush has said literally hundreds of times that we are AT WAR.
No word games, please. You know as well as I do that does not make the prisoners we take "prisoners of war" in the legal sense of Geneva any more than Vietnam or Iraq were wars in the legal sense of the Constitution.
quote:If prisoners caputred during a war are not war prisoners, what are they?
"Unlawful enemy combatants" . . . you used the term yourself.
quote:If they are not prisoners of war- and entitled to certain rights under Military Code of Justice (as affirmed by the Supreme Court last year) then the Gitmo prison is, by definition, a Gulag: any prison or detention camp, esp. for political prisoners.
There you go with more word games. "Gulag" conjures up connotations of harsh Soviet torture-chambers of the last century . . . you seek to equate Gitmo to that connotation by appealing to a denotation.
By that denotation, your local jail is a gulag. Kinda loses the emotional oomph you wanted your "by definition" claim to have, doesn't it?
quote:And if you're one of the people that believe the hysteria about the "dangers" of incarcerating such terrorists on US soil,
I don't really buy into that argument. I don't care if we store them here . . . despite their best wishes, they are not explosive . . . but I simply don't think they deserve the tender loving care of the American legal system.
(As someone joked, making them go through our court system is cruel and unusual punishment . . . torture by any reasonable definition.)
To someone else, you said some stuff I want to respond to:
quote:In a nut shell, you've put yourself in with Rush Limbaugh in hoping the President Of The United States "fails". That means you hope he fails at stopping the two wars that get American servicemen killed every day.
No, it means we hope he fails at screwing up the war on terror's successes, producing more damage and lost lives down the line.
Thanks to Bush's actions, the price of peace in Iraq should be lower than it has been in awhile, so perhaps Obama's efforts will meet with success.
But the problem was that Obama wanted to do the same thing even when the price was high. His opinion did not change in keeping with the facts on the ground. That's scary.
quote:That he fails in getting the nation out of the worst recession of our lifetimes.
The issue here is that the recession is a Democrat socialist creation, and the bailouts are being managed by Democrat socialists. Given that Obama wants to double down on the socialism angle . . . spending our way out of this while nationalizing various sectors of the economy . . . you're damn right I want him to fail, because if he succeeds we're not America anymore, the recession will have lasted far longer than it should, and the road back to economic freedom will be much longer and harder than it needs to be.
quote:That he fails to restore America's prestige and respectability.
It's only damaged to the world's leftists and our enemies. Much of Europe's recent leadership changes have been in a rightward direction (for them). Do the math.
quote:It's saying you hope our country fails, for no other reason than that President Obama is a Democrat and you root for the other team blindly.
You just stole the classic conservative line about American leftists. Funny thing is, you just declared Obama's wishes to be America, basically.
Thing is, at least conservatives have the founders and history on our side to determine what America is. We haven't always lived up to our ideals, but classical liberals (i.e. Founding Fathers, once . . . called conservatives, now) have never had much doubt.
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
[QUOTE]I simply don't think they deserve the tender loving care of the American legal system./QUOTE]
The "tender loving care" of our legal system is the whole reason we're better than them in the first place.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Wowee.
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: No word games, please. You know as well as I do that does not make the prisoners we take "prisoners of war" in the legal sense of Geneva any more than Vietnam or Iraq were wars in the legal sense of the Constitution.
quote:"Unlawful enemy combatants" . . . you used the term yourself.
quote:"Gulag" conjures up connotations of harsh Soviet torture-chambers of the last century . . . you seek to equate Gitmo to that connotation by appealing to a denotation.
Do you really not see the contradiction, here? It doesn't matter what term you call something by, it is what it is. Gitmo is (was?) a place where human beings are (were?) being held indefinitely without due process of law.
quote:By that denotation, your local jail is a gulag. Kinda loses the emotional oomph you wanted your "by definition" claim to have, doesn't it?
A jail cannot hold prisoners for extended periods of time without trial, nor can people even be put in one without legally-determined probable cause being established beforehand. Also, there are public records kept of all of this.
quote:I simply don't think they deserve the tender loving care of the American legal system.
That sort of undermines the fundamental principles of the American legal system, doesn't it?
quote:The issue here is that the recession is a Democrat socialist creation,
Uh, what may I ask are you smoking? The recession is a result of the free market and a lack of oversight and accountability vis à vis irresponsible banking practices.
quote:you're damn right I want him to fail, because if he succeeds we're not America anymore
[...]
Thing is, at least conservatives have the founders and history on our side to determine what America is. We haven't always lived up to our ideals, but classical liberals (i.e. Founding Fathers, once . . . called conservatives, now) have never had much doubt.
The United States of America has its roots in socio-religious extremists who came here, cheated and slaughtered the indigenous population of people, and stole from them a land so rich in nearly every resource that it seemed inexhaustable. Over time we expanded and consumed ever-expandingly. Whenever we ran out of room, we stole more and consumed it and pressed on.
We held a race of fellow human beings in slavery long after other major powers declared it to be illegal; even though we could not acquire new slaves, we had a sufficient extant population of them that we could sustain and breed them indefinitely. Moral opposition to this practice had long been present, but we chose to compromise and appease slaveholders because they provided food and wealth and exports to the country. Again and again the issue was deffered until a horrible and bloody war resulted, and even then we were mainly concerned with preserving our unified assets, moreso than with the suffering of our fellow human beings.
Once we had pushed the frontier all the way from one shining sea to another, we began expanding it into the islands that lay off our shores, overthrowing what governments occupied them and replacing them with ones that would be more responsive to our wishes, chiefly among them: "help us consume more."
This story is obviously much bigger and more complex than just what I've outlined here, but there is a clear pattern of behavior that has run through American history and continues up to the present. But the world now is no place for this kind of behavior. Swelling populations and dwindling resources make it an inviable strategy. There are simply too many people and too little world for any country to just do as it pleases and step on or over anyone who doesn't like it.
In short, what America has been in the past is not what it can continue to be in the future if we want it to survive, and even then it may not. No government lasts forever, and that's probably not such a bad thing. Think Roman Empire here.
Communism and unbridled Capitalism are BOTH systems that have their ideological appeals, but DO NOT WORK in long-term, large-scale practice because their theories fail to account for human factors. Anarchy and Fascism, ditto. The most successful strategies not just for survival but for harmony, sustainability, and quality of life for the greatest number of people probably lie somewhere in between. Some people might call it Socialism and others may call it something else. I don't pretend to have the answers myself, and I certainly don't trust Obama any more than I'd trust any politician, but I also cannot fathom this defense of the Bush administration.
-MMoM Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
"Unlawful enemy combatants" is itself a word game- there is no legal definintion in any court that defines that- Bush was illegally holding prisoners by not having them in any known judicuial process- a fact that even the military prosecutors agree with. Guantanamo was home to only sham trials. Gitmo still houses "prisoners" that have been cleared of any wrongdoing- and that would now be killed if returned to their countries of origin. Not "combatatants" or "ememies" just people picked up in a warzone.
Blaming the democrats for the recession and for trying to fix it is the ultimate in revisionist history: a total lack of finical regulation (hearalded by the Republicans and yes, some Democrats) brought it on along with the trading of bad debts (which was once regulated as per the New Deal) and foolish home urchases by people that could not afford the homes they got mortgages on. The initial framework for these "bailouts" was so tragicly stupid that it would have allowed Paulson (a republican, you'll recall) to have unlimited say over the money with no oversight. I wont say that the TARP has been handled well but it's unknown territory and it's being slogged through by both parties.
You say that Obama will have an easier time making peace in Iraq because of Bush- when there should never have been a war there in the first place- and Obama's administration now must fight a much harder war in Afghanistan because of Bush's mismanagment and shortsightedness. Tens of thousands have died over a useless war with a regime that had nothing to do with 9/11 and posed no strategic risk to the United States.
There's no justifying that with some platitude about spreading freedom- the first freedom is to remianing alive.
quote:That he fails to restore America's prestige and respectability. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's only damaged to the world's leftists and our enemies. Much of Europe's recent leadership changes have been in a rightward direction (for them). Do the math.
Un...you consider every NATO contry a "leftist of enemy"? Beacuse all our long-standing allies noted the lack of leadership on the part of the United States under Bush- almost all vocally condemned our tactics and policies at the United Nations- which Bush held in contempt.
If all your friends point out that you're doing somethng stupid that you'll regret, it does not make them "enemies" for pointing it out.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"You know as well as I do that does not make the prisoners we take 'prisoners of war' in the legal sense of Geneva any more than Vietnam or Iraq were wars in the legal sense of the Constitution."
So, let me make sure I've got this right. You are arguing that, because no war has been declared, the prisoners at Guantánamo Bay cannot, by definition, be prisoners of war. You cite Vietnam and Iraq as other examples of undeclared—thus, not—wars.
By your logic, then, no American captured by an enemy force since 1945 has been a prisoner of war. I guess John McCain must feel like a real asshole, then, going around telling people that he was a tortured prisoner of war, when there wasn't even a war for him to be a prisoner of.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Exactly- that would mean that he was never (legally) anything and therefore he was never tortured because legal rights would not apply to him- as it aparantly does not apply to the Gitmo pris....er...."guests".
By that same convoluted logic, the guys that behead soldiers and hostages are comitting no crimes as war was never officially declared. Of course, if captured, we'd hold them in a prison forever without trial anyway so the point is moot.
As an aside, how do you reconcille the untopian morals of Star Trek with these ultra-conservative, rights-limiting, torture approving, anything goes against an enemy viewpoints?
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
quote:As an aside, how do you reconcille the untopian morals of Star Trek with these ultra-conservative, rights-limiting, torture approving, anything goes against an enemy viewpoints?
This continues to be a fascinating and perplexing question for me.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
My skills typing at work (often with one hand) continue to decline- it should be "utopian morals".
It's a valid question though- a LOT of guys over at starshipmodeler.com are both huge Trek fans while be extremely conservative republican hawks.
I just dont see Picard's morals lining up with "preemptive warfare" or Kirk ordering torture of a prisoner, much less Sisko racial (species?) profiling debarking people from DS9.
Janeway's shameful behavior notwithstanding. Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
I don't have time to be swarmed, so I'm going to just hit the highlights. Pardon any shorthand I might use, and please ask if something doesn't make sense rather than make an ass of yourself by jumping to stupid conclusions like "he said every NATO country is an enemy!"
quote:The recession is a result of the free market and a lack of oversight and accountability vis à vis irresponsible banking practices.
These irresponsible banking practices were largely necessitated by the government. The expansion of the Community Reinvestment Act (pushing banks toward riskier lending practices) plus the presence and expansion of the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation . . . government companies, in essence (which were providing a largely false guarantee for risky loans). . . warped the natural market landscape.
Once the government started trying to effectively subsidize housing in an effort to help with "affordable housing", the increased demand naturally sent home prices higher. Hence the housing bubble, which made homes less affordable. So much for government intervention. And now that the bubble is bursting thanks to government intervention in the mortgage market, the whole planet's in the shit.
It's been said that we're all Keynesians now, which is true to an extent. Government's role in the economy should be as limited as possible, enforcing the laws of justice, supporting research that is too long-term to be readily profitable to companies, and keeping on an even keel the natural ebb and flow of unbridled capitalism.
However, beyond that, government becomes the problem.
It is the height of perversion to declare the present crisis to be the fault of the free market or Wall Street greed, because the free market in this case scarcely existed. Further, Wall Street is supposed to make money, and they have to do it in whatever ways they can when government is involved.
quote:In short, what America has been in the past is not what it can continue to be in the future if we want it to survive
You list the sins of America, and they are grave ones, yes. There are many more you don't mention, and some you probably don't even know.
The times were different then, and the understanding of many people was far less than it is now. Even the last 100 years has seen massive changes as classical-liberal ideals have finally begun to flourish.
In response to your list, though, I'm interested to know . . . what of America's noblest successes and moral triumphs? Why can you not bring yourself to acknowledge those?
See, when you look at America's past, you judge it by your own modern idealism and find it wanting. But, frankly, you're doing it wrong. Compare America to what came before.
In a time when national democracy was a lost ideal, a collection of brave men gathered together to see a new democracy born.
In a time when man held his fellow man in bondage, not even recognizing him as such, and in a country where plentiful slave labor was most needed, we fought a self-destructive war to destroy it, to free those who few then believed capable of equality.
In a time when a whole race was being exterminated on one side of the globe while to the east the world was being conquered, we supported the good and, when attacked, became their destroyers.
When an iron curtain was set to descend upon the world and millions lost lives and liberty, we held the evil empire in check and, almost without firing a shot, managed to make it crumble to dust.
Through our capitalist ways came much good. The common man had incentive to innovate in a way the Romans never mastered. Men of energy found their reward. Our greatest heroes were entrepreneurs . . . those who created work and jobs and value, not out of thin air, but from the work of their minds.
But that time is passing, and that candle flickers more and more. In so many ways, our system seems now more based on sapping the energy of men, not allowing it to flourish.
Before burdensome taxes and excessive litigation and the departure from the gold standard, it was comparatively easy for a man to make a profit. But now? Hell, I wouldn't start a business here.
And yes, that all ties in to the leftward drift.
quote:there should never have been a war there in the first place
Saddam spent years trying to convince everyone he had WMDs.
He succeeded. Dumbass.
This, while also thumbing his nose at the UN and trying to assassinate our former president. And, even before Bush's initial bipartisan administration, folks from the left and the right were saying there were ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda via Sudan.
With all that to go on, over a decade of information Clinton had generally failed to act on, and after having seen 9/11, our president chose to remove that threat.
As it happens, Saddam didn't have threatening levels of WMDs. But still, America is safer with modern Iraq than it was before 2003.
And you know, it's really scary that Obama's opinion never changed no matter what the facts on the ground were.
I also want to note here that I heard some guy on the radio the other day talking about how silly it was for us to be there, because why would a terrorist trouble himself to come here when he could go try to kill Americans closer to home in Iraq.
I laughed out loud, because he had stated the best reason to be there without even understanding it. We kill them there so they can't kill us here.
quote:So, let me make sure I've got this right. You are arguing that, because no war has been declared, the prisoners at Guantánamo Bay cannot, by definition, be prisoners of war.
Wrong. It has nothing to do with declarations of war. It has everything to do with who we're fighting.
Imagine, if you will, that we were terror-attacked by forces of the multinational corporation of Coca-Cola, and we wished to respond.
Those arrested within the United States would probably be subject to relatively normal legal proceedings, just as we've done with AQ assholes on our soil. But suppose that, out on the battlefields of the world, as we tried to ferret out these terrorists, we captured some Coke employees on foreign soil who were shooting at our men.
What do we do with them? Are they prisoners of war? How can they be for Geneva purposes? They have no country, no formal military, nothing. And hell, Coke employees would at least be wearing uniforms or Coca-Cola paraphernalia. Al Qaeda bitches don't even do that.
Yet still, even without particular prompting, we gave them shelter, food, the Quran, and so on. Yes, those we believed to have actionable intelligence found themselves on the ass end of enhanced interrogations. We even waterboarded three guys for a grand combined total of like 90 seconds.
Despite being the sort of nuts who are ready to strap bombs on themselves and die, thirty seconds of waterboarding was enough to make them sing like canaries.
Bleeding hearts proclaim this to be torture and use an argument of self interest to try to stand against it, namely that our troops might be waterboarded by enemies. Oh, to be so lucky! Given what Al Qaeda does to our captured troops, waterboarding sounds like paradise.
quote:You cite Vietnam and Iraq as other examples of undeclared—thus, not—wars.
An unfortunate choice of example, since you then twisted it into something ridiculous:
quote:By your logic, then, no American captured by an enemy force since 1945 has been a prisoner of war.
Wrong. Think, man.
quote:As an aside, how do you reconcille the untopian morals of Star Trek with these ultra-conservative, rights-limiting, torture approving, anything goes against an enemy viewpoints?
I'm amused that by "untopian" you presumably mean to suggest that Trek shows a leftist utopia.
I disagree with that completely.
In the Federation, the people are free, possessing their liberty, and do not take it for granted. It is not a nanny state with whiny bleeding hearts who cry when the wind blows . . . the people we've seen are rational and resourceful.
Such as economics are shown, Trek is compatible with a post-scarcity economic structure . . . in other words, the Federation has moved past the question of capitalism versus communism.
As people become more and more separated from production from nature . . . e.g. when food doesn't come from labor and soil and dirt and blood but from the McDonald's Magic Mystery Truck . . . they lose that understanding of and conformity to nature and nature's laws that make me a conservative of the Objectivist mold.
The fact that Trek shows Earth as a paradise of personal responsibility and common sense is hopeful, because it means that somehow we won't become whining Eloi, or a Malthusian ultra-environmentalist micro-society, or lost to evil as the strong, powerful nations standing closer to what is just than most fall to the truly evil ones because they pussed out due to false and weakening philosophies from within.
And, of course, as was the Cold War fear, we didn't end up destroying ourselves, either.
The way I think such a society would evolve is by colonialism, but I don't know how precisely that would hold. When colonization stops and the colonial spirit no longer moves the people and government, the Federation will crumble soon after. A non-leftist education system, teaching logic and no-BS philosophy early on (unlike the US system), would seem key also.
I am a conservative agnostic. This puts me in a unique position, since whereas some conservatives get there via Goddidit and most agnostics just cling to their counterculturalism and go lefty, I was lucky enough to hit it all at just the right time and way to be able to think it all out, and to recognize early on that good and evil and right and wrong really do exist.
There are a lot of "Star Trek Republicans", incidentally . . . National Review Online still has its Star Trek week.
quote:I just dont see Picard's morals lining up with "preemptive warfare" or Kirk ordering torture of a prisoner, much less Sisko racial (species?) profiling debarking people from DS9.
Funny, I seem to recall Kirk threatening (with rope around the neck) to strangle a Klingon on Organia for information . . . surely evil torture and war crimes in your book. Kirk was also prepared to destroy Eminiar VII. Et cetera.
Picard had his pajama-clad hippy times, but he evolved. By the time of First Contact he was digging in the guts of his men for tactically useful equipment. As to your thought I do remember him going into the Neutral Zone to search-and-destroy the base from which the Romulans supposedly were going to strike. But that's not "preemptive warfare" in your book, I guess.
Your Sisko example is poor because such things were more Odo's role. But indeed, "the only people who can really handle Klingons are Klingons." And indeed, Odo used profiling frequently . . . "Visionary", for instance, featured Odo going on alert because Klingons were around, it figured in his investigation in "Improbable Cause", et cetera.
It's not like Odo was putting out APBs for a tall humanoid (ooh, can we even say humanoid without offending someone?) wearing full-body metal and fur and leather protective garments.
In a leftist utopia, that would be how to describe a Klingon, because just saying "get the damn Klingon" would be racist . . . hence the silly APBs of some modern police.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"But still, America is safer with modern Iraq than it was before 2003."
Even if there had been WMDs there, there were no missiles with a range to reach us. Saddam Hussein was not a threat to the United States. Seems to me, we're a lot less safe, now that we've opened up Iraq as a breeding ground for al-Qaeda.
"It is the height of perversion to declare the present crisis to be the fault of the free market or Wall Street greed..."
The crisis came about because the Wall Street banks started buying up mortgages from smaller banks, tying a bow around them, and selling them off as investments. These investments became incredibly popular, because the vast majority of mortgages get paid back, with interest, so there's pretty much a guaranteed return. But, to keep up with the demand, the banks had to start giving out more and more mortgages, even to people who were obviously never going to pay them back. Pretty soon, all those shitty mortgages were defaulted, no-one wanted to buy an investment package made up of mortgages given to people with no money, and the banks were left with piles of negative money that wasn't going to be paid back to them.
If there had been regulations in place saying that they couldn't do that, everything would have been fine. But they got greedy and massively stupid and brought the whole economy down with them.
"In a time when man held his fellow man in bondage, not even recognizing him as such, and in a country where plentiful slave labor was most needed, we fought a self-destructive war to destroy it, to free those who few then believed capable of equality."
This is highly dubious example. You can't say it's an example of this country fighting for what's right, because half the country was fighting for what's wrong. Plus the fact that the North wasn't so much fighting to destroy slavery, as to stop the South from leaving the country.
"...we held the evil empire in check..."
When you've got two opposing sides who are basically doing the same stuff to each other, how exactly do you decide which one is "evil"?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
The Civil War was *not* fought primarily to free the slaves. It was firstly and foremostly fought to prevent the loss of a resource-rich, economically productive region from the Union.
As for the convoluted "explanation" of how the current economic state is a result of Democratic socialist policies, it strikes me as being just a tad too convenient.
The "natural market landscape," if by that you mean the natural result of a free market, is a small percentage of people holding most of the wealth. That's what you get in a system where money = power. Is that really the ideal situation for our species?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
You know, it occurs to me that the earlier question of whether the detainees at Guantánamo Bay and elsewhere are prisoners of war or not is moot. The government should not be torturing anyone under any circumstances.
If anyone wants to argue that torturing someone is okay, as long as their legal status is outside the scope of certain treaties, then the person making that argument is a sadistic bastard.
Posted by HopefulNebula (Member # 1933) on :
Not to mention that a lot of people will say anything once you torture them enough. So torture doesn't make us safer.
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
"I laughed out loud, because he had stated the best reason to be there without even understanding it. We kill them there so they can't kill us here."
It's true, if you think about it. I'd rather fucking kill all those cunt-fucks over there in the sand box, than in, oh... say, public square in Cleveland?
and you'll never change those arabs who profit from hate. they make too much money on all the idiots 'who go to a better place' blowing thier asses up in suicide bombings, or any kind of terrorism. for those people, killings a profit motive.
how do you equate murder into your country's GPA?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Wow. Where to even begin to unravel the convoluted excuses you're proposing here....
quote:there should never have been a war there in the first place --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saddam spent years trying to convince everyone he had WMDs.
He succeeded. Dumbass. .
Firstly, the last recourse of people losing an argument is to resort to personal attacks: no one has said anything about you- only your positions on the topics. This mentality of "attack the person you're debating" has led to the downfall of the Republican party- it's base and uncalled for. As to the topic, no one believed Saddam had WMD- certainly not the German inteligence officers that turned over one Iraqi defector to the CIA claiming that there were WMD. Certainly not CIA satelite photography experts that had constantly monitored Iraq's former weapons facilities since the Gulf War.
The Bush administration managed to convince the majority of Americans that Iraq was in league with Al Queida: knowing that was not the case. Saddam did not want any fundamentalists undermining his absolute control of the country.
quote:
With all that to go on, over a decade of information Clinton had generally failed to act on, and after having seen 9/11, our president chose to remove that threat.
The only "threat" post 9/11 was from Bin Laden and, rather than pick a fight with Pakistan, Bush chose to invade Iraq- an "easy win" as his war hawks suggested. Now there is a greater threat as thousands of iraqi people have become radicalized- having their way of life destroyed by an invading army and years of being caught in the crossfire will "accomplish" a lot.
quote:
As it happens, Saddam didn't have threatening levels of WMDs. But still, America is safer with modern Iraq than it was before 2003.
NO, be clear on this, because it's a known fact accepted by both sides: SADDAM HAD NO WMD OF ANY KIND. Period. No chemical, biological and certainly not nuclear weapons.
As to assertion that America is "safer", that's a matter of narrow perspective- certainly the invasion of Iraq has been the recruitment tool used by evey hostile organization and country to "defend aginst American imperialism" (as Bin Laden, Chavez, Morales, Ahmadinejad, Correa to name a few puts it).
If you want to compare americans themselves being safer, consider that the 9/11 attack killed 2,973 americans while the Iraq invasion has cost the lives of 4,157 americans and wounded 30,182 more- and we are not out yet.
Bush's unnecessary war has caused far more death and pain for Americans than anything Bin Laden's goons ever managed.
But hey, no costly US real estate has been harmed in the war, so that's something, right? Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Jason, I think he meant that Saddam was a dumbass, not you.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
That's how I read it, too. Saddam wanted people to think he was armed, and, when Bush et al. believed him, he ended up dead. So, bad planning on his part.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Ah, in that case, please disregard: the point I was making was for all of us to keep it as civil as possible: after all, wer'e not running for office here.
With regards to the Gitmo prisoners:
quote:What do we do with them? Are they prisoners of war? How can they be for Geneva purposes? They have no country, no formal military, nothing.
As I pointed out and gave examples to, foreign fighters and terrorists have been tried and convicted within the Federal Courts without resorting to some unlawful tribunal system. I say "unlawful" because the Supreme Court has said so- when they ordered restoration of habes corpus to the prisoners at Gitmo.
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: please ask if something doesn't make sense rather than make an ass of yourself by jumping to stupid conclusions like "he said every NATO country is an enemy!"
Is it too much to ask to be respectful towards people even when you disagree with them?
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: These irresponsible banking practices were largely necessitated by the government.
No, they weren't. And even if they were, your talking point is out of date. How exactly do a few (supposedly) bad loans plunge the entire planet into a terrible recession?
The government encouraging a fraction of the total home loans made does not do something like that. Financial institutions making up imaginary money that manages to exceed the gross domestic product of their countries (by ten times!) does.
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: Government's role in the economy should be as limited as possible...keeping on an even keel the natural ebb and flow of unbridled capitalism.
Which is precisely what they haven't been doing for the past few years, which is why we're in such a hole now.
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: However, beyond that, government becomes the problem.
Not government. Bad government, which is not a redundant phrase.
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: Further, Wall Street is supposed to make money
But what is good for Wall Street is not axiomatically good for America. Greed is not good.
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: In response to your list, though, I'm interested to know . . . what of America's noblest successes and moral triumphs? Why can you not bring yourself to acknowledge those?
Because that's not the point he was making in that particular moment. If the conversation were flipped and you said something like, "America can do no right!" He would probably (and rightly) still disagree with you and list points that supported his position.
Please, please, I beg you, if you only take one point to heart from all of this, let it be this one: just because there are some of us that acknowledge our country hasn't been perfect and isn't today perfect, does not mean we do not love it or that we aren't proud of the incredible accomplishments of this country and our ancestors.
We love this country dearly, we simply acknowledge that it hasn't been perfect and isn't today, and want it to reach its full potential as a beacon for freedom, justice, and equality for the rest of the world.
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: Through our capitalist ways came much good.
Good came from outside the capitalist system as well. Good things have been done when not in the name of profit.
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: And, even before Bush's initial bipartisan administration, folks from the left and the right were saying there were ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda via Sudan.
No, they weren't. And if somebody did, they were wrong. And it doesn't change the fact that they were wrong, and that we have fought and killed over a mistake.
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: We kill them there so they can't kill us here.
That's right, the Iraqi people have shouldered the immense burden of our fight. Thousands have died, been wounded, lost everything and lost everyone so that I might be (supposedly) "safer" even though I'm not. I'm not okay with that.
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: It has everything to do with who we're fighting.
It doesn't matter who we're fighting. If we give up the ideals that make us better than them in the first place, then we've lost.
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: I'm amused that by "untopian" you presumably mean to suggest that Trek shows a leftist utopia.
I disagree with that completely.
In the Federation, the people are free, possessing their liberty, and do not take it for granted. It is not a nanny state with whiny bleeding hearts who cry when the wind blows . . . the people we've seen are rational and resourceful.
Such as economics are shown, Trek is compatible with a post-scarcity economic structure . . . in other words, the Federation has moved past the question of capitalism versus communism.
As people become more and more separated from production from nature . . . e.g. when food doesn't come from labor and soil and dirt and blood but from the McDonald's Magic Mystery Truck . . . they lose that understanding of and conformity to nature and nature's laws that make me a conservative of the Objectivist mold.
The fact that Trek shows Earth as a paradise of personal responsibility and common sense is hopeful, because it means that somehow we won't become whining Eloi, or a Malthusian ultra-environmentalist micro-society, or lost to evil as the strong, powerful nations standing closer to what is just than most fall to the truly evil ones because they pussed out due to false and weakening philosophies from within.
And, of course, as was the Cold War fear, we didn't end up destroying ourselves, either.
The way I think such a society would evolve is by colonialism, but I don't know how precisely that would hold. When colonization stops and the colonial spirit no longer moves the people and government, the Federation will crumble soon after. A non-leftist education system, teaching logic and no-BS philosophy early on (unlike the US system), would seem key also.
I am a conservative agnostic. This puts me in a unique position, since whereas some conservatives get there via Goddidit and most agnostics just cling to their counterculturalism and go lefty, I was lucky enough to hit it all at just the right time and way to be able to think it all out, and to recognize early on that good and evil and right and wrong really do exist.
There are a lot of "Star Trek Republicans", incidentally . . . National Review Online still has its Star Trek week.
quote:I just dont see Picard's morals lining up with "preemptive warfare" or Kirk ordering torture of a prisoner, much less Sisko racial (species?) profiling debarking people from DS9.
Funny, I seem to recall Kirk threatening (with rope around the neck) to strangle a Klingon on Organia for information . . . surely evil torture and war crimes in your book. Kirk was also prepared to destroy Eminiar VII. Et cetera.
Picard had his pajama-clad hippy times, but he evolved. By the time of First Contact he was digging in the guts of his men for tactically useful equipment. As to your thought I do remember him going into the Neutral Zone to search-and-destroy the base from which the Romulans supposedly were going to strike. But that's not "preemptive warfare" in your book, I guess.
Your Sisko example is poor because such things were more Odo's role. But indeed, "the only people who can really handle Klingons are Klingons." And indeed, Odo used profiling frequently . . . "Visionary", for instance, featured Odo going on alert because Klingons were around, it figured in his investigation in "Improbable Cause", et cetera.
It's not like Odo was putting out APBs for a tall humanoid (ooh, can we even say humanoid without offending someone?) wearing full-body metal and fur and leather protective garments.
In a leftist utopia, that would be how to describe a Klingon, because just saying "get the damn Klingon" would be racist . . . hence the silly APBs of some modern police.
Thanks for this. I completely disagree with your politics, philosophy, and interpretation of Star Trek, but this is something that I have long wondered about, and I appreciate the insight.
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
I guess we're done here?
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
No, I just haven't had time to reply yet.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Hi, Vanguard. Ten years ago I was you. I was absolutely convinced I was right and everyone here (more or less) was against me. I was also convinced that those that disagreed with me just did so because they followed the talking points, not because they were well informed or had formed their own opinions. ...
Hot damn. Some things really do change.
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
INORITE?
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
The more things were supposed to change....the more they stay the same.
Posted by Sarvek (Member # 910) on :
Bush fucked up this country and now Obama has to fix it. But look out- Governor Schwarzengor is fucking up the state of California. He is not the Terminator, he is the Fuckanator, as in fuck all the people of the state of California. Another note: they are both Repulicans but I believe that they are of the Illuminati and Fucking this country any way they can. I was a soldier fighting for freedom, now it is evaporating at a weekly rate.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)