The GSoM Political Thread, Part II
OK, the now legendary "Marbury diary" was getting impossible to navigate. 505 posts: that has to be a record for this site.
Feel free to use this thread to discuss anything sociopolitical. The other diary touched on, among other stuff:
• McCain/Palin
• Obama/Biden
• The "War" in Iraq, and war in general
• The death penalty
• The "liberal media"
• Big government
• Jeremiah Wright
• Adolf Hitler (see Godwin's law)
• Stephon Marbury
I was also thinking it could be fun to have a running "game thread" on the remaining debates, including Thursday's upcoming VP debate.
Anyway, if you want to keep the discussion going, rec this diary! It would be cool this time to hear from some of other people than the usual suspects. I respect young Sam's persistence, but by now I think he's made his positions on many of the issues pretty clear. Ditto for me, Skeptic, JAE, Droppin_knowledge, et al.
And as always: I know we all get heated with this stuff (well, I do anyway) but try to play nice.
This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!
9 recs |
541 comments
Comments
This is California
Highly Democratic.
Hasheem "The Beat" Thabeet. A Warrior in 09.
by ejdacanay on Sep 28, 2008 8:41 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
and
yet still we voted in a horrible republican governor with no experience, and screwed up the budget, and is also a horrible actor.
So I don't have a signature well these words would do! Who knew that upgrades can have downgrades too!
by 24k state fan since 87 on Sep 28, 2008 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ya, thanks to
the manipulated energy crisis via Enron, and their WH cronies
by hardcore on Sep 28, 2008 3:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
shockingly I disagree again!
at least give him the actor part…he’s made as many legendary flicks as just about anyone!
by sam23 on Sep 29, 2008 12:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yup
nothing beats kindergarten cop, twins, and true lies.
So I don't have a signature well these words would do! Who knew that upgrades can have downgrades too!
by 24k state fan since 87 on Sep 29, 2008 6:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
duuuuude!
T1, T2, Predator, Commando, Total Recall, Conan, Running Man, and of course the best of the bunch-Pumping Iron. These are GREAT movies man. Unless you dont like being entertained.
by sam23 on Sep 29, 2008 6:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What was the one where he was a violin player?
A long haired german accented hippy dude? He looked funny holding the tiny violin in his big ole hands.
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 29, 2008 7:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Predator is simply the most perfect action movie ever I can think of nothing that could improve it. It may not be the best action movie, but it was flawless in its execution.
by jae on Sep 29, 2008 7:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
T1 & T2
Are damn close to perfect too. And I think Arnold is fantastic in both.
Still: “he’s made as many legendary flicks as anyone” is way overstating the case.
By way of comparison…
Harrison Ford
Blade Runner
Star Wars Episode 4,5,6
Indiana Jones 1,2,3,4
Witness
The Fugitive
Apocalypse Now
American Graffiti
The late great Paul Newman
The Hustler 1 & 2
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
The Sting
Slapshot
Cool Hand Luke
Hud
Cat on a Hot Tin Roof
Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 29, 2008 8:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
While Terminator may have been a better movie (one of my favorites), I consider it flawed because it involves time travel, and the time travel paradox always presents a flaw. It can still be a highly entertaining movie, but it’s flawed. Only one movie ever dealt with it in an acceptable manner that didn’t leave far, far too much room for the paradox of time travel to rear its ugly head.
Arnie’s acting in Terminator was pretty limited as well, though it was his best role. He’s done better when he’s played a machine than when he’s played a person. Says something, it might.
by jae on Sep 29, 2008 8:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
pure entertainment basis
I’ll take Arnold’s resume against anyone’s
by sam23 on Sep 29, 2008 8:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pure entertainment...
LOL! Call me silly but I’m a HUGE Van Damme Fan… shoot I even watch his crappy new movies! Anyways, It’s on every July!

BBQ, Ping Pong, Basketball, Bew, Bud and Van Damme Flicks!
A tony.psd tradition!
by Tony.psd on Sep 29, 2008 8:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ha jcvd
you should watch this tony lol
So I don't have a signature well these words would do! Who knew that upgrades can have downgrades too!
by 24k state fan since 87 on Sep 30, 2008 2:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ha JCVD
you should watch this tony http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvMypT4T9q8
So I don't have a signature well these words would do! Who knew that upgrades can have downgrades too!
by 24k state fan since 87 on Sep 30, 2008 2:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
pure entertainment basis
I’d rather watch Beyonce.
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 29, 2008 8:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey JAE... are you a DJ?
Are you on my myspace? …and if so, are you the Jae that worked with me at Hollywood Video Back in 1998… all you guys quit opening day! Left me hangin’! I quit 2 weeks later after we got robbed and boss lady got pistol whipped!
by Tony.psd on Sep 30, 2008 3:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Different JAE on myspace. I’ve remixed and spun a bit, but strictly amateur stuff.
by jae on Sep 30, 2008 3:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
not just the guvinators fault, bro
we have an inept senate (don perata anyone?), unions (teachers, DOC, etc) and lobbyists who are straight raping this state.
the stop calling him "beans" movement
by pervisNeverNervous on Sep 30, 2008 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
don't know
but i’d be less inclined to point the finger at FF’s and PO’s as they keep us safe. supposed to anyway. i know here in the city, they are grossly underpaid, most can’t afford to live here.
the powerful unions in the state like those i mentioned above attitude’s are, take, take, take, fvck everyone else… but that’s probably fodder for a whole other OT thread…
the stop calling him "beans" movement
by pervisNeverNervous on Sep 30, 2008 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the powerful unions
Unions are just a lot of working men banded together for strength, they shouldn’t be a problem unless you are a business owner trying to exploit workers? The powerful unions are in reality power for the people.
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 30, 2008 3:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Unions are just a lot of working men banded together for strength
it’s a nice theory, but not reality.
do unions help the common worker? sure they do. i’ve been a member of several unions and benfited from it.
but when unions and their lobbyists get sway in how a state budget turns out, something is very wrong and the unions have reached beyond the cookie jar.
the stop calling him "beans" movement
by pervisNeverNervous on Sep 30, 2008 4:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How about Firefighters?
I doubt they are straight raping many firefighters,
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 30, 2008 3:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you crack me up skeptic
the stop calling him "beans" movement
by pervisNeverNervous on Sep 30, 2008 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
kinda like
Enron raped CA and cost G. Davis the Gov’ship? Turn about isn’t fair play now eh?
and you really have gripe against the teachers? last I looked they weren’t among the most affluent professions …
by hardcore on Oct 1, 2008 9:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
teachers union, bro not teachers
love your energy but don’t put words in my mouth. the teachers union represents teachers and administrators not students, who are the most important part of the equation. when the education budget allotment is cut, the teachers union makes sure it is the students+school districts that suffer before the teachers/administrators. that ain’t right.
the stop calling him "beans" movement
by pervisNeverNervous on Oct 2, 2008 4:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Administrators are not part of the teachers unions. I suspect your blanket assertions would be better received if you gave examples and cited evidence rather than presenting opinion wrapped next to something that if factually inaccurate.
by jae on Oct 2, 2008 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
not true
here is a link.
look, guys, first off, there were a number of things i asserted
1.state spending is out of control and it isn’t just the guvinators fault
2.unions are a benefit to all those whom are members. teamsters helped me get through school. UPS yo!
3.besides the most powerful unions of this state, which do have influence over how our state budget is run, there are MANY other parties to blame. sorry for the blanket statement here, jae, but do i have to list out all the culprits?
4.picking on unions is not the same as picking on their membership. though one represents the other, the other does not represent the union.
i appreciate your arguements, but jae, i’m not sure if you’re being snotty or downright dismissive here. hey, i haven’t seen anyone pose any facts in this mini thread. myself included. my bad. i love this state, and right now it’s a mess. it starts with the guvinator, but doesn’t end there.
the stop calling him "beans" movement
by pervisNeverNervous on Oct 2, 2008 5:25 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
You provided a link that shows that support staff (“paraprofessionals, office workers, custodians and other school employees”) can join the CTA. It appears that it’s opened up to people who work at a school but are not classified as teachers, but are still not part of the school management. I’m still not seeing where it allows for administrators.
by jae on Oct 2, 2008 5:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
according the CTA
you can become a member by filing out a form, prerequisits are only that you are employed by a school district.
there is a question on there “% of teaching duties” not sure how this affects office and other support staff, possibly they have lower dues. but i would say that it is possible for administrators to join. i would also say that some of the support office staff you already acknowledged could join are part of administration. hope this helps.
the stop calling him "beans" movement
by pervisNeverNervous on Oct 2, 2008 6:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
several positions in a school are part time staff & part time faculty – examples include community service coordinator, school counselor, computer lab supervisor/tech, etc.
administrators are generally not included in faculty, and are considered staff if not placed in their own categories
- have worked in both private and public HS in CA for, well, longer than I’d like to admit but it’s over 20 years
by hardcore on Oct 3, 2008 8:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the teachers union represents teachers and administrators not students?
Wouldn’t that be the student union?
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 2, 2008 5:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
skep crack up #2
the stop calling him "beans" movement
by pervisNeverNervous on Oct 2, 2008 6:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Enron raped CA and cost G. Davis the Gov’ship?
like i said in my post, there are ALL KINDS of guilty parties here…
the stop calling him "beans" movement
by pervisNeverNervous on Oct 2, 2008 4:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is the worldwide web
Highly democratic (note lower case d). ;-)
By way of an initial topic: can the people who have voted tell us in one sentence why they voted the way they did?
Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 28, 2008 8:46 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Hey Sleepy,
great post. I’ve enjoyed reading the Starbury post, while I follow politics(not as much as the Warriors : ) ) that post did make me look into the election and the facts more than I usually do. The fustrating thing for me is that I moved from the Bay to Boise, ID, for school and my vote is going to be completely useless here. Last election Idaho was almost 70% republican. I think we all ca agree, reps, dems, other, that the electoral college is completely useless and should be gotten rid of.
While I’m a registered Republican, Im definetly voting for Obama in this election for many of the reasons discussed in the last thread. I happen to be a minoriy veteran(not that that makes what I have to say anymore significant, I just saw some ppl taking about who minority vets would wote for) and I am tired of seeing my good friends have to serve tour after tour in Iraq. While I only served over there once, some of the young kids I served with are over there for the third time now. Its hard because we know you can only play with fire so many times before you get burned. And yes there are positives that came from going over there but they are grossly out wieghed by the negatives. Maybe its time to try and fix some of the issues in our own border for a change instead of starting new wars in far away continents.
And as jae says below, the thought of Sarah Palin as president is both scary and kinda embarassing. McCain is 74, his age is fair game.
63, rest in peace man
by autumnwind on Sep 28, 2008 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
age
Not that it’s a big deal, but McCain is 72, not 74. Still old, but if there’s gonna be any intelligent discussion here, I think we need to make sure that even the simplest facts are correct.
I vote other, by the way. Ron Paul was my man.
by LDiles on Sep 28, 2008 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ty
for he correction, i appreciate it.
63, rest in peace man
by autumnwind on Sep 28, 2008 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ah perfect
I was hoping to hear from a Ron Paul guy in the last thread? Why Ron Paul? I’m seriously curious? Is it as basic as youre a Republican against the war, or you just hate McCain or is there something about Paul? I’ve been trying to figure out who this guys base is, he raises a ton of money but I’ve never actually met or heard from an actual Ron Paul supporter.
by sam23 on Sep 29, 2008 12:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Non-intervention, state’s rights, small (tiny) federal government, repeal of the federal income tax, strictly constitutional, strongly pro-life (stemming from his career as an obgyn…but he says it should be left to the states to allow, regulate, or ban abortions).
He just wants the federal government to get the hell out of our lives.
He’s never voted to approve a budget deficit, says he’ll never vote to raise taxes…
I don’t agree with everything he believes, and he probably takes his “hands off” approach a little too far at times, but I love where he’s coming from.
by deff bridges on Sep 29, 2008 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting
I wouldve liked to have heard more from him during the debates. I just strongly disagreed with him on Iraq, but pretty much agreed with his opposition to the grandiose spending and big government way of life. He sounds like someone I could support….but something about him is just so kooky. Am I simply falling prey to the image of him the media portrays, or is he actually sorta kooky? It was weird how during all the debates the other republicans would all laugh together at him. At least he seems very serious about the small government approach though.
by sam23 on Sep 29, 2008 6:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
His main problem is that he's not supported by the giant Dem/Rep machine
They’ve all got contacts, networks, vast sums of money, etc. at their disposal to do whatever they want to tear down the 3rd party. They know that as long as they hold the power together without letting anyone else in, they will always hold sway. The second you have to fight against a 3rd, 4th, or 5th party, you can’t win an election by creating a clear differentiation between yourself and your opponent. You’ll actually have to stand up for something instead of saying “well, he’s worse than me”.
I hate Chris Rock, Eddie Murphy, Dave Chappelle, and Russel Peters because they make fun of white people like me. They also make fun of other kinds of people, which hurts me deep down because my ancestry is so mixed that I don't know what my official "race" is... so I get offended for all races!
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 1, 2008 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think there’s a bit more to it. It’s perhaps a bit hard to tell in the Bay Area or in Boston or anywhere that harbors a higher percentage of one end of the political spectrum, but political views really do resemble a bell curve more than a linear distribution. A higher number of people have centrist or near centrist views than are at either extreme. As such, catering to the ‘fringe’ party (whether you want to call it “fighting against” or “moving towards” cedes the middle ground
Perhaps paradoxically, the better strategy for Dems in light of a Green party position is not to try to attract those votes at the edges of the bell but rather to shift to the right and try to grab more of the middle. There are more votes to be had in the middle. The success of the Republicans with respect to their more extreme fringe elements have been twofold: A) the fundamentalist extreme of the party is more numerous than the extreme on the left wing [correllary— it’s easier to sell the population on right wing rhetoric for some reason even if opinion polls indicate that this isn’t actually in the voters’ self interest] and B) they have successfully kept them together as part of a single block, not causing a need to move further than further to the left to grab the middle.
One does not need to create a clear differentiation to win an election. One simply needs to grab more of the middle ground.
A third party at the national level, given the means by which elections and representation occur in our republic, is really only likely to succeed as a centrist party that splits up the grab for the middle. It’s also probably not likely to hold a place in a stable 3 party system for long, as once the center is disrupted, one of the other two parties will rapidly fail, as much by chance in a winner-take all situation as by any other means.
Now of course what defines the center shifts over the course of history, but it’s moving the opinion of the middle where progress is observed rather than trying to motivate the extremes.
by jae on Oct 1, 2008 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
honestly
you have no preference AT ALL between obama and mccain?
by Agent Zero on Oct 1, 2008 3:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just to elaborate, ejdacanay
I basically agree with you: given the demographics of the site — mostly young, mostly Bay Arean, web savvy hoops fans — I’d be surprised if it didn’t skew pretty heavily Obama or Independent. I’m actually a little stunned McCain/Palin already have 14 votes (to Obama/Biden’s 15): how many IP addresses do you have, Brother Sam? ;-)…
Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 28, 2008 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ha
actually I JUST now cast my first vote! I’m even more shocked than you to see 22 others on my (the good guys) side. But where the F were all of you guys last thread when I was getting pounded on 12 fronts for being an ignorant, ridiculous, illogical, media blaming,bible thumping, science ignoring, gun toting, meany?! Thanks for the help guys. I think I’m gonna try to stay out of debates in this thread, I’m sure sleepy, knowledge, skeptic and jae have had enough of me anyway.
by sam23 on Sep 29, 2008 12:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
while I am going to vote for Obama,
I agreed with alot of the points you were bringing up in the last debate and didnt like the way you were being attacked. I just didnt feel like my writing skills and my overall knowledge was good enough to comment there. I did enjoy reading the thread though.
63, rest in peace man
by autumnwind on Sep 29, 2008 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
no its ok
I’m a big boy, I can take a little criticism and I’m used to it, almost all my friends from home, college and work are a bunch of pussy liberals like all of you. :-) And I dont think you need to worry about your writing skills and overall knowledge, I’ve found your thoughts in this thread to be interesting and well organized.
by sam23 on Sep 29, 2008 6:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well as a fellow vet,
I feel bad for letting you hang by yourself on the ropes by yourself. I am so happy to see someone step up and stand up for what they believe in and share there toughts, people forget that left and right are almost the same thing compared to what other countries have going on(civil war, lack or rights, facism vs socilism). Honeslty, the point of the electtion is to have the canditates say what they belive and see who more ppl agree with, theyre really isnt a right or wrong.
And being a registed republican, I personally am dissapointed by McCain feel like he had to side with the Bush admin to get the conservative vote in the primaries, and his ridiculuos choise of Palin as his
VP. He should of made his own desicions instead of his poltical advisors, because they were both horrible desicions.
On a side note, thanks sleepy for making a thread were we can share our thoughts on the political realm(espicially for the 18 year olds that don’t get exposed to this much) change the title though. I always have enjoyed your dry humor and did so agian in the body of your main thread, but dont implicate just because you live in a democratic state that you are right and Sam is wrong…..
63, rest in peace man
by autumnwind on Sep 29, 2008 11:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Aw shucks.
Thanks.
Re the title: done, I was just giving Sam a l’il friendly crap, but I agree that it’s uncalled for. Ideally, we’re all getting edumacated here…
Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 30, 2008 1:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
no offense taken
the poll is starting to look a little more like I expected it to. Though I thought McCain would be getting blown out by “other” also.
by sam23 on Sep 30, 2008 2:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm thrilled to see "Other" getting his/her clock cleaned.
Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 30, 2008 1:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Whoops
Misposted.
Just to elaborate, ejdacanay: I basically agree with you: given the demographics of the site — mostly young, mostly Bay Arean, web savvy hoops fans — I’d be surprised if it didn’t skew pretty heavily Obama or Independent. I’m actually a little stunned McCain/Palin already have 14 votes (to Obama/Biden’s 15): how many IP addresses do you have, Brother Sam? ;-)…
Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 28, 2008 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Whoops
Double posted. I’m a tard.
Vote update: after leading 15-14 in total votes, Obama leads … 40-14?
I swear, there’s some shenanigans going on with the voting here. I still want to know how the final tally in the JRich trade poll was something like 47 million to 46.5 million…
Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 28, 2008 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You did that on purpose,
your trying to break the 500 mark on this new post : )
63, rest in peace man
by autumnwind on Sep 28, 2008 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I voted other
and by other, I mean nobody.
I can’t support Obama because I believe he’s food for the sheeple, something trendy to appease the masses. He talks incessantly and quite eloquently about change in his speeches but I wish he would say WHAT exactly he plans to do a little more often. People like change as an idea- it sounds fresh and exciting. Change, in reality, is painful. People lose their jobs, relocate, etc.. history is full of examples. And there was the FISA amendment business over the summer, on which I personally disagreed with Obama’s stance, but again, none of this will matter in the election because all he has to do is drop the c-word over and over and there will be a million starry-eyed supporters at his side.
I can’t support McCain because of the Palin pick, and he really does remind me of Bush, just in the way he talks and fumbles words like “Ahmadinejad”. I don’t believe being tortured in Vietnam, qualifies him for the presidency in any way, shape, or form- yet that’s the trump card he plays, time and time again, what he makes sure is ingrained in the mind of every voter.
Of course, none of this matters because I’m 17.
by antihero on Sep 28, 2008 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Of course, none of this matters because I’m 17.
Well, it’s good practice for when you do vote. The main thing to get out of all the discussion is to figure out what really matters to you and what will have a concrete effect on your lifestyle then vote for the one closest to your real needs. Don’t be swayed by their looks, age, sex, color or personalities, go by how they will affect you life. None of them will be perfect but one will be better or at least less worse for your priorities :>)
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 28, 2008 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
oh
shockingly insightful for a 17 yr old actually. Youre probably correct about both candidates. But I strongly encourage you to vote, (and vote Republican! jk, just vote) in the next election. Even if it is the lesser of two evils, and your vote may seem meaningless, its one of the most important things you can ever do, and something we take for granted too often.
by sam23 on Sep 29, 2008 12:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
talk about insight
your talk of voting for the lesser of two evils is one of the biggest problems in American politics. The complacency of voters is exactly why republicans are now stuck with an unimaginative geriatric and arguably the least qualified politician to ever win the vp nomination of a major party. Vote for who you believe in when you can. Where i certainly do agree with sam is that you should always vote and always try to be as informed as possible when doing so.
Rafael Rodriguez: More tools than Home Depot.
by BrianBokake on Sep 30, 2008 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you are way ahead the the curve!
your instincts serve you well with regard to obama. i for one am an extreme leftist that thinks our presidential elections are about as legitimate as an oj simpson alibi, but i even jumped on the obama bandwagon at one point. that was before i found he he’s a member of the council on foreign relations. if you don’t know what the CFR is, you had better find out because it is organizations like this which have far more significance in the global power structure than any presidential administration. this is the essence of why i very seriously advocate REFUSING TO VOTE. this is absolutely the only way to effect policy making through elections. people need to understand that 1) when you vote for president you are not voting for the cadindidate, you are voting for for an ADMINISTRATION (i.e. cheney/rumsfeld) which is NEVER headed by the elected official, but by the “junta” as gore vidal has described it, which allows the official to serve as their figurehead.
2) these administrations often take their cues from MORE POWERFUL organizations of which the cabinet members and president are members, such as the CFR and the trilateral commission. these are not secret clubs shrouded in mystery either. they are totally legtimate organizations that count among their members the most powerful people in politics, finance and the media. it is vital that people develop a more holistic approach to politics. if you’ve never heard of these organizations, you really haven’t even begun to scratch the surface of the political process. politics are merely a PR department, if you will, for the REAL policy makers. so, for the sake of analogy, imagine voting as a totally illegitimate way of choosing the icing on your cyanide laced cake…but remember i’m an extreme leftist, so i’m probably wrong…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations
I'm keen on the professional basketball club The Golden State Warriors. I don't fancy other clubs.
by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Sep 30, 2008 7:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
no...
people losing their jobs is what is happening now… change is the opposite of that.
by Agent Zero on Oct 1, 2008 3:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Until he has a concrete plan that will work, it's all empty talk.
When management says “there’s gonna be some changes around here” is it good or bad? It’s good in the long run- that’s why change is necessary- but the most immediate consequence is layoffs, weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Nothing against change, but I believe many are supporting Obama for the wrong reasons, because he hasn’t given the information for people to support him for the right ones. Essentially leaving the common man in the dark while garnering blind support. The pitfall of democracy is voter ignorance.
by antihero on Oct 1, 2008 10:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
can the people who have voted tell us in one sentence why they voted the way they did?
I love people more than I love money.
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 28, 2008 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the GSoM Political Thread, Part II
I want pre-conditions. No talk unless we already know the outcome. No talk that is different than what we said yesterday. No agreement that doesn’t satisfy our craziest, most ignorant and most greedy members. oh yeah, and donuts
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 28, 2008 9:42 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Well, were there not other reasons to dislike the thought of a McCain presidency (and there are), the thought of a Sarah Palin presidency is um, scary thing.
by jae on Sep 28, 2008 9:54 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Think outside the box
If you really want change vote McKinney & Clemente 2008.
by Atma Brother ONE on Sep 28, 2008 9:54 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I actually hadn’t heard much anything about McKinney until a few weeks ago.
At this point my vote is going towards Nader but if I look into McKinney I might vote for her.
by so ill so d0pe on Sep 28, 2008 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you really want to waste your vote, vote McKinney & Clemente 2008.
FTFY.
by Amoc on Sep 28, 2008 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
as long as you vote
theres no such thing as wasting your vote imo. It was hard for me to write in McCain 2 elections in a row because I felt like I was wasting my vote, but its something I came to realize was the right thing to do. Besides I’m almost always gonna be wasting my vote anyway, being a republican in CA. Please no arrogant partisan insult reponse Amoc, I dont want to get into it again, I’m just trying to make a point about something that has almost nothing to do with ideology or partisan politics.
by sam23 on Sep 29, 2008 12:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's fine.
It’s ultimately a wasted vote. And yes, you are wasting your vote, voting republican here, as well.
The democratic system in our country is wasted. If you want to tally a vote for nothing, go ahead. You know those people aren’t going to win, making it a waste of time and a waste of a vote.
There are two parties to choose from. Whoever matches your ideals the most, you vote for. That’s the way it is. That’s the card we’ve been dealt by american politics. Don’t pretend that just because you’re silly enough to write in a vote that it makes it not wasteful.
by Amoc on Sep 29, 2008 1:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you say wasted vote
I say exercise in democracy. In 2000 I went to vote simply because it was the first time I could, and I thought it would be cool. I wrote in McCain because I couldnt quite get myself to support Bush or Gore, and I liked what McCain seemed to be all about in the primaries. The second time I voted overseas and honestly may not have done so if my platoon commander had not been so insistent that we vote. I felt strongly about the war effort and what we as a unit had already accomplished, but I was extremely disheartened by the Bush/Rumsfeld war strategy and the privatization of warfighting they had created. I went with McCain again because he seemed to be the only prominent politician with any sense about how the war should be fought.
Providing overwatch and escorts as Iraqi citizens risked their lives to vote in their first free elections and then spending the next several days at the house of one of the very few Ramadi citizens to fend off numerous assasination attempts completely changed my perspective though. I’ll never take the privilege lightly or feel like I “wasted” my vote again no matter how outnumbered or meaningless it may be to the results, the act is more important than the result.
by sam23 on Sep 29, 2008 1:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’ll never take the privilege lightly or feel like I "wasted" my vote again no matter how outnumbered or meaningless it may be to the results, the act is more important than the result.
Hi Sam, Your ideals and your service are greatly appreciated but consider that if a very few of the independent voters had voted for Gore we’d have been spared the Bush/Cheney war and all the stuff you know is wrong in Iraq. This election might be close too. I’d hate to be an independent voter on the morning Palin is announced as VP by one vote. If someone can’t choose between McCain and Obama certainly they can choose between Palin and Biden !
There’s no logic voting for a sure loser, that’s not protest, that’s surrender.
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 29, 2008 9:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree,
I’m actually a philosphy/anthroplogy major at Boise State Univeristy(that doesnt mean anything or make anything what I say more important) but I think people do have a social obligation to vote and pay attention to atleast some of the facts. There is no such thing as a wasted vote, if they get 2% they get federal funding….
63, rest in peace man
by autumnwind on Sep 29, 2008 10:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think people have a moral obligation not to vote!
Everybody needs to realize that everybody on TV (or any other media) has an agenda, especially the politicians, and that people with agendas will say certain things, deliberately not say other things, alter their intonation, and flat out lie to make the facts appear to support their agenda. It’s the obligation of everybody who actually votes to do their research and at least try to know what’s fact and what’s fiction.
If you get all your info from a right-wing or left-wing nutjob who’s going to do whatever they can to sway your vote one way or the other, well… you’re not going to be well informed and you’re not going to be in a position to make a decision based on your values. In that case, you’re basically giving your vote to the nutjob who sold you on whatever platform they’re standing on. You’re just giving more power to the nutjobs and taking power away from the well informed.
Not that I’m properly “well-informed”, and I’m still going to vote… HYPOCRITE!!!
I hate Chris Rock, Eddie Murphy, Dave Chappelle, and Russel Peters because they make fun of white people like me. They also make fun of other kinds of people, which hurts me deep down because my ancestry is so mixed that I don't know what my official "race" is... so I get offended for all races!
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 1, 2008 7:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
How anyone could argue that those votes for Nader in 2000 were not wasted is beyond me… That’s a very real example of how not voting would have been better.
by in for life on Sep 29, 2008 7:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Voting for yourself is still better than not voting
Voting for Nader vs. Not voting is like tipping a single penny vs. not tipping for bad service. One one hand, they see and know that you thought they gave terrible service. On the other hand, they might be able to rationalize that you either don’t tip or think you forgot.
When you vote for Nader you’re clearly sending the message that you don’t like either of the candidates and that if they want your vote in the future, they need to make some changes.
I hate Chris Rock, Eddie Murphy, Dave Chappelle, and Russel Peters because they make fun of white people like me. They also make fun of other kinds of people, which hurts me deep down because my ancestry is so mixed that I don't know what my official "race" is... so I get offended for all races!
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 1, 2008 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Voting for Nader = Tipping a penny
I love that analogy. Both acts are equally petty and obnoxious.
Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Oct 1, 2008 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i would say that tipping a penny
is a joke…
by Agent Zero on Oct 1, 2008 3:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Obama's support by race
(Gallup, Sept 15-21)
Among white men: 37% – 56% for McCain
Among white women: 45% – 47% (The Jungle Fever bounce?)
Among hispanics: 53% – 38%
Among non-hispanic blacks: 93% – 3%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/108040/Candidate-Support-Race.aspx
I get the premise of the joke, tho’: there’s no doubt that Obama represents a safe, trendy, cool choice among honkies who otherwise sweat and clutch their handbags tightly in the presence of African Americans. Still, it’s really not the case that white people like Obama — would that it were. It’s an extremely delicate dance Obama has to do between appealing to the 70% white majority, being himself, being “Presidential,” and not coming off as “grandiose” or “elitist” to people like Sam.
Overall, I think he navigates the complex minefields of race admirably. His speech on race is probably the most thoughtful, nuanced speech, I’ve ever heard, on any topic, by a major party candidate.
Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 28, 2008 2:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Weak...
use of the work Honkie dude. Totally inappropriate. And its also silly to imply that you know white people don’t like Obama. The guy won the nomination for the Democratic party for gods sake, over one of the untouchables in the democratic party! And it wasn’t because of Jungle Fever as you dismissively remarked. The verdict is in dude, I know its hard to do as a Warrior fan, but stop clinging to a defeatest mentality. In fact, given the numbers above, one could argue that Obama is the “safe, trendy, cool” choice for african americans. You know the more I read your comment the less I like it …
As a white person I’m likely to vote for Obama because he seems like the best the Dems have to offer, and because he seems to be the best choice overall. Who knows what he’ll really do in office, for now he gives the appearance that he might do things differently and I really hope he does.
However, I’m NOT voting for him or anyone because I think they represent me as a person. Again, as a white person I don’t think McCain, Bush, Clinton or anyone represents me as a person just because they are white… Yet I remember early on last year when Obama was first testing the waters as a candidate there were talks about how many african americans thought he wasn’t “black enough”. Talk about offensive… So, I’ll quote Skeptic con urquell from above: “Don’t be swayed by their looks, age, sex, color or personalities, go by how they will affect you life. None of them will be perfect but one will be better or at least less worse for your priorities”
by in for life on Sep 28, 2008 4:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well...
I was using the word “honky” and “Jungle Fever” mostly in jest. For what it’s worth, I basically am a honky, with a dash of Jew and a shot of Indian thrown in for good measure. I’m not quite swarthy enough to fill out a different race on forms, but enough to really make me empathize with the trickiness of Obama’s racial identity.
In all seriousness, I wouldn’t be surprised if Jungle Fever, i.e. physical attraction, were a partial explanation for Obama’s gender gap among whites. I mean, Obama, on top of all his other merits, is a total hottie. (Ask my wife). On the other hand: women, on the whole, tend to be more enlightened, liberal, and peace-loving than men, so that could also explain the difference.
Otherwise, I agree with your (and Skeptic’s) points.
Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 28, 2008 5:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rereading your post
I think you may have misread my playful deconstruction of that F•R•I•E•N•D•S image as my personal opinion. Basically, I was just trying to understand the joke, and show that it actually isn’t backed up by the hard numbers.
So how do you interpret the image of Obama sipping a sundae (vanilla!) with the Friends crew, with the caption “Stuff White People Like”?
Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 28, 2008 5:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well yeah,
its possible there was something lost to translation, and of course we don’t know eachothers’ backgrounds. I guess I read “honkies clutching their handbags” in the context of you saying that white people don’t really like Obama and that they would only vote for him because of silly reasons. Honestly it still seems like you were making a serious statement more than a joke, but I guess I’m willing to believe you if you say it was meant to be a joke…
However, I do find the Friends image funny because its obviously a joke. And I find the Stuff White People Like site funny for the same reasons I enjoy racial/religious humor by comedians and movies like Blazing Saddles. They force us to laugh at ourselves using outrageous stereotypes that may or may not have some shred of truth. I like Blazing Saddles in particular because everyone takes a beating in that one. Being jewish I’m always happy to laugh at jewish jokes as long as those dishing it out can also take it. Maybe not so recommended on site like this where nobody knows eachother and there’s a lot that can be lost in translation, but I think it should be safe for us all to laugh at Mel Brooks, Chris Rock, etc…
by in for life on Sep 28, 2008 8:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hm.
In the context of the pro- Green Party post, I read the Obama quip and Friends pic as a playful dig at white people who use their support of Obama to assuage their liberal guilt and make them feel cooler and hipper.
I think that’s how Atma Bro intended it (tho’ I guess with him retired we’ll never know for sure), and I partially agree with it. “Partially” because
(a) If Obama makes whites who would otherwise fear the black man a bit more racially aware, I think that’s basically a good thing, and not worthy of mockery or scorn;
(b) The numbers suggest that, in fact, white people don’t like Obama, or at least prefer McCain by a pretty fair margin.
Sorry if I was unclear. :-(
Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 29, 2008 2:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess I'm with you...
up to the point where you imply that white people won’t vote for Obama because he’s black (half). Surely there’s some portion who think that way, but again, the man won the nomination of the Democratic party over one of the most popular white figures in Democratic party history. So if Obama doesn’t win, I don’t think its fair to assume its because he’s not white…
And remember, there are a hell of a lot of Republicans around rest of the country… and they might not be too smart either. The fact that Bush was able to win twice in the face all reason and logic proves both those points. Voting for someone because you think you might be able to ‘relate’ to him/her because of race, personality, sex, etc is small-minded and we’ve paid the price for it over the last 8 years. Honest people can disagree, but this time lets vote on who we honestly think can do the best job for this country.
by in for life on Sep 29, 2008 7:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stop kidding yourself, this is a real problem. And I don't see a solution.
We’re not that far removed from “separate but equal”, and this isn’t just a white/black thing. There are plenty people who won’t vote for a black guy, a Jew, a Democrat, a Republican, a woman, etc. because of prejudices. I heard a woman being interviewed say that they would never vote for Hillary for president because Hillary is a woman and a woman is unfit for the presidency.
People have prejudices. Sleepy’s figures are real statistics from real polls. A large portion of this country grew up in the era of intolerance & “separate but equal”. Removing those under 18 and counting the fact that as you grow older you vote more, the older population that grew up in “separate but equal” is a very large portion of the voting public. To insist that we’re past the race issue to the point that it’s not going to have a significant effect on this election is naive. It cuts both ways, some blacks will be prejudiced for Obama, some whites will be prejudiced against. But Blacks tend to vote democrat anyways, so their effect will be lessened.
That one single issue may sway the vote 1% one way or the other. In a race that was tight to begin with, that’s huge. And it’s based on something that should have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH AN ELECTION.
Somebody should do a research study. Have people of different races & genders, say almost nothing about them, and ask people to vote. I would like to see how much people sway towards people similar to themselves in ways that should have nothing to do with elections (color of their skin, M/F, where they came from, where they went to school, what their favorite sports team is, what their favorite sport is, etc.).
I hate Chris Rock, Eddie Murphy, Dave Chappelle, and Russel Peters because they make fun of white people like me. They also make fun of other kinds of people, which hurts me deep down because my ancestry is so mixed that I don't know what my official "race" is... so I get offended for all races!
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 1, 2008 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course...
there are prejudices… But again, the man won the friggin party nomination people!! Over a VERY popular white woman. I don’t see the big problem here. Just because the numbers above indicate that Obama is not currently leading among white males, it doesn’t necessarily mean its because he’s not white.
And I agree that we should not vote on race, sex, hometown, school, etc… Those are small-minded meaningless criteria for choosing a president.
by in for life on Oct 1, 2008 9:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
or “uppity,” don’t forget “uppity.” If he goes off on John McCain he is just another angry black man to the masses who don’t really see a black people besides on TV shows.
He pretty much has to take all the shit he is given in this election because if he responds he loses. It sucks, because usually Democrats do that because they are spineless and feeble. He is doing it because he has no other options.
by belilaugh on Oct 1, 2008 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Nobody wants...
and angry president, black or white. But I understand your point. I heard Bill Maher say it best that Obama is running the Jackie Robinson of Presidential campaigns… And I personally think he should be proud of it! Look at the effect Robinson had on the MLB, so if Obama is successful, it could be the nail in the coffin on prejudice in this country.
by in for life on Oct 1, 2008 9:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bill Maher?!
dude is a freakin idiot. Seriously I dont get how he landed his own show. If he didnt surround himself with 5 other liberal guests who are always much more intelligent, well spoken, and funnier than him, he’d routinely get taken to school by his 1 conservative guest. I guess he’s smart for doing that, but he has no business talking politics. I hate Jon Stewart’s political views but the dude is quick and funny and can hold his own in serious political discussion, too. His show is worth watching. Even some of gang on CNN and MSNBC have some pretty good insight when they arent babbling about their Obama induced “goosebumps.” (well except Olbermann, he’s pretty much always a twit)
Lets not go comparing Obama to Jackie Robinson just yet. Nobody ever questioned whether Robinson had the talent to make it. Prejudice will always exist, and too be honest, I’m afraid Obama will do more harm than good there. For all his skills as an orator he’s not exactly gonna be the one to reach across and unite people from both parties now is he? Like McCain said, its tough to reach across the aisle from that far left.
by sam23 on Oct 2, 2008 1:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
John Stewart?
where did that come from? Anyway, you don’t think Obama has run a completely tasteful and respectable campaign?? That was the point of the Jackie Robinson analogy.. And I couldn’t disagree more with your opinion. I can’t think of a better person to unite people because he’s not rude or arrogant. And just because not everyone will agree with him, they will respect him because of how he carries himself and how he doesn’t belittle people who don’t agree with him. As opposed to McCain who couldn’t even bring himself to look at Obama during their debate. What an ass.
by in for life on Oct 2, 2008 7:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
RE:If you really want change vote McKinney & Clemente 2008.
If you really want change, start a worker’s revolt and take back the country from the 1% that enslaves you and feeds off your hard work. Voting in national elections is about as productive as bumping dickheads. Ooh, good name for the next Obama vs McCain debate. . .
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Sep 29, 2008 12:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Amen!
I went to the Green Party Convention this Summer, and, for a few minutes, acted as a body guard for her. Really agree with her ideals, but I just think that Nader is a slightly better candidate.
Tony.psd = Da Man
http://nbaokc.blogspot.com/
Check Out My New Blog! (Don't Worry, The Warriors are Still #1)
by Zorgon on Sep 30, 2008 12:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
tip of the hat
to Sam
yes, Sam – who I disagree with on every possible issue
The guy stood up and practically single-handedly bore the brunt of relentless attacks
Now is time to stop piling on, imo
by hardcore on Sep 28, 2008 10:31 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
totally agree,
Sam has a set of personal beliefs and was fighting off comers from all directions, i was a little dissapointed at how the attacks against were getting a little personal and insulting in the end of the starbury thread.
63, rest in peace man
by autumnwind on Sep 28, 2008 1:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
As one of the people who sometimes got a little personal in my exchanges with Sam, I also give him a big tip o’ the hat to him for remaining so calm and respectful. I guess we’ve both been posting here long enough that we know not take each other’s barbs too personally.
Needless to say, Sam Samwise, you’re totally welcome in the political thread, part deux…

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 28, 2008 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
thanks for all the hat tipping
and hat tipping right back at you. Looking back, the thread really just kinda got worse and worse as more people jumped in. Honestly, I shoulda just stopped about halfway through, I got angry at some and rushed to respond to others and probably ended up doing more harm than good for McCain’s cause in the end. I’ll still gladly get a beer and watch a dubs game with any of you as long as we dont have to talk politics. Nice pic sleepy, it makes me want to change my moniker!
by sam23 on Sep 29, 2008 12:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Belilaugh
I’m still chuckling at the idea that you thought we had 500 posts worth of stuff to say about Stephon Marbury… X-D
Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 28, 2008 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Starbury,
Im a die hard Warrior fan but in the 90’s that meant having other players and teams that you like and root for, because during the playoffs the only thing to root for Dubs fans was the lottery(and we got Joe Smith in a loaded draft and popped third in 2 player draft, arrgh the irony).
He was one guy that I really liked in college and in the Pro’s espicially with Phoenix, I still regard him as probably the biggest waste of talent that I have ever seen. That guy had the skills, the handles, the court vison to really be special…..
63, rest in peace man
by autumnwind on Sep 29, 2008 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
biggest waste of talent ever?
Darius Miles? JR Rider? I see serious potential for a post dedicated to that question.
by sam23 on Sep 29, 2008 5:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What are you doing talking about basketball in my thread???
What’s so interesting about a bunch of pituitary cases in shorts trying to stuff a ball in a basket???
Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 29, 2008 7:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And Katie Couric agrees!

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 29, 2008 7:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
JR Rider is close,
but i still think Starbury had him beat has most wasted talent. Rider could of been star #2 on a team that made some major noise, but ol’ stephan could of been the real deal. And I do appologize to Sleepy for talking basketball in this thread, but whats everyones take on Williams actually showing up to camp in shape, I actually think this kid might have what it takes….
63, rest in peace man
by autumnwind on Sep 29, 2008 10:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Marbury hasn’t done anything to warrant having “Star” in his name. If someone consistently makes the teams he plays for worse, one does not get called “Starbury”, even if it is a convenient contraction of “STephon mARBURY”. Star flavored nicknames are reserved for players who are more than hype.
by jae on Sep 29, 2008 11:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Come on man,
serioslyl you didnt think Marbury had what it took to really be something great in the leauge. And yes forget the hype and forget what he did in college, but hte flashed he showed in the NBA were great. I really feel like he was Allen Iverson but actually the skills to play the 1 in the NBA. Just because he didnt have the mental capacity to not implode doesnt mean he didnt have the skills……
Biggest waste of talent ever…..you could of been great steph……
63, rest in peace man
by autumnwind on Sep 29, 2008 11:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i think that the "star" in this case
is kinda how lindsay lohan, paris hilton et al are stars. famous for nothing but being infamous.
the stop calling him "beans" movement
by pervisNeverNervous on Sep 30, 2008 3:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
biggest waste of talent ever?
Adonal Foyle sitting on the bench.
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 30, 2008 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
len bias
Bingo!
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 30, 2008 9:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The guy stood up and practically single-handedly bore the brunt of relentless attacks
They weren’t attacks they were helpful suggestions.
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 28, 2008 2:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
maybe minus the piling on. As a former conservative who attended humanities classes at sfsu i realize how hard it can be stand up against what can seem like everyone else. Kudos…though i disagree with almost everything you said sam.
Rafael Rodriguez: More tools than Home Depot.
by BrianBokake on Sep 30, 2008 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I never went into the Starbury thread, because I figured it was abouit Starbury, a player that doesn’t concern me whatsoever. I’ll check it out though.
I’m voting Obama for the sole reason that he is black. People give me crap about that, but I have really no faith in politics or government and it seems to me the president is just a face while the cabinet runs America. So I figure if the face were a black one that young black kids could look up to that would do a lot more good than anything else these multinational sellouts pretend to offer.
by belilaugh on Sep 28, 2008 11:28 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I’m voting Obama for the sole reason that he is black.
Actually the fact that he happens to be black is a big bonus. Most of the world has some color so he can’t hurt our standings with them. Perhaps they will look more kindly on a USA that boasts a black man as our figurehead, especailly since I expect him to treat the world more kindly.
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 28, 2008 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It would be hard for him to treat the world less kindly than the current administration. 9/11 produced so much good will for the U.S.; to squander it like it was squandered is in many ways as pathetic and sad and damaging as squandering the budgetary surplus inherited from the Clinton administration.
I don’t really think Obama represents my ideal politician, but I would vote for him ahead of McCain for only the reason that I believe his appointments for court vacancies (not just SCOTUS) will be more in line with the sort of justices I want. I also respect that he has, from the beginning, vocally opposed the actions that led to U.S. involvement in Iraq. This indicates better judgement than his opponent who went along with mob mentality and still seems unable to admit that it was a mistake, a costly mistake. This is not so much about what to do now that the mistake is made, but failure to admit such a grave mistake is a reason to dislike Bush and a reason to distrust McCain’s judgement.
That Obama has at least given lip service to figuring out a way to provide basic health insurance to everyone is a bonus. I suspect the popular tide is turning health care and he MAY be able to pull it off, but I don’t give it favorable odds. That in general, the economy does better under Dem administrations is a bonus (despite the ‘pro business’ reputation of the republicans). That he’ll inherit a crisis if elected means this may not be so true, but I don’t expect him to, on his own, make things worse.
by jae on Sep 28, 2008 4:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why not vote for him because he's white?
He’s as white as he is black.
I’d recommend you not vote for him at all because he is a fraud. It needs to come out about his ties to terrorists, his ineligibilty to actually be president, his everchanging stances, his associations, his personal gains from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, on and on, and on…..INEXPERIENCE……………..
Bad, bad, bad…..
by bucknall20 on Oct 3, 2008 7:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
he is a fraud. It needs to come out about his ties to terrorists, his ineligibilty to actually be president, his everchanging stances, his associations, his personal gains from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, on and on, and on
Well tell us about them? What do you know?
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 3, 2008 7:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hm.
As white as he is black
Part of his appeal, no?
Ties to terrorists.
You mean, like, the Osama/Obama “connection”? Or Ayers, who committed his crime when Obama was 8, and is now a respected public figure in Chicago? Both of those have actually come out … and been laughed off by all serious people. (If you’re interested, the NYTimes basically closed the book today on the Ayers smear).
Ineligibilty to President
Let’s see: age 47 and born in Hawaii. Am I missing anything?
his everchanging stances
Unlike, you know, every other politician in the world.
Hi associations
I think you mentioned that one already.
His personal gains from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
I guess I’m willing to listen on that one. If you don’t bore me to sleep first.
INEXPERIENCE
Unlike the previous two Presidents, JFK, etc…
Bad, bad, bad…
And the likely President elect a month from now. Your President. Don’t you think he deserves a chance to prove himself before you go hating on him?
Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Oct 3, 2008 7:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
PEEP
-To be eligible for the Presidency, one must be born in the U.S to parents who are natural citizens and have resided in the U.S for at least years, 5 of which must be after the age of 15. Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, was reportedly when she gave birth to Obama, so that would make him ineligible to be President according to the law at the time of his birth.
-Only one member of Congress, Chris Dodd, received more kickbacks from Raines’s Fannie Mae cronies than did Barack Obama–over $120,000 in bribes.
-Ayers IS RESPECTED? Wow! Bombing the New York Police Headquarters gets you respect huh?
-Sitting in front of a radical preacher for 20 years and not knowing about his views. Maybe he’s not half black but he is so full of shit he’s a shade darker.
-The most liberal candidate we’ve EVER seen.
-And the NY Times is legit….look up Jayson Blair.
Keep drinking the koolaid.
by bucknall20 on Oct 3, 2008 7:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
-The most liberal candidate we’ve EVER seen.
I doubt that, LBJ’s war on poverty would floor the conservatives today. Obama is solidly in what we usta consider the center. The national epidemic of ignorance has just shifted the right farther out into wacko land.
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 3, 2008 8:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Obama is solidly in what we usta consider the center.
-thanks for the good laugh
by sam23 on Oct 3, 2008 8:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
-To be eligible for the Presidency, one must be born in the U.S to parents who are natural citizens and have resided in the U.S for at least years, 5 of which must be after the age of 15. Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, was reportedly when she gave birth to Obama, so that would make him ineligible to be President according to the law at the time of his birth.
Um, say what? Where did you get that 5/15 bit? I’ve never heard or read that. Ignoring the fact that you left out a crucial part of your sentence (his mom’s age?) I’m pretty sure you’re mistaken. From wikipedia:
Article Two of the Constitution sets the principal qualifications to be eligible for election as President. A Presidential candidate must:
• be a natural-born citizen of the United States;
• be at least thirty-five years old;
• have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.
On the other hand, McCain may well be technically ineligible to be POTUS.
In the most detailed examination yet of Senator John McCain’s eligibility to be president, a law professor at the University of Arizona has concluded that neither Mr. McCain’s birth in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone nor the fact that his parents were American citizens is enough to satisfy the constitutional requirement that the president must be a "natural-born citizen."
On the Fannie Mae stuff…
Only one member of Congress, Chris Dodd, received more kickbacks from Raines’s Fannie Mae cronies than did Barack Obama–over $120,000 in bribes.
From the Washington Post fact check:
The McCain campaign is clearly exaggerating wildly in attempting to depict Raines as a close adviser to Obama on “housing and mortgage policy.” If we are to believe Raines, he did have a couple of telephone conversations with someone in the Obama campaign. But that hardly makes him an adviser to the candidate himself — and certainly not in the way depicted in the McCain video release.
C’mon, dude. Do you actually care about this, or are you just grasping at straws ’cause the guy you want is gonna lose?
Ayers IS RESPECTED? Wow! Bombing the New York Police Headquarters gets you respect huh?
Well, I don’t think anyone respects him for that. But he’s now a Professor at a respected university. And more pertinently, his connection with Obama is pretty tenuous.
Sitting in front of a radical preacher for 20 years and not knowing about his views. Maybe he’s not half black but he is so full of shit he’s a shade darker
.
Nice. Your hysteria is showing. It’s not flattering.
The most liberal candidate we’ve EVER seen.
Not really. He’s pretty much a garden-variety Dem. I wish he were more like Kucinich or Paul Wellstone or Barbara Lee. But given how right our spectrum has shifted, he’s about the best we can hope for.
And the NY Times is legit….look up Jayson Blair.
Blair aside, it’s about as legit as it gets in our country. I can’t wait to hear which newspapers you read.
Keep drinking the koolaid.
Great line. So great it deserved repeating. Did you come up with it yourself?
Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Oct 3, 2008 8:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Um, say what? Where did you get that 5/15 bit? I’ve never heard or read that. Ignoring the fact that you left out a crucial part of your sentence (his mom’s age?) I’m pretty sure you’re mistaken. "
-Naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold the office of President. * Though Barack Obama was sent back to Hawaii at age 10, all the other info does not matter because his mother is the one who needed to have been a U.S. Citzen for 10 years prior to his birth on August 4, 1961, with 5 of those years being after age 16. Further, Obama may have had to have remained in the country for some time to protect any citizenship he would have had, rather than living in Indonesia. This is very clear cut and a blaring violation of U.S. Election law.
by bucknall20 on Oct 4, 2008 1:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Could you provide a citation for this bit beyond “U.S. Election law”? Actually, don’t bother: This has been dealt with by someone with considerable more ability to research these things and been thoroughly debunked.
“http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp”
Naturalized citizens are ineligible, but Obama, born in the US to an American citizen, does not appear to have been naturalized, but was a citizen at birth.
by jae on Oct 4, 2008 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You mean, like, the Osama/Obama "connection"? Or Ayers, who committed his crime when Obama was 8, and is now a respected public figure in Chicago? Both of those have actually come out … and been laughed off by all serious people. (If you’re interested, the NYTimes basically closed the book today on the Ayers smear).
1. Sleepy, show me one time where the McCain campaign has made any comment about Obama’s name being similar to Osama. Seriously. Tell me one time when the McCain campaign has said anything like him “not looking like the presidents on the dollar bills.” You love to call these STRAWMAN arguments out in basketball discussions so why are you making them here? You oughta be calling your boy Obama out for making those same strawman arguments.
2. Wow the NY Times closed the book on the Ayers “smear”?! Whew, I’m so relieved one of the most liberal newspapers in America says the most liberal candidate ever nominated by a major party is good to go, and we shouldnt worry about his ties to a liberal terrorist. Thank goodness, thank you NY Times! Ok so Barack was 8 when Ayers went on his terrorist bombing spree….but whats your point. The man has never apologized or repented for his actions, and STILL believes he did nothing wrong. How someone can bomb the Pentagon and then get hired as a professor at a University that receives federal funding is beyond me. How an ambitious young politician would think it would be a good idea to knowingly partner with an unrepentant terrorist is also beyond me. How the media, which seems determined to bury a Republican politician for ALLEGEDLY attempting to fire a police officer who tasered a child and threatened a man with death, but totally ignores, or closes the book, on this story is a complete joke. Now, all national politicians meet a lot of people as they rise, and very few have dealt only respectable and honorable people. I dont expect Barack’s past to be perfectly clean. But a known terrorist? thats a bit extreme, and I would at least expect Obama to denounce Ayers and everything he stands for and apologize for his association with him. I know thats asking a lot, but he already threw his psychopath Reverend and “racist” mother under the bus for political gain, might as well toss a terrorist under there too.
by sam23 on Oct 3, 2008 8:08 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
nevermind
didnt realize bucknall had already pretty much said it all
by sam23 on Oct 3, 2008 8:09 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
show me the money
seriously, FOX asserts a tape exists but never produces it despite its huge potential newsworthiness?! where’s the beef? er, tape? c’mon, if the situation were reversed what would the right say? What would FOX commentators say and demand if the MSNBC had run something like that against McCain?
someday we gotta get above this kind of “journalism”
by hardcore on Oct 4, 2008 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the Ayers issue
President Bush’s former associate White House counselor Bradford Berenson emphatically stated that there was “no evidence of a radical streak” in OB when they were at Harvard Law School together. Is there anything else that would help put this issue to rest that you, Sam23, would be more satisfied by?
This is exactly what represents the worst part of the campaigning – trying to force candidates to respond to endless half-baked accusations and “denounce” people. I wouldn’t expect anyone here to know this, but that’s EXACTLY the method Mao used during the Cultural Revolution and it absolutely destroyed Chinese society and the political stability of his own country for decades to follow. Please don’t misconstrue my point, I’m not accusing McCain of using Maoist tactics, just some of his supporters …
by hardcore on Oct 4, 2008 8:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Palin trots out the T-word in relation to BHO today...
“We see America as the greatest force for good in this world,” Palin said at a fund-raising event in Colorado, adding, “Our opponent though, is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.”
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/04/palin.obama/index.html
And in doing so, likely reveals the strategy of her morally and intellectually bankrupt party over the next 30 days. Really, slime is all they’ve got. It’s gonna get ugly.
Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Oct 4, 2008 9:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm just wondering
what I don’t “get” is why, if Palin has such high approval ratings in Alaska, the Liberty Legal Foundation is fighting the Alaska Supreme Court over the investigation of her administration.
LLF is a Texas-based legal group filing with the Alaska Supreme Court to halt the proceedings against Alaska’s own governor …
by hardcore on Oct 4, 2008 10:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Alaska is a very small state. It is roughly the size of Washington D.C. in terms of population.
Palin has high approval ratings in Alaska and Marion Barry was re-elected after being caught doing crack on tape. Small populations can do and think wacky things.
by jae on Oct 4, 2008 11:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How someone can bomb the Pentagon and then get hired as a professor at a University that receives federal funding is beyond me.
Maybe you need to go to one of these universities and see what they have to say? These ex- rebels might be smarter than you think? We have Angela Davis here at UCSC and she is very respected for here work. Once they’ve served their time or paid their debt to society it’s illogical to shun them forever. Forgiveness is basic to Christianity isn’t it?
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 3, 2008 8:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe you need to go to one of these universities and see what they have to say?
Youre totally right, unrepentant terrorists DO make the best professors. Too bad Jefferson Davis isnt available to come teach at your school since you love ex-rebels so much. I certainly hope UCD doesnt have any terrorists on the staff.
We have Angela Davis here at UCSC and she is very respected for here work.
respected by who? the crazies who live in the trees?
Once they’ve served their time or paid their debt to society it’s illogical to shun them forever.
served their time or paid their debt to society. Please, please, please tell me how exactly Ayers served his time or paid his debt.
Forgiveness is basic to Christianity isn’t it?
I wouldnt know, being that I’m not Christian. Did you simply assume that I’m Christian because I’m a Republican?
by sam23 on Oct 3, 2008 9:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would TOTALLY take a class taught by Jefferson Davis...
Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Oct 3, 2008 9:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the crazies who live in the trees?
those were in Berkeley, not Santa Cruz
easy mistake though, there’s often “commonalities” among them
by hardcore on Oct 4, 2008 10:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
used to be at stevenson, what part of the city on the hill are you with?
by hardcore on Oct 4, 2008 10:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
what part of the city on the hill are you with?
I was just using the “we” in the collective sense, as in this area, part of our community.
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 6, 2008 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Grasping at strawmen....
Sleepy, show me one time where the McCain campaign has made any comment about Obama’s name being similar to Osama. Seriously.

Come now, Sam. I never once said or implied that McCain had compared Obama to Osama. In the absence of any shred of evidence connecting Obama to “terrorists,” I was conjecturing, playfully, about what might have made Bucknall say such a silly thing. Your inability to grasp what a straw man is, or to understand when you’re using one, is bordering on pathological. I’m kinda sorry I ever tried to teach you the term.
Tell me one time when the McCain campaign has said anything like him "not looking like the presidents on the dollar bills." You love to call these STRAWMAN arguments out in basketball discussions so why are you making them here? You oughta be calling your boy Obama out for making those same strawman arguments.
OK, now you sound confused and a little hysterical. Are we talking about me or Obama? Or Osama? And where’s the straw man? Aiiiiiieeee!!! He’s right over there!!!

Again, deeeep breaths. Barack Obama is very likely your next President. It really, really ain’t that bad. Deal with it.
Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Oct 3, 2008 9:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
strawman-fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponents position. Sorry sleepy but you didnt teach me that, Psych 105 did. You DID intentionally misrepresent the oppositions position, it wasnt clear whether you were saying bucknall or the McCain campaign were alluding to Obama’s name, but clearly you were implying that someone was. Obama also was very clearly saying that the McCain campaign was attempting to use his name and race against him. STRAWMAN. you can respond with as many funny (or not really that funny) pictures as you want Sleepy, but its true. I’m totally calm, and while its looking good for the Obama campaign, its a bit premature to be counting chickens. Though I guess if Obama made his very own presidential seal 6 months ago, you guys actually should be figuring out how to increase taxes on small businesses right now rather than wasting your time with this election nonsense, right?
by sam23 on Oct 3, 2008 9:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not counting chickens.
Gotta cover my ass on the hubris thing. I said “very likely.” Nate Silver at 538 has him at 84.4% shot — like the chances of Stephen Jackson draining a FT. I’d obviously rather be a Dem than a Rep right now, but you never know what manner of slime they’ll dredge up in the remaining month…
Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Oct 3, 2008 9:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yea, theyll probably making something up like “Obama worked closesly with an unrepentent terrorist in Chicago.” wait…..
by sam23 on Oct 3, 2008 9:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
but you never know what manner of slime they’ll dredge up in the remaining month…
Yeah, they will even shamelessly throw one of their brothers in arms under the bus as their Kerry swiftboat attack showed us.
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 3, 2008 10:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I never once mentioned anything about Barack Hussein Obama's name,
by bucknall20 on Oct 4, 2008 9:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And I never said you did.
If I implied it, I’m sorry. But in my experience, any statement involving Obama and terrorist (and I’ve heard a lot of them, sadly) focuses on either (a) his muslim name; or (b) William Ayers. In your case, I’m assuming you meant (b).
Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Oct 4, 2008 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
where have you heard anything linking his name to terrorism? Seriously all I’ve heard is Obama and Obama supporters complaining that people are linking his name his name to Islamic extremism, but I havent actually seen or heard any of it. I’m sure you can probably search the web to find some sort of craziness like that, but is it really coming up in your everyday life if you arent looking for it? Sounds like a bunch of whining to me.
by sam23 on Oct 4, 2008 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Where have I heard anything linking his name to terrorism?
Well, in this thread, for one place. Mr. Bucknall touched off the whole discussion by saying:
It needs to come out about his ties to terrorists
As I said, since he didn’t specify what he meant, I was left to conjecture what would make him say such a silly thing. I came up with two possibilities. Again, you fail to show the slightest clue of what a straw man is, even while you’re furiously constructing them.
As for the Osama/Obama connection, come now. In a “playful” discussion of the famous Barack n Michelle fist pump, E.D. Hill of Fox News said:
A fist bump? A pound? A terrorist fist jab? The gesture everyone seems to interpret differently…."
Hardy har. Now what do you think would compel the Voice of the Wingnuts to say such a thing if not a nudge-nudge wink-wink among them that Obama is a secret muslim terrorist? But yeah, I’m sure the main source of the slander is liberal whining. ;-P
Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Oct 4, 2008 8:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As I said, since he didn’t specify what he meant
He’s talking about Ayers, are you really telling me you misinterpreted that? I dont know how thats possible looking back at it. Again nobody brought up his NAME having terrorist ties until you did. Just like nobody said anything about him not looking like the rest of the presidents on the dollar bill until he did and just like nobody said anything about his name sounding like Osama until MSNBC did.
by sam23 on Oct 5, 2008 5:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sam, please go back and read what Sleepy wrote. Nowhere did he state or imply that McCain had mentioned an Osama/Obama connection. Nowhere at all. That post doesn’t mention McCain either by name or inference. Asking him to defend a position he didn’t take, one he didn’t even allude to is ridiculous.
You’re a college student, at a school I once taught at. Do it proud and learn to read for comprehension.
by jae on Oct 3, 2008 10:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
jae
You mean, like, the Osama/Obama "connection"?
Do you really think that doesnt imply that SOMEBODY is trying to make that connection? If YOU read for comprehension you can clearly see that Bucknall never even came close to alluding to that. He was clearly talking about Ayers. So who was Sleepy talking about? Its the same tactic Obama and his campaign use in all that “theyre gonna try to say I dont look like all the other Presidents on the dollar bills” rhetoric. Its complete garbage and it IS a strawman.
by sam23 on Oct 4, 2008 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There’s a difference between “somebody” and “McCain” sammy. What you asked for was for Sleepy to show where McCain made the connection. Here’s what you wrote:
Sleepy, show me one time where the McCain campaign has made any comment about Obama’s name being similar to Osama.
Sleepy mentioned the Osama/Obama comparison. It was silly and I’m not sure why he did it because “bucknall” never mentioned it. (He did imply that Obama had ties to terrorists, something he still hasn’t substantiated, but what the hell.) You interjected the McCain part. Not anyone else, but you. You didn’t ask him to show you where somebody made that connection. You didn’t ask him who he was talking about. Those would have been relevant questions. But you didn’t do that. You put it to him to show where McCain did it. It sounded very much like you were implying that Sleepy made reference to McCain doing this. He didn’t. I’m not sure why you brought the McCain part into the question. It didn’t make much sense, save that it seems to be a staple of yours put forward a strawman.
by jae on Oct 4, 2008 12:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He did imply that Obama had ties to terrorists, something he still hasn’t substantiated, but what the hell
Do you dispute that Ayers is a terrorist or that Obama has ties to him.
I’m not sure why you brought the McCain part into the question.
The Obama campaign IS or at least was implying that the McCain campaign were trying to draw those connections. So if Sleepy wasnt talking about Bucknall, or the McCain campaign, or a common argument you can find being made by other republican leaders in the press who the hell is he talking about? NOBODY but a bunch of obscure whack jobs are making that argument. Making a counter argument against a bunch of obscure whack jobs instead of against bucknall or the McCain campaign or other leadership or the media is lame.
by sam23 on Oct 4, 2008 12:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t really know that much about Bill Ayers. He did engage in terrorist activities. What constitutes “ties” is somewhat a matter of opinion. Obama and Ayers appear to have worked in the same antipoverty group. Nothing in their connection seems even remotely related to any of Ayers’ past activities, and as such, I think that saying he has “ties” in such an unqualified statement is meaningless to the point of being misleading. By the loosest definition of “ties”, sure, they have ties. If you want to use that sort of definition and think it’s meaningful, Bush has ties to LSD and cocaine traffickers.
Sam, it appears to me the problem is that you do not have either the critical thinking skills or the command of prose necessary to properly express yourself. If you didn’t know who Sleepy was talking about (and you didn’t), rather than ask him to show you where McCain did something, you should have asked what he was talking about. You didn’t. I’m not sure why you didn’t, but in not doing so, you put out something that was ridiculous. It seems like something you do over and over and over again. You really ought to stop and think carefully about what you’ve read and ask yourself if the question you’re replying with actually addresses what someone wrote.
by jae on Oct 4, 2008 1:27 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
You really ought to stop and think carefully about what you’ve read and ask yourself if the question you’re replying with actually addresses what someone wrote.
Did sleepy do that when he wrote about the Obama/Osama connection? jae your attacks on my critical thinking or prose while ignoring sleepy because he’s more ideologically similar is hypocritical and in turn calls into question your own critical thinking skills. Additionally no one ever said Obama has ties to terrorism or Ayers past actions, but he does have ties to an unrepentent terrorist. He chose to work with the man, knowing full well his history of extremist violence and his unwillingness to apologize. Your argument about it being the same kind of ties that Bush has to cocaine and LSD trafficking is weak and you know it.
by sam23 on Oct 4, 2008 1:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's something we can agree on....
Obama’s top aide, Reggie Love is a former Duke basketball player who has ties to a man who stole 44 million from the Warriors, Mike Dunleavy.
McCain may have just won California on that alone.
I’m not saying I’m pro McCain but there is alot of stuff out there that Obama needs to answer. The media will not report or do anything to dissuade the Obama machine by throwing these questions out there. I’m not convinced and will pull the lever for the lesser evil, John McCain.
In the words of the great Ron Burgundy…
“Agree to disagree”
See all you beeotchs at the games.
by bucknall20 on Oct 4, 2008 2:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
what stuff is left to answer? by either side?
seriously, what’s McCain got left to explain? Obama?
what hasn’t been said that is substantiated by any amount of reasonable evidence? (beyond the suggestion there is a tape somewhere quoting someone of saying something that we can’t quite locate) … the half truths are almost but not quite as damning as the half-a$$ed accusations that are endlessly thrown at candidates to force them to respond & defend rather than discuss what their policies would be … on both sides
this campaign is about to enter the nastiest phase, and more crap will get thrown than ever before
what disappoints me are the reports of people like today’s: a Jr. HS teacher put “change” up on the board and the “n” stands for ni&&er – not kidding, it was just on the news.
I would like to know what stuff you think Obama, or McCain still has to answer that is a substantial question.
by hardcore on Oct 4, 2008 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you honestly think by sitting in front of a preacher for over 20 years that spewed that sort of propoganda, Anti-American hate speech, etc. and to look at the public and say he was oblivious to it and he never heard this? That’s insulting!!!
For him to not salute flags, say we are bombing villages and inncocent people is ridiculous and undermines the military.
For him to want to cut funding to our troops.
And all the media asks him is if he is going to put up a basketball court in the White House.
He is not qualified and his own party admits that.
I agree with you and find it appalling when people make this an issue of race, especially when Obama does it. The teacher was very wrong to do that, but they will put that garbage out there instead of questioning Obama. Palin gets a hard knock for her daughter, for the Trooper issue, which is not an issue and was a move that had to be made.
I am wentitled to my opinion and I have one vote. Unlike many others in Ohio who can vote early and vote often thanks to ACORN which is a former employer to Obama.
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/06/25/the-acorn-obama-knows/
"Last July, ACORN settled the largest case of voter fraud in the history of Washington State. Seven ACORN workers had submitted nearly 2,000 bogus voter registration forms. According to case records, they flipped through phone books for names to use on the forms, including "Leon Spinks," "Frekkie Magoal" and "Fruto Boy Crispila." Three ACORN election hoaxers pleaded guilty in October. A King County prosecutor called ACORN’s criminal sabotage "an act of vandalism upon the voter rolls."
The group’s vandalism on electoral integrity is systemic. ACORN has been implicated in similar voter fraud schemes in Missouri, Ohio and at least 12 other states. The Wall Street Journal noted: "In Ohio in 2004, a worker for one affiliate was given crack cocaine in exchange for fraudulent registrations that included underage voters, dead voters and pillars of the community named Mary Poppins, Dick Tracy and Jive Turkey. During a congressional hearing in Ohio in the aftermath of the 2004 election, officials from several counties in the state explained ACORN’s practice of dumping thousands of registration forms in their lap on the submission deadline, even though the forms had been collected months earlier."
In March, Philadelphia elections officials accused the nonprofit advocacy group of filing fraudulent voter registrations in advance of the April 22nd Pennsylvania primary. The charges have been forwarded to the city district attorney’s office."
by bucknall20 on Oct 4, 2008 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And since the next question will be how Obama ties to ACORN...
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/06/25/the-acorn-obama-knows/
"Don’t bother asking Barack Obama. He cut his ideological teeth working with ACORN as a "community organizer" and legal representative. Naturally, ACORN’s political action committee has warmly endorsed his presidential candidacy. According to ACORN, Obama trained its Chicago members in leadership seminars; in turn, ACORN volunteers worked on his campaigns. Obama also sat on the boards of the Woods Fund and Joyce Foundation, both of which poured money into ACORN’s coffers. ACORN head Maude Hurd gushes that Obama is the candidate who "best understands and can affect change on the issues ACORN cares about" — like ensuring their massive pipeline to your hard-earned money. "
SCAM!!!
Compare to Derek Fisher’s foul-flop and you all should be infuriated.
by bucknall20 on Oct 4, 2008 5:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
brainwashing and acorns
I’d agree with you that any of us who’s been sitting in front of preachers (of any type) once a week for twenty years may have suffered some varying degrees of brainwashing! Certainly you are not a mindless tool of a brainwashing preacher, and I consider myself at least partially cured of my wood-pew mind-molding. We are of course free thinking human beings.
Seriously, I’m sure bothered by Wright’s vitriol but I considered his point of view, experience, and understand why he said some (not all) of those things even if I don’t agree with most of them. Perhaps B.O. can as well, I’m counting on that. Wright is the product of a different generation and has a different experience than OBama and I’m not voting for the preacher. Surely we wouldn’t expect anyone to suggest McCain hasn’t been unduly affected by his preachers, or prison guard’s, efforts – having a bad Manchurian Candidate thought here ;). I don’t think OBama has to “answer” for Wright anymore than McCain does his preachers, teachers, mentors etc. but I understand why it would be used against him in a campaign lacking more substantive criticisms.
I agree OBama’s not the most experienced candidate – in the Dem primaries that charge was leveled repeatedly. Neither was Abe Lincoln, and a few other Presidents, but I’ll not digress that far. OBama is indeed a bit green which makes it all the more important for us to listen to precisely what he says. I don’t think he’s been less articulate, or thoughtful, than McCain has. To me, OBama is smarter than McCain and is not tied to the neocons that have been running our foreign policy for the past administration, who’s principles would more likely infiltrate a McCain administration than the Dems. (That neocon philosophy is part of what Wright was railing against, and that sliver of Wright’s preaching I understand all too well.) Back to the inexperience factor – I’d prefer a slightly less experienced candidate who’s closer philosophically to myself, with a deeply experienced VP, to the 72 year old candidate with the completely and woefully unprepared VP candidate. I must say that while I thought McCain was certainly the best of the bunch coming out of the Repub primaries, and I’m relieved none of the other R’s are in position to move into the WH, I’m mortified by his lack of judgment picking Palin. It smacked of the roll the dice for the moment without regard of the long-term gamble that could quite possibly leave us in that hands of President Palin someday. Wretchedly irresponsible, and in contrast OBama picks another Senator who’s similar in years of experience to McCain to bolster his admin. in For. Policy.
ACORN. That is a concern – and if OBama was proven to be a participant in any part of any ballot irregularities I’d be outraged, and it would be front page news. I’d read about it on a site titled “Jews Against OBama” which we also have pause and think about their perspective, and influence in this election. But that’s another digression for another time. The sanctity of our political system is only as good as the protection of voters ability to get to the pols, something that is historically been part of the Dem party my entire life. Certainly we can all agree that we need to have higher standards than, say the Florida levels of “expertise” in the last few elections. You’re right though, if there is evidence that OBama or his campaign was involved in irregularities that would be damning and they should be held accountable. I’ll be watching for the evidence to support the charges.
The economy, foreign policy, supreme court nominations, and protection of individual liberties are all in my mind as the time to come to vote draws near. I really liked McCain’s promise today to freeze fed spending – right up to and until he equivocated at the end of the sentence with a vague reference to exempt “other” important things … Regardless of who gets elected, neither will be able to spend as much as they’d like, which I like. Problem is one of them will continue to spend more than I can imagine thousands of miles away for companies like Halliburton to profit off of at all of our expense (in addition to continuing to occupy and kill people in foreign lands who will grow up with that experience and consider us enemies). The Republicans have to answer for that. No one has been able to satisfy me on that one yet.
by hardcore on Oct 4, 2008 6:10 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
So it seems your major concerns are spending and companies like Halliburton if I understood correctly? Again I point out that the taxpayers union has said Obama’s spending increase will be 5 times the size of McCain’s. And McCain has long been against the privatization war strategy of Rumsfeld and Cheney. Theres no reason at all to believe that he will continue to support the Halliburtons and Blackwaters any more than Obama would.
by sam23 on Oct 5, 2008 6:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was replying specifically to the issues bucknall20 raised, which I think constitute the major concerns I covered. I’d be willing to spend on education for example, health care too if it is equitably constructed so I’m not against spending as a blanket statement.
Halliburton is already embedded into our execution of the Iraq Occupation and is inextricably linked to operational procedures such that it is in Iraq, and profiting off of you and I, for as long as the USG keeps us there.
Not sure where your taxpayer’s union is getting its info, and haven’t seen your stats or links to them anywhere here (I easily could have missed them) but would welcome you including that info in the discussion if you have them handy.
by hardcore on Oct 5, 2008 7:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
just so you know you’re taken seriously
I looked up the NTU
http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=1048&org_name=NTUF
They are kind of an interesting group, almost embracing a “flat tax” philosophy without calling it that. Anyway NTUF estimated that McCain would increase annual federal spending in excess of $92 billion, far shorter than Obama’s estimated $293.0 billion. Right there the increase would be three times Obama rather than five. They also mentioned that the annual estimated savings for reducing troop levels in Iraq would exceed $90 billion annually. So the net would be about double, not five times according to your own source and my qualification. But it’s fair to say that Obama’s policies could be more expensive annually (despite his recent assertions that he’d be forced to scale back due to the economic melt-down he’d be inheriting). But the analysis gets even more interesting.
The Council on Foreign Relations suggests that what we think we’re spending and what we’re really spending in Iraq are two different things altogether.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/11943/cost_of_the_iraq_war.html
The Bush administration apparently has not been maintaining normal budgetary processes for the war and not yielded to budgetary oversight. Hmmm.
Way back in 2002 WH Economic Adviser L. B. Lindsey anticipated Iraq would cost between $100 billion and $200 billion TOTAL. For next year alone the supplemental request by the Pentagon is expected to top $160 billion for next year alone.
You might recall that that treatment for veterans from Iraq became a political hot potato (or was it potatoe?) for the Bush admin this past year. One more cost not included in the DoD budget is the cost for treating the 16,000-plus wounded soldiers and family benefits.
The total cost is almost unbelievable:
Some economists predict the entire war, based on projections U.S. forces will remain in Iraq until after 2010 may cost over $1 trillion. … [While] economists Linda Bilmes of Harvard University and Joseph E. Stiglitz of Columbia University estimate the final war cost could top $2 trillion. [And] because the war in Iraq is being deficit-financed, she expects larger deficits, more debt, and the need for taxpayers to make interest payments on that debt.
Trillions of dollars, tens of thousands of casualties. Not to mention tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths.
I encourage you to look up Halliburton’s role in this war just as I have looked up NTU/F on your recommendation. Are you game?
by hardcore on Oct 5, 2008 9:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Theres no reason at all to believe that he will continue to support the Halliburtons and Blackwaters any more than Obama would.
Yes there is, Obamam wants to end the war. McCain will have a big line of hogs waiting to feed at his trough since they are bankrolling him. The folks bankrolling Obama will want more peaceful things, beneficial to us average citizen things. If we are gonna spend money I want to see the results here on the homeland on projects that improve my physical and social enviornment. Iraq can afford to fund their own projects, they can pay the war profiteers as easily as the US taxpayers can.
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 6, 2008 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
for the 12th time, McCain is against, and always has been against privatization of war.
by sam23 on Oct 6, 2008 5:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
choices
if he wins, he’ll have a couple choices:
A- stay in Iraq, with the privatization that exists with Haliburton
B- stay in Iraq, replacing the services of Haliburton et al by ramping up the number of USG employees in country
C- stay in Iraq, without Haliburton and without replacing them = draw down of troops (the opposite of the surge)
D- or phase down Haliburton and the troop levels and leave the Iraqis to run their own country (which he opposes)
by hardcore on Oct 6, 2008 6:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
McCain is against, and always has been against privatization of war
Don’t matter, unnecessary, elective war is still obscenely expensive when not heavily privatized.Either way its money up in smoke from the taxpayers viewpoint.
You just don’t get the fact that we got better things to do with that money both here at home and for humanitarian uses over seas? The war costs could have paid for health care for uninsured americans, or a modern high speed rail network, or re-new able energy research, or aid to poor african countries. Anything would be morally superior to killing Iraqis just cause they believe differently than us and happened to have had a bad leader.
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 6, 2008 8:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
killing Iraqis just cause they believe differently than us and happened to have had a bad leader.
thats what we’re doing huh? just killing a bunch of innocent iraqis who were minding their own business? Coulda fooled me.
by sam23 on Oct 6, 2008 9:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
thats what we’re doing huh?
No what we were doing was trying to profiteer from the war in the most selfish way possible. The dead iraqis were just the collateral damage. The proof is in the speed with which we let them rush the piggies in there, if we were truly interested in eliminating the profit motive we would have let France, Germany, Canada, or other non instigating countries do the contract work. It’s all in the money trail, just open your eyes, don’t even need to look very far.
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 6, 2008 9:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Please reread what I read again Sammy. You should be able to note that I didn’t ignore Sleepy. My words: “Sleepy mentioned the Osama/Obama comparison. It was silly and I’m not sure why he did it because "bucknall" never mentioned it.” Seriously,you need to work on your reading comprehension. There’s some good people in Dutton Hall who would be glad to spend some time with you.
Do you know to what I was referring in terms of Bush’s ties to make that statement? I actually never said that they had the same kind of ties.
by jae on Oct 4, 2008 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
but
you in never said sleepy made a strawman argument (you still havent) and you didnt reply to his post with any indignation at his ridiculous counter argument. still hypocrisy.
by sam23 on Oct 5, 2008 6:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is that English?
Dude, if you want to badmouth me, you’re welcome to do it to my face. Lord knows I can (and do) school you without help from JAE.
Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Oct 5, 2008 6:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I already made my point about your lame argument
my issue is with jae and his hypocrisy as he criticizes my critical thinking while blatantly ignoring your obvious strawman argument.
by sam23 on Oct 5, 2008 7:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your critical thinking is inferior to his.
I do not think you understand what a strawman is, Sam. This is unfortunate, but true.
by jae on Oct 5, 2008 7:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK
I’m sure we’re boring everyone to tears with this strawman stuff.
Moving on, Rolling Stone has a pretty scathing piece out today on McCain’s long history of recklessness and dishonesty:
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain
Probably not a legit enough source to merit quoting, but a pretty interesting/disturbing read…
Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Oct 5, 2008 7:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If that's the case.....
…and before I post this I know the answer, did anyone check out Hannity’s America last night?
However I don’t think there are too many Hannity fans here so I suppose not.
Spoke of Obama and all or most of his radical ties. Wright, Kahilidi, Ayers, Pfleger
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=57231
“The co-founder of the Arab group in question, Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, also has held a fundraiser for Obama. Khalidi is a harsh critic of Israel, has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror and reportedly has worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was involved in anti-Western terrorism and was labeled by the State Department as a terror group.”
-Below is from a liberal paper-“Talk Left” with concerns….
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/4/17/151133/172
"For the past few weeks, however, I have been concerned about a totally different issue with respect to Prof. Ayers: his political views concerning Palestine and Israel. The LA Times recently explored Obama’s connection to those politics through his and Ayers’ service on the board of the Woods Fund, during which time he and Ayers voted to award a grant of $70,000 to an organization created by Rashid Khalidi. The article raises questions about the depth and sincerity of Obama’s expressed support for Israel. [More…]
Khalidi, like Ayers, held a fundraiser for Obama at his home. The Ayers event was in 1995 as Obama was making his first bid for the Illinois state senate. Khalidi held his event for Obama in 2000 when Obama made his failed bid for the U.S. House. From the LA Times article linked above:
In 2000, the Khalidis held a fundraiser for Obama’s unsuccessful congressional bid. The next year, a social service group whose board was headed by Mona Khalidi received a $40,000 grant from a local charity, the Woods Fund of Chicago, when Obama served on the fund’s board of directors.
At Khalidi’s going-away party in 2003, the scholar lavished praise on Obama, telling the mostly Palestinian American crowd that the state senator deserved their help in winning a U.S. Senate seat. “You will not have a better senator under any circumstances,” Khalidi said."
Where there is smoke there is fire.
by bucknall20 on Oct 6, 2008 9:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's a cute slogan
But I guess I still wonder what the bedwetters who write silly stuff like that are actually worried about.
Are they worried that as soon Obama’s elected, he’s going to take off the “moderate dem” mask to reveal the “true” him: the America-hating, PLO-loving, Israel-hating terrorist?
And if somehow he were to do so, how exactly would he go about doing it? Do they assume all of congress and the US Army and the miltary-industrial complex would magically go along with him?
My guess is that that “terrorist” crap is 99.9% pure politics: a hysterical, panicky attempt to throw anything and everything at him, no matter how ridiculous, to forestall what looks to be an inevitable victory. And from what I’ve seen of the polls, I think the majority of Americans are seeing it for what it is.
Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Oct 6, 2008 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why is he running with these cats then?
“Are they worried that as soon Obama’s elected, he’s going to take off the "moderate dem" mask to reveal the "true" him: the America-hating, PLO-loving, Israel-hating terrorist?”
MODERATE?!
FactCheck: Ranked most liberal in Senate, based on 99 votes. (Feb 2008).http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm
“I think the majority of Americans are seeing it for what it is.”
This shit is not getting reported. The media is not reporting this. Too worried about Troopers, (no merit) and pregnant 17 yr olds.
To just write it off is ridiculous. I don’t want to just write it off. He’s tied in with alot of real shitbags and carries alot of baggage.
That’s your guess, though.
Why you always ripping my slogans?
by bucknall20 on Oct 6, 2008 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
;-)
Well, if they were really your slogans, I’d be kinder.
I guess I have a thing about slogans in general. Problem with lines like “stop drinking the kool-aid” and “where there’s smoke there’s fire” is that they’ve become cliched from overuse, and that they tend to stifle interesting debate rather than inspire it.
Overall, I think calling Obama a far-left liberal and inexperienced is fair enough, especially if you provide good sources to back up you. It’s just that “terrorist” fear-mongering guilt by association stuff I find pretty irresponsible.
I admit that I’ve done the same with Palin, but then she hasn’t denied her association with extremist nutbags to nearly the extent that Obama has. Plus her association with them is closer, more recent, and better documented.
Plus, when it comes down to it, I’m way less afraid of leftwing nutjobs than rightwing ones. I dunno, call me nuts, but I think the fascio-religious Pat Roberstons, McVeighs, and Bin Ladens of the world are way more of threat to Peace and Modernity than kooky granola-eating Berkeley lefties like Bill Ayers.
Bottom line, tho: poltics aside, I think Obama is a much saner, more moderate, more reasonable, more peace-loving, and more thoughtful person than McCain — and certainly more of one than that whackjob Palin. And pretty much everything they all do or so confirms my feelings.
In any case, props to you for stating your own POV rather than attacking anyone personally. If nothing else, your voice here is “fresh.” In the case of sam23 v. the usual GSoM lefties there’s a certain “familiarity breeds contempt” phenomenon, I think. I’m mostly worried that at this point it’s just boring.
Over 500 posts now … Anyone wanna start a new political thread, or rec Droppin’ Knowledge’s?
Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Oct 6, 2008 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
apples and oranges
Plus, when it comes down to it, I’m way less afraid of leftwing nutjobs than rightwing ones. I dunno, call me nuts, but I think the fascio-religious Pat Roberstons, McVeighs, and Bin Ladens of the world are way more of threat to Peace and Modernity than kooky granola-eating Berkeley lefties like Bill Ayers.
Sleepy you seem to imply that the people Palin is associated with are more dangerous than Obama’s “pals.” Need I remind you Palin is not, and has never been associated with any violent groups, much less anti-american terrorists? As far as your question about what are we actually afraid of with Obama and his associations, obviously I dont think many people really believe Obama truly harbors anti-american feelings, but to me it a couple things, among them his already well known lust for power and ambition. Obviously anyone running for President must have a good amount of ambition and ego, but Obama seems to be willing to say and do anything to appease his current audience. He says one thing to one group and something entirely different to another, I honestly just dont trust the man.
by sam23 on Oct 6, 2008 6:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the scholar lavished praise on Obama, telling the mostly Palestinian American crowd that the state senator deserved their help in winning a U.S. Senate seat. "You will not have a better senator under any circumstances,"
So you think Palestinians are not human enough to deserve friends ? This is the USA, we can work with both sides of that conflict unless we are a bunch of ignorant religious wingnuts?
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 6, 2008 12:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Spoke of Obama and all or most of his radical ties. Wright, Kahilidi, Ayers, Pfleger
Well, I just heard a Ralph Stanley endorsement ad for Obama on the radio.
When an 80 year old American music icon from conservative Virginia comes out for a young urban black man from Chicago over a contemporary military man you can bet there’s a good reason. Hannity is no Ralph Stanley when it comes to credibility.
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 6, 2008 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
fair and balanced
just curious if anyone has noticed how much AIPAC has given to US candidates lately, you know, just to see what the relative input of the pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian sides have had on our electoral system. Wonder what smoke would rise from that comparison …
would President Obama leave Israel vulnerable and unprotected? unlikely, but he might give the peace process a helping hand unlike it’s had in oh, say 8 years? perhaps if tensions were decreased in that region there would be less smoke from there …
btw, Israeli PM Olmert just announced last week that he’d be in favor of a two state solution, with the West Bank becoming a Palestinian state …
by hardcore on Oct 6, 2008 6:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Israeli PM Olmert just announced last week that he’d be in favor of a two state solution, with the West Bank becoming a Palestinian state …
Thats promising, any response from the Palestinians?
by sam23 on Oct 6, 2008 6:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
where there's smoke
did you know that the USG has given Israel over $100 Billion dollars? Not trade, not counting Arms sales or shipments or any other quid pro quo – given. In 2006 alone we gave Israel over $2.5 Billion – gave. Your tax dollars hard at work ;-)
Why I wonder? could it be that AIPAC has influenced the USG through contributions to campaigns? Hmm. Ya think?
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
Guess who else has influenced the USG? Who else has given untold millions to campaigns and in return received a most lucrative contract in return? Starts with an H – bet you can guess?! Go ahead, try.
Extra Credit Question: What company was Dick Cheney CEO of prior to becoming VP for the USG? Hint: starts with an H!
You know, where there’s smoke there’s fire.
Oh, the Palestinians? Ya, they’ve said all along they’re ready to end the Israeli Occupation – the Palestinians aren’t holding that up you can rest assured about that.
by hardcore on Oct 6, 2008 7:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
whoa dude
I dont even know what youre talking about. Did you take my simple question to be an attempt to defend Halliburton or something? I just thought it was interesting and wanted to know more.
by sam23 on Oct 6, 2008 8:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
take the invitation sam
educate thyself, investigate for yourself
I know you don’t know, but don’t be afraid to find out the truth – it’s scary but you CAN HANDLE THE TRUTH!
by hardcore on Oct 6, 2008 9:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sam, I do not think the word ‘hypocrisy’ means what you think it does. I am under no obligation to be an equal opportunity critic. I never claimed that I was the policeman here to make sure that everyone was up to some standard of thinking and reasoning such that I’m required to critique Sleepy as well as you. Had I made such a claim, your charge might have meaning. Had I complimented sleepy for deft style in argument, you might have a case. I didn’t, hence you don’t.
I realize you’re going to feel like you can disregard what I’ve said because I’m partisan, and somehow because I didn’t call out sleepy for what you perceive as a strawman (it wasn’t, for what it’s worth) but have called you out for your repeated failure to think straight, your use of strawmen, your consistent “response” to questions posed by asking a question yourself, one that implies something that the previous poster didn’t actually say, that it means you’re in the clear and that your bogus arguments somehow gain strength, you’re doing yourself the disservice. That’s your right, but it’s unfortunate for you that you chose to exercise it so freely. It will not serve you.
by jae on Oct 5, 2008 8:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ah but see jae
you attacked my critical thinking. Critical thinking requires consideration of both sides of an argument, not simply peeling apart one argument. Thus YOUR critical thinking skills are flawed. Does my definition of strawman that I provided not match yours? Or do you not think Sleepy’s argument matches the definition. I’ll take this word by word. Additionally please show me what questions I’ve ignored while answering with questions. You can keep trying to hide behind your “I dont think you know what _______ means” garbage instead of taking on the issues but I’m not gonna waste my time with it anymore.
by sam23 on Oct 6, 2008 6:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which “issue” would you like me to take on, sammy sam?
I’m curious to which alleged strawman of Sleepy’s you’re referring. The strawman of yours most recently was the charge for sleepy to show where McCain had done something sleepy did not first (or after) claim he’d done.
by jae on Oct 6, 2008 6:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
sleepy’s was responding with the Osama/Obama relationship which nobody here and nobody in the campaign has even implied EXCEPT Obama himself. To be fair, its really Obama’s strawman argument, Sleepy is just kinda repeating it. You can take on any issue you want jae
by sam23 on Oct 6, 2008 8:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you attacked my critical thinking. Critical thinking requires consideration of both sides of an argument, not simply peeling apart one argument. Thus YOUR critical thinking skills are flawed.
Dint I see this skit in PeeWee’s big adventure?
The only sure way to solve the question is for Sammy and Sleepy to sign up for the GSofM sporting world fantasy league and see who is the best critical thinker? I’ll offer my basically average performance as a joe sixpack pace car of sorts, and jae can show us all the possibilities of the “stat master” approach?
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 6, 2008 10:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sammy
He didn’t attack your critical thinking. He just said it was as good as mine. That’s kinda like saying Kobe isn’t as good as Jordan. ;-)
Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Oct 7, 2008 7:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you dispute that Ayers is a terrorist or that Obama has ties to him.
Ayers was apparently( I couldn’t recall hearing about him till the rightwingers brought it up so he was probably not a very successful one) a terrorist when Obama was 8 years old but that doesn’t mean he is still one today? Does the govt. have him in Guantanamo?
Like all of us Obama would know lots of people and even work on beneficial projects with a few? That doesn’t mean Obama condones Ayres’ past. Sammy probably knows a few soldiers who committed war crimes but does that make him a war criminal?
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 6, 2008 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ayers was apparently( I couldn’t recall hearing about him till the rightwingers brought it up so he was probably not a very successful one) a terrorist when Obama was 8 years old but that doesn’t mean he is still one today?
-Oh so we should only be worried if he associates with successful terrorists, I get it. Yea, he was a terrorist when Obama was a child, does that mean its cool to be “friendly” with Bin Laden in about 35-40 more years then? I’m sure he wont still be a terrorist then. As far as I, or anybody, knows, Ayers is no longer participating in violent terrorist activities, however he has yet to apologize for his bombing spree or even say it was the wrong thing to do. Nobody is saying that makes Obama a terrorist, but it certainly calls into question his judgement, no? By the way “friendly” is the way Obama’s campaign describes the Obama/Ayers relationship. If “friendly” was as much as they could downplay it……
Sammy probably knows a few soldiers who committed war crimes but does that make him a war criminal?
I probably should just ignore this extremely ignorant little gem but I just cant. Why would you assume I know a few soldiers/Marines that committed war crimes? Simply because I was in an infantry platoon at war? Certainly sounds like someone is gobbling up all that trash Olbermann is throwing at you and asking for seconds. For the record I certainly do not know any, and yes if I had witnessed war crimes taking place and not done anything about it that would make me pretty damn close to a war criminal. Your statement is offensive and ignorant, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
by sam23 on Oct 6, 2008 6:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Was it ok to be friendly to Bin Laden 25 years ago?
Sammy, I’m curious what you’d have Obama do. He’s denounced Ayers’ activities. He does not seem to be a close associate of Ayers at this time, doesn’t converse with him regularly and hasn’t had contact with him in several years beyond running into him on the street. What is it that makes his dealings with Ayers, dealings that haven’t been even slightly related to Ayers’ past activities, ‘call into question his judgment’? What exactly are you alledging. Perhaps you can actually elaborate on this. Sit down and think about it first though. Are there particular people who are poison pills such that dealing with them taints your judgement? If so, what criteria are you using?
by jae on Oct 6, 2008 6:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
probably shouldnt let a man with a history of anti-US terrorism and who has STILL never apologized, throw you a fundraiser event to launch your political career. Yea, call me crazy but I question his judgement there. And I sure wouldnt allow myself be described as “friendly” with such a person by my own campaign.
by sam23 on Oct 6, 2008 8:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol
There is no way that any of these arguments will ever be settled. But it sure is fun to read :)
by 15thefuture8 on Oct 6, 2008 8:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So are you bothered by McCain’s connection to Gordon Liddy? Would you question the judgment of a politician who became friends with a felon convicted of conspiracy?
by jae on Oct 6, 2008 10:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yea I am
but ….two things:
1.Liddy didnt help launch his career. If you recall I said earlier that I didnt expect the candidates to have never associated with anyone who ever did anything bad (but then with your outstanding reading comprehension skills I’m sure you recall me saying that right jae?) I’m not so naive as to believe a career in politics won’t inherently lead to associations with some of our country’s biggest white collar scum. While I dont excuse McCain or any other politician for any of his/her associations with people like Liddy or Rezco, I think it would be tough to find someone without such connections.
2. (and this is kind of a big one) Liddy never tried to blow anybody or anything up
by sam23 on Oct 7, 2008 12:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
2. (and this is kind of a big one) Liddy never tried to blow anybody or anything up
But McCain did plenty of times? Doesn’t it count if the guy is in an airplane ? Just two similar mislead guys fighting for their cause with what they had at their disposal if you look at it logically. What were their goals? What was their payoff for success? Was Ayres looking to get filthy rich or was he looking to help people? Which came out of their terrorist days with the most money,? That’s what seals the morality aspect for me, of course I’m a pretty conservative guy.
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 7, 2008 9:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
if you really dont see a massive difference between McCain and Ayers you are a nutjob.
by sam23 on Oct 7, 2008 6:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you vastly overestimate Ayers’ involvement in “launching” Obama’s career, but you aren’t going to be swayed. You’ve decided it was a poison pill.
McCain’s ties to Liddy appear stronger than Obama’s loose ‘ties’ to Ayers. McCain has said he’s proud of Liddy, calls him a friend.
To my knowledge Ayers never blew any*body* up though one of his nutcake friends managed to kill himself. Liddy never got as far as actually planting a bomb or anything up that I’m aware of, but he acknowledged (and this is kind of a big one) devising a plot to firebomb the Brookings Institution as well as devising schemes to murder people and to kidnap people. No, he never carried these out. He did however (and this is a big one) try to undermine American democracy by engaging in criminal activity to help in an election.
Again, you come out with a “launched his career”, essentially giving Obama a poison pill for going to someone’s house. Frankly, I’m far less bothered than that than referring a scumbag of Liddy’s proportion as a friend. Yes, that’s how McCain described Liddy.
by jae on Oct 7, 2008 9:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you think Liddy’s sins are worse than Libby’s then?
by sam23 on Oct 7, 2008 6:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
does that mean its cool to be "friendly" with Bin Laden in about 35-40 more years then?
We were friends again with the mass murdering Germans in less than 35 years. Maybe Ayres and Obama are just both doing something worthwhile with a different approach?
You were in the same organization as Lindy England and Jose Nazario so according to your standards that makes you guilty by association?
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 6, 2008 8:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
do you honestly think any of that makes any sense?
by sam23 on Oct 6, 2008 9:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
do you honestly think any of that makes any sense?
Compared to the idea that Palin is a good choice for possible president it looks to be pure genius.
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 6, 2008 9:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
...
must resist urge again…..aaaarghh… are you guys seriously trying to drive me insane!
by sam23 on Sep 29, 2008 12:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
actually
the idea that the President isnt as important as his cabinet….or actually not as important as the rest of the exectutive branch, is probably somewhat true. But still……..
by sam23 on Sep 29, 2008 12:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
used to think like that
until Bush’s neocon VP and cabinet completed their virtually silent coup
by hardcore on Oct 4, 2008 6:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Question: Why does voting for him because he's black bother you?
Mind you, I’m not an Obama supporter.
So belilaugh is being honest. One would assume that people are making the decision on who to vote for based on “issues”. I would argue that most Americans can not articulate either candidate’s stance on “issues” and explain what that will mean for that individual, the country and the world and why that is making that individual vote for either candidate.
If it makes you feel any better, I would say that the people who are voting for Obama because he’s black would likely vote Democrat anyways. I wonder how many Democrats will not vote for him because he’s black? I’d say, at best, Obama’s “blackness” is a wash for him.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Sep 29, 2008 1:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Voting for Obama because he’s black bothers me the same way NOT voting for him because he’s black would bother me.
by sam23 on Sep 29, 2008 1:16 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
RIght, but do you disagree that Americans are making therr decisions based on
how the candidates are perceived and marketed rather than an objective analysis of their proposed policies? I am arguing that you should get just as angry at the majority of ignorant voters as you are at belilaugh’s comment.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Sep 29, 2008 8:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
meh
yea I see what youre saying, but not necessarily AS mad. The way the candidates attempt to market themselves is essentially providing a shortcut for potential voters who dont care enough to spend a lot of time studying the candidates record or stance on every issue….kind in the same way that parties are basically a shortcut. The other is just straight racism one way or another.
by sam23 on Sep 29, 2008 5:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Both candidates are full of shit, both candidates say they will do one thing and do another thing, both candidates have signifcant corporate backing, both candidates run on campaigns that often don’t support their true intentions.
Do those sound like candidates you want? Maybe, but not me. Like I said, until there are publicly funded elections the ruling class will keep putting their own in power and keep subduing the rest of us. So I am not voting on issues. DOn’t tell me I don’t know the issues, I watch the debates, I watch the speeches, I read the internet news, it’s just that after the smoke clears neither of the candidates represent me.
Voting for someone because they are black is not the same as not voting for someone because they are black. One is trying to uplift an entire nation of oppressed people, one is trying to keep them down. That is really all I see good coming out of this election is a token presidency. I would say my vote would do some good, while voting for him because he is not black only will perpetuate the neck high racism America currently is drowning in.
You are trying to paint both cases as racism influenced voting, but I do not see that at all.
by belilaugh on Sep 29, 2008 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Both candidates are full of shit, both candidates say they will do one thing and do another thing, both candidates have signifcant corporate backing, both candidates run on campaigns that often don’t support their true intentions.
Welcome to the wonderful world of politics.
Member of the "Stop calling him Beans" movement
by StSaints408 on Sep 29, 2008 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Correction
corporate politics. If the people decided then the people’s choice would be the candidate and the voter turnout would be higher.
by belilaugh on Sep 29, 2008 4:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I actually agree with about 95% of what you are saying.
The 5% is that you still bother to vote. I don’t know if I could look myself in the mirror if i voted in a National Election, that’s buying-in to the fraud a bit too much for me. I certainly don’t judge anyone for votin, but I’d be a hypocrite if I did.
I wasn’t trying to imply that you did or didn’t understand the issues, I was trying to illuistrate that it’s somewhat hypocritical to get upset at someone voting for someone because they’re black but ignore the fact that most people vote for all sorts of reasons that have absolutely nothing to do wth the candidate’s positon on “issues”.
You are trying to paint both cases as racism influenced voting, but I do not see that at all.
If you say “I am voting for Obama because he is black” that is racist. Is it bad? I don’t think so. I think anyone who says that race is not a factor is lying.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Sep 29, 2008 6:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you guys don't know who John McCain is...
John McCain is the running mate of Sarah Palin…..
by StSaints408 on Sep 28, 2008 1:13 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Is that supposed to be
a pro-Obama poster? Cuz I kinda want one.
by sam23 on Sep 29, 2008 12:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
From the "Tranny-Obama Says 'Up Yours'" collection
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Sep 29, 2008 1:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yee
I have like 5 different Obama shirts in my closet right now. There’s this racist that goes to my school and sees me wear the shirts a lot. I overheard him talking to his other racist friend and he said something like, “Look at this idiot with his Obama shirts, f*ck that nigger Obama should be killed”.
No lie, i’m not even joking. lol.
by Five Ten Entertainment on Sep 28, 2008 2:26 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
all the more reason
the VP pix are a key in this race – either way there is a likelihood one of them will be in the hot seat
by hardcore on Sep 28, 2008 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
man
guys like that give guys like me a bad name. On behalf of all non-ignorant bastard McCain supporters who do deserve to live, I apologize.
by sam23 on Sep 29, 2008 1:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
nicely said,
I cant wait for GSOM night in , I ll be back in town and the election will be over. And we can just talk about what really matters in our life. Whether Monta has his quickness back, is BWright the answer, can Williams stay in shape? These are the issues I want to get back too : )
63, rest in peace man
by autumnwind on Sep 29, 2008 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
a-hunting we shall go
well, wasted a perfectly good weekend morning wading through the Starbury epic. But it held a peculiar fascination: the stalking and trapping of a mccain defender in the wild.
several members of the community took the methodical approach while others attempted surprise or more creative maneuvers. and quickly their prey was brought down. yet it did not die. not after the beagles had savaged it. not after they’d run it through with spears. still it refused to die. they attempted every tactic… i think jae in particular really wanted to spend the effort to work all the way through the layers of defense, to see what exists at the center. us commie radicals don’t often get a chance to try our best arguments out against a real, true believer—not to mention one with an inexhaustible appetite for more abuse. but of course it didn’t work. of course.
good lord if eight years of the current administration hasn’t convinced you, sam23, there’s scarce chance a handful of basketball fans will change you.
i used to be rather agnostic about mccain, putting him in that relatively-benign-republican place i reserve for the moderates of the party. i even allowed myself to celebrate the end of mitt romney’s campaign in the primaries as “the last of the bad guys.” i mean, mccain was talking forcefully about the environment, torture, immigration, and the train wreck of the iraq war. he had insulted falwell and the conservative christians and made a halfhearted attempt to bring reform to washington politics.
but the john mccain of summer/fall 2008 does not speak like the john mccain of 2000. he wants to bomb iran, stay in iraq for a hundred years, open up a wider conflict with russia over georgia, and orient this country’s culture and priorities toward an ever wider role for the military (despite recent campaign promises) and wars of adventure.
he has his own problems on the economy, which he pays little attention to. but, frankly, fuck the economy. i know it will win or lose this election but that’s only because humans (and in this case, americans) are too shortsighted and greedy to see issues outside their own pocketbooks. the real issue of this election continues to be, and will always be judged historically to be the iraq war, and how america has been changed by it.
i thought romney was the last of the bad guys because the bad guys have ruled washington for the last eight years from the vice-president’s office and from the pages of the weekly standard. i used to think that john mccain would keep the bad guys out of his administration. but the straight-talk express is now filled with lobbyists such as rick davis. and his national security adviser is randy scheunemann, who is a second-tier but still significant figure in the neocon movement. it is the neocons who must be removed from power at all costs. even if i believed it would otherwise wreck this country, it is still more important than anything that these reactionary fanatics are forced to relinquish power. they haven’t had time to finish the goals they set out to accomplish.
sam23 made a heroic attempt to persuade his buddies here at gsom that mccain is the right choice. but the mccain he described in repeated posts is dead. his zombie clone is being propped up by karl rove and his handlers, like the kremlin kept yeltsin going for years with pharmaceuticals. everything mccain has done since winning the primaries has demonstrated that he has opted for power over principle and winning over everything.
i still think a mccain presidency would be marginally better than bush/cheney. if nothing else, mccain can only be led so far and for so long before he rebels and speaks his mind. but he is no longer in charge of his campaign and we would see precious little difference between what we have now and what he would bring.
in obama i see a politician, a remarkably successful politician who has mastered the intricacies of the system he hopes to run. he is articulate, unshakeable, and disciplined. he is surprisingly free of ideology for someone who has been branded (as the dem candidate is always branded) ‘the most liberal nominee ever.’ he specializes in building consensus and constructing a pragmatic politics, which is what mccain kinda used to do.
the wars drag on. the economy is in free fall. who do you want running your country?
by Ormolov on Sep 28, 2008 3:02 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
saddens me
that the perception that the old McCain is dead is so widespread. I wont get into why I think youre wrong, because I dont want to start over again, but dang….that sucks that so many feel that way.
by sam23 on Sep 29, 2008 1:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the perception that the old McCain is dead is so widespread
Any credibility he had was lost when he picked Palin. Would a true freedom fighter saddle us with a religious anti choice wacko VP ?
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 29, 2008 9:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Palin really is a damning indictment of McCain’s judgement.
by jae on Sep 29, 2008 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Any chance of voting for McCain was lost,
when I heard Palin talk. Someone tell her that evolution isnt a matter of belief, its a matter of lookin at facts and having the basic intelligence to understand the concept!
63, rest in peace man
by autumnwind on Sep 29, 2008 10:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
this isnt the same McCain as he was in 2000,
he has totally jumped on the Bush bandwagon. I have no clue why someone who was supposed to be outside of that mess for several years, would want to ally themselves with that train wreck right before the election.
63, rest in peace man
by autumnwind on Sep 29, 2008 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you're right
after checking further…
rick davis, the ceo of mccain’s 2008 campaign, has been with him since 1999. that means corrupt lying lobbyists have long been part of mccain’s presidential aspirations, and are not a new feature of his campaign. thanks for clearing that up for me, sam23.
and yes, obama also has lobbyists on his payroll and i wish he didn’t. but when his lobbyist was tied to fannie mae several months ago that lobbyist was immediately removed from the obama campaign. when rick davis was tied to the lobbying behemoth that is fannie mae, the mccain campaign went into a vicious spin cycle of misdirection, outrage, and baldfaced lying. obama’s lobbyist connection to fannie mae was a former director who no longer formally served with the company. rick davis was paid $15,000/month to lobby for the mortgage company, even after it had foundered and was being rescued by the taxpayers, and after john mccain had made many many accusations about obama’s unsavory connection to the semi-private company.
this will not make or break the election, of course, but it is a detailed response to your claim that the “old” mccain is not dead. now we’re in agreement: the old mccain is apparently the same as the new mccain. i wish i hadn’t let him fool me into thinking him harmless for all those years.
by Ormolov on Sep 29, 2008 9:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Obama
received more money from Fannie and Freddie than all but one other Congressman. This anti-lobbyist propoganda has gone a little bit overboard by both sides. Government has gotten so big and they cover such a vast array of issues that lobbyists are a necessary part of the system. Nobody likes it, and we need to reign in corruption. However, being a lobbyist, or in Davis’ case a former lobbyist (technically not even a lobbyist) or a Politician who has had relationships with lobbyists does not make you corrupt or dirty. Biden’s son is a lobbyist, are you gonna blast him for that?! Getting money from large interest groups and then in turn distributing vast numbers of earmarks, however, IS a pretty good sign of corruption.
by sam23 on Sep 30, 2008 2:10 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Indeed the word “lobbyist” is now being tossed around as some sort of synonym for demon or something.
by jae on Sep 30, 2008 9:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure I'll blast Biden
for his son’s lobbying efforts. I have no love for Biden, but he is light years better than anything the Republicans have to offer us. Here’s one reason: he’s one of the only politicians in Congress willing to say that Iraq is a failed state. I don’t agree with his prescription, to divide Iraq into three regional ethnic rump states from the outside, but I’d put money on the outcome being something like what he portrays.
People like to defend lobbying by pointing to things like March of Dimes or the Peace Corps as examples of “good” lobbying, meaning that if a few do-gooders get access to the necessary congresspeople every few months then the bankers and NRA and Exxon, who own any number of politicians, must equally enjoy the privilege. That’s ridiculous. Just because a sop is thrown in the public’s direction every once in a while doesn’t mean that the system works. It’s far far beyond broken, which (I’m hoping) even you would agree.
By the way, Davis is still a corrupt and underhanded lobbyist. Check out that lefty rag NEWSWEEK’s expose of him last week.
But here’s one thing I’d like you to address, Sam. Randy Scheunemann is a neocon. He is a firm believer in neocon principles and has actively fought for them over the last decade. It was the neocons, under Rumsfeld, who took us into Iraq with insufficient force, relying on Special Forces and technological advances to do the job of the grunts. He is new to the McCain camp, and stands at direct odds with McCain’s former assertions that an orthodox occupation of Iraq, with a minimum of half a million troops, is the only way to win the war.
Now I would say they’re both fooling themselves, and that even half a million troops would have been bogged down, but how do you, as a vet, reconcile your nominee’s embrace of the neocon position at this stage? I understand that in the general election both candidates make gestures to become more amenable to the powers that be, but McCain is dancing with the devil. Bomb Iran? We’re all Georgians? An existential struggle for the heart and soul of the United States when Al Qaeda has never boasted more than a couple thousand hardcore members?
Um, keep your rifle clean, Sam, because in a McCain presidency you’ll be called back up again and again for the next twenty years.
by Ormolov on Sep 30, 2008 9:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Have to call you on this this one -
The money Obama has gotten from FM/FM has been individual contributions from their employees. When I donated to Obama’s campaign I had to denote who my employer was, and as a result my contribution is attributed to my employer, who has no knowledge of my contribution. Your statement is one of many inaccurate talking points that McCain has attempted to use to slime Obama, that you ahve bought into without checking the facts.
FYI, longtime GSOM lurker/W’s fan, couldn’t let this slide, finally signed up.
by Run DNC on Oct 2, 2008 2:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
finally signed up.
Thanks for posting. Welcome to the nut house.
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 2, 2008 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lipstick?
So does that mean her husband can just put lipstick on his dog sled team and have an orgy?
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 29, 2008 9:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s funny how Palin takes pictures with the moose (or meese or whatever the hell is the plural version of moose) that she hunts and it’s recreational and Michael Vick is in jail for putting two dogs next to each other and cheering them on.
by StSaints408 on Sep 28, 2008 4:32 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
you say tomayto, i say tomahto
sad that while it’s very funny, it is also very true.
by lightz0ut on Sep 28, 2008 5:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Death Penalty
I don’t understand it.
Lets say someone is convicted of murder and is sentenced to the death penalty.
If that person was convicted because of evidence and not only the prosecutors testimonies , why does the person sentenced to death stay on death row for years before being executed? If it is concrete evidence why keep that person alive, ok, new evidence might turn up, but again if its something as simple as that person shot another person and there are witness accounts, getaway car matches description, bullet fired matches the gun on the suspect. Why not have an immediate execution?
Can someone explain to me why the person sentenced to death is not immediately executed and how the world benefits from that person (who is already proven guilty in the court of law) remaining alive?
If I am wrong i will respond with a D'Oh
by StephenO4 on Sep 28, 2008 5:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The world benefits because we retain at least the part of our humanity that believes that putting someone to death is serious enough that it’s upon us to make sure that the process and the decision to do so isn’t f@$ed up.
At least in CA, a death sentence immediately and automatically invokes an appeal, and rightly so. There’s no mulligans possible when you put someone to death. It’s permanent, and as such, you damn well better get it right. Things that seem to be so absolute and incontrovertible are often not. Eye witnesses are not necessarily reliable. Forensic evidence (e.g. bullet fired ‘matches’ the gun) is not as infallible as many are led to believe. And in particular not all defenses are run by competent attorneys who even know how to deal with this evidence. It’s possible to railroad someone into a guilty verdict. It’s not only possible. It has happened and likely continues to happen.
“The world” benefits by making sure that we don’t become blood thirsty savage killers with a government that gets to decide who lives and dies and declares its process for determining it to be infallible. The death penalty already means we’ve surrendered to the government some degree to determine who lives and dies (and this is the #1 reason I oppose it—it’s as ‘big government as you can get). Surrendering the process to make sure that they don’t overly abuse this right is still important. Since a number of people “proven” guilty in a court of law have since been released because new evidence has shown that they did not commit the crimes, it’s clear that the system is far, far from infallible. In many cases the evidence looked damning. Eye witnesses were sure. Forensics matched items. Too bad this isn’t as absolute as we’re led to believe.
by jae on Sep 28, 2008 5:38 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
I'm not sure so hopefully you can confirm
What was Scott Peterson sentenced in the Lacey Peterson case a few years back?
I didn’t really follow the case so I don’t feel like I am in any position to comment on it but do you think Scott Peterson killed Lacey and his unborn child?
If I am wrong i will respond with a D'Oh
by StephenO4 on Sep 28, 2008 6:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's on death row.
And he definitely killed Laci and his unborn child.
Member of the "Stop calling him Beans" movement
by StSaints408 on Sep 28, 2008 6:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Apply that to my first post
Some may believe he did kill Laci (D’OH) since you do think he killed lacey and since he is on Death Row why keep him alive? Again I don’t know about this case but I for one believe if someone had murdered a family member (knock on my head) and is sentenced to 25 to life because the jury does not believe in the Death Penalty, I wouldn’t say I am glad the state of California retains its humanity because than the government would have too much of a say and control over who has the right to live or die I would probably be thinking of something that can put a needle in me…but thankfully California retains its humanity otherwise I would probably be worried. Jae don’t take this as an attack because I’m sure you will have me saying D’OH til the warriors are in the play-offs again. Just expressing my opinion on the situation.
If I am wrong i will respond with a D'Oh
by StephenO4 on Sep 28, 2008 7:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, he will be executed
I’m glad he’s in prison for however long though. More time for him to countdown until he gets killed.
Member of the "Stop calling him Beans" movement
by StSaints408 on Sep 28, 2008 8:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’ve presented a false dichotomy between death and “25 to life”. Life without parole is an option. It actually means life without parole.
I have no idea if he killed her or not. It was a conviction on circumstantial evidence. I do think there’s a whole host of possibilities between a premeditated murder (one posibility I cannot rule out), to killing her when he did not mean to and panicking (also plausible), to his total innocence (however unlikely it may be). He’s probably the only one who knows for certain.
by jae on Sep 28, 2008 10:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
my uncle was on the jury
he was very guilty and showed no remorse, his sister even says hes guilty
by montadaboss on Sep 28, 2008 11:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There was
no murder weapon, no murder scene, no motive, no blood, no evidence… Thats called circumstantial evidence.
The closest thing to evidence they had was the bodies turning up in the general area that he went fishing, months after it was well publicised that he went there. Is it possible someone else deposited the bodies there after they knew it could be linked to Scott because people knew he was at that location? I don’t know, and its a bit of a stretch but without any other real evidence how do we really know what happened?
by in for life on Sep 28, 2008 11:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You are right
But for my own personal knowledge hypothetically speaking if something bad were to happen to someone you know (i would never wish this on you or anyone else period) and that person is dies, lets say that person was murdered. would you rather have that person who committed the murder be sentenced to death or be sentenced something else (i am too stupid and lazy to figure out all the court sentencing stuff but hopefully you know) like life without parole. The government does have a say in who lives and who dies but it believe it is ultimately left for the jury to decide with that person is in fact guilty. I guess the fish is rotten huh Jae.
If I am wrong i will respond with a D'Oh
by StephenO4 on Sep 28, 2008 11:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
exactly
thats where I come out on the issue too. I know JAE and others say its vengeful and inhumane and they are right to some degree, but I cant believe we would ask the parents of a child who was raped and murdered to pay some of their hard earned money as taxes that will feed, clothe and and shelter the criminal for the rest of his life. I get JAE’s argument about not using vengeance as punishment, but I dont get those that say the death penalty is too costly.
by sam23 on Sep 29, 2008 1:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I dont get those that say the death penalty is too costly.
It’s simple. The system turns it into a long drawn out affair, a circus of lawyers that cost more than a lifetime supply of prison food. In the end there’s just as much closure in locking them up and throwing away the key, and a lot more punishment too, years instead of seconds. Real closure is in the mind, we could tell them he’s dead if that would help, but the fact is it wouldn’t. There’s no winners in this situation.
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 29, 2008 9:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t want my tax dollars to pay to kill people.
by jae on Sep 29, 2008 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
For what its worth,
no European country has the death penaly. I hope one day we abolish and just hand out 25(thats a really long time, imagine spending 25-50 in jail) to life sentances for these criminals. I think JAE, you said it in the last post, I dont want to take the chance that 1 out of every 1000 ppl we put death is innocent.
63, rest in peace man
by autumnwind on Sep 29, 2008 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
so
you want them to go towards supporting killersand rapists?
by sam23 on Sep 29, 2008 5:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rather than putting them to death? Yes.
(I’ll ignore that it’s ridiculously more expensive to convict and put someone to death than to convict and keep him in prison for life.)
by jae on Sep 29, 2008 6:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
(I’ll ignore that it’s ridiculously more expensive to convict and put someone to death
Sam says he’s a big anti tax guy so that should appeal to him? He supports Palin cause he’s afraid Obama will raise taxes? Palin in the VP office is a lot more scary than killers wasting away in prison.
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 29, 2008 7:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
JAE,
as our site statician?(sp, sorry i turn my spelling off afe i leave class) you should no better than support that ridiculuos claim that the life in prison is cheaper than the death penalty. While I am 100% against the death penalty, money is not one of the issues. Lets just leave life and death out of hands….
63, rest in peace man
by autumnwind on Sep 29, 2008 11:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And you should check the facts. It’s far, far, far more expensive to convict and put someone to death. Expenses incurred in the trials and appeals in a capital case generally cost more than life imprisonment.
by jae on Sep 29, 2008 11:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ok fair enough,
as a favor can you give me a link to start my search(not trying to be a smart ass) but ive heard this argument for 10 years now and i think with an issue this loaded, money shouldnt be a tie breaker….
63, rest in peace man
by autumnwind on Sep 29, 2008 11:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
This is, admittedly a compilation of article summaries on an anti-death penalty site. It does however reference where it gets its figures and they appear to be reputable. It’s possible to find pages that dispute the conclusion, though most (all?) include dubious figures like the ‘cost savings from the deterrence effect of the death penalty.’ Since the deterrence effect is in great dispute -it is not at all clear either way- this ‘savings’ seems much more like wishful thinking with an arbitrary pricetag associated with it.
by jae on Sep 30, 2008 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have no idea why ‘it is not at all clear either way’ got a strike through. It shouldn’t.
by jae on Sep 30, 2008 9:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
WOW, come on......
sam your jumping to extremes, when you say someone not wanting to pay for death is the same as supporting killers and rapers, let me know if i misread what you had to say……
63, rest in peace man
by autumnwind on Sep 29, 2008 11:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
support
not support as in promote. support in a more literal sense as in feed, clothe, and shelter. sorry, it does read like I’m saying JAE is in favor of murder and rape. Obviously not what I think. Like I said I know my opinion is a bit vengeful and thus flawed, but I just cant get on board with using hard earned tax money to keep worthless scumbags alive.
by sam23 on Sep 30, 2008 2:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re:
The death penalty already means we’ve surrendered to the government some degree to determine who lives and dies
I’m sure you already know this but the jury determines the penalty – not the government.
John 8:44 -Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.
by triplesix on Sep 29, 2008 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
At least in theory, in a democracy, the government is an agent of the people, the courts an agent of the government and the jury an agent of the courts.
by jae on Sep 29, 2008 1:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well...
the way I look at the death penalty is the way I look at abortion. The government should do less banning by decree. To ban by decree is the antithesis of democratic. At least by having it be an option for the people (jury) to consider – they can make an informed choice. Besides the death penalty is a consequence meant as a deterrent – you can argue that corporal punishment does not make an effective deterrent – but still some states don’t have the death penalty because it’s voted on by the people.
John 8:44 -Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.
by triplesix on Sep 29, 2008 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Democratic does not necessarily mean that a majority opinion is always acceptable. We live in a constitutional republic with democratic representation to the republic, not a pure democracy of the majority. It’s a society of laws and those laws are in place the do put restrictions on things, banning some things by decree and putting tall barriers against people changing them. One of the reasons we live in a society of laws is to protect us from a tyranny of the majority. We put limits on ourselves, presumably in those times we can think most clearly to protect us in times when we do not. There are a host of things that aren’t permissible even if “the people” think it’s ok at the time. I do not think that putting someone to death should be an option for a jury, just as it is not an option to prevent someone from owning property based on the color of his or her skin or his or her possession of property. Certainly there were times when such things were considered ok by the majority and there are likely places where a majority might still feel this way, but we have laws that say that this is off the table. Whether or not you believe that the death penalty should be among those things off the table (clearly I do feel that way) is a point for debate, but there is nothing in our democratic society that says that taking it off the table is somehow against the principles of our government.
by jae on Sep 29, 2008 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Obviously...
we live in a society in which the majority opinion does not lead to the prevailing outcome. This has been proven – and I am not arguing that. It was only my opinion that the government should do less banning by decree on obviously hotly debated topics such as these b/c it makes it so difficult to change when the ideologies change. All I am arguing is that “death” – as a known consequence for a given action – can be an effective deterrent of behavior. Sure, it can become a calculated risk, willing to take for some but what other option is as effective?
Why no outrage when the presidential candidates are talking about hunting down and killing Bin Laden?
John 8:44 -Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.
by triplesix on Sep 29, 2008 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good question
If we had OBL in safe custody, I do think it would be unnecessary and inhumane to kill him.
Given that he’s been on the lam since 9-11, likely plotting new murders and spewing all kinds of hateful nonsense, I have no issue with our armed forces hunting down the motherfvcker and killing him. Or at least asking him once, nicely, to give himself up and then killing him if he doesn’t comply.
Then again, allowing him to be martyred would probably be worse for the cause of World Peace than capturing him, giving him a fair trial, and showing the world that we actually are more just, enlightened and civilized than the other guys.
Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 29, 2008 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
tough one
its a totally valid argument, but it also sends a pretty f’ed up message to the families of 9-11 victims if we put our tax dollars towards feeding, dressing, and housing OBL, no? Its too tough of a pill to swallow for me. Lucky for all of us I highly doubt he’d ever allow himself to be taken alive.
by sam23 on Sep 29, 2008 5:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If we had OBL in safe custody, I do think it would be unnecessary and inhumane to kill him.
Obviously he’s a very smart guy so we’d probably end up with him working for us like the Nazi rocket scientists did after WW2 . Remember a terrorist is only a terrorist as long as he is on the other side ,if he’s on our side he’s a hero.
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 29, 2008 7:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
do you
really believe that could ever possibly happen man?
by sam23 on Sep 29, 2008 8:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, Wernher VanBraun.
Nothing the govt. does surprises me. Right after 911 Bush stood shamelessly on the pile of rubble and praised the workers after being anti labor and anti union his whole career. No apology was offered. They shoulda chased him out the gate. It’s sad to admit who the real enemy is sometimes.
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 29, 2008 9:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because
What happens if a few months or maybe a year or two later, new evidence is found that shows the guy on death row is innocent. Then someone will be killed for no reason and the government would get sued.
Member of the "Stop calling him Beans" movement
by StSaints408 on Sep 28, 2008 5:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
then you need to look at
how they were convicted and fix that, not the punishment system. As advances in science and forensics continue to dramatically reduce the already extremely unlikely scenario that we convict innocents of violent crimes are you becoming more and more open to the death penalty?
by sam23 on Sep 29, 2008 5:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually,
No. The only person who should have control over who lives and dies should be God.
Member of the "Stop calling him Beans" movement
by StSaints408 on Sep 29, 2008 6:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
just curious
are you against abortion also?
by sam23 on Sep 29, 2008 6:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Quran
I’m Muslim, so I believe in what the Quran has to say. Acoording to the Quran, abortion is only allowed if the birth of the child will endanger the life of the mother.
Islam prohibits abortion except when the mother’s life is in danger. Muslims consider a fertilized ovum that is attached to the womb a living being that has the potential of reaching its full formation. A developed fetus is considered a human life and is subject to the laws of inheritance to the extent that if the mother is sentenced to capital punishment, her life should be preserved because she is carrying another human life.
Member of the "Stop calling him Beans" movement
by StSaints408 on Sep 29, 2008 6:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
does the death penalty go against the Quran?
by sam23 on Sep 29, 2008 8:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Did you see my post above?
The only crime in Islam punishable by death is murder.
There is a great debate about that too, because in the Quran, Allah says that the taking of one innocent life is equal to the killing of all humanity. In my opinion, by that statement, murderers CAN be given the death penalty considering they are not innocent.
Member of the "Stop calling him Beans" movement
by StSaints408 on Sep 29, 2008 10:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
sorry if I'm the guy that says it,
but our country was founded on the idea of separation of church and state. At the same time if you believe something, that fine and good, if more ppl belive in what you have to say then the opposition than it should be so……in my opionion thats the fundamentals of democracy……
63, rest in peace man
by autumnwind on Sep 29, 2008 11:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What happens if a few months or maybe a year or two later, new evidence is found that shows the guy on death row is innocent.
The obvious solution is put the prosecutor and sentencing judge to death if the executed person is later found to be innocent, that would make them show some restraint.
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 30, 2008 8:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Obama = Increased US $
I live in the Philippines now, but I still get paid in dollars. If I vote for mcain, the US dollar would surely plummet… go OBAMA!!!!
by Jollibee415 on Sep 28, 2008 8:59 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
For the Record
I’m voting McCain
Hasheem "The Beat" Thabeet. A Warrior in 09.
by ejdacanay on Sep 29, 2008 11:18 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
And coincidentally enough
Both Fonzie and John McCain have jumped the shark …
Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 29, 2008 12:02 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm voting for McCain...
because we need to win this war.
If I was a muslim extemist, I’d vote and lobby for Obama.
by MAZarate21 on Sep 29, 2008 12:04 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
If I was a muslim extemist, I’d vote and lobby for Obama.
Muslim terrorists want McCain to win cause they know terrorism needs conditions conducive to recruiting new terrorists to survive. McCain has said he’ll continue the past creation of these conditions.
They think obama might have the intelligence calm the world a bit and take away their support base. Happy respected people don’t feel the need to blow themselves up.
This war is not about terrorism, it is about money and we’ve already lost the money battle. Our funds are safely in the hands of the war profiteers so they’ll be talking pull out soon.
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 29, 2008 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This war is about terrorism
What conditions allow terrorists to survive? A lack in military presence that oppose their will. Iraq inhibits the highest population of Al Queda in the world and that’s why they’re pulling for Obama. Once the USA withdraws, can you imagine what that’ll do for their confidence? The falling of the world trade center was their sign from Allah, so if the almighty US runs away, that’ll be icing on the cake for them.
And happy respected people aren’t the only ones blowing themselves up. There’s also mentally handicapped teenage women doing the same and won’t care if Obama’s calming the world down.
If we withdraw from Iraq too early, that country will remain in chaos and remain a threat to our freedom. Many who oppose iraq today think this war is over money, oil, or gas prices, and those same people would’ve opposed a war invading Afghanistan in the late 90’s under the Clinton administration. If they knew it could’ve ousted the Taliban, killed Bin Laden (Who we knew was a threat), and prevented the 9/11 attacks from every occurring, would they still oppose that war?
by MAZarate21 on Sep 29, 2008 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Have you seen the movie "Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden"
One of the guys they talked to said it the best:
Osama Bin Laden is happy that the U.S. brought troops. This way they can get other people angry at the U.S. and recruit more people. It gives them a reason to fight. It also gives them people to kil.
Member of the "Stop calling him Beans" movement
by StSaints408 on Sep 29, 2008 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Muslim Extremists already have a reason to fight
They disapprove of western civilzation’s freedom that disagrees with their beliefs. They disapprove of our music, our television, what our women wear, etc. and they believe that if you’re not one of them, you are an enemy and deserve to be killed like all of the innocent children on 9/11.
I wouldn’t base political opinions on movies because I know how slanted they can be. Even documentaries. Just look at Michael Moore’s films.
by MAZarate21 on Sep 29, 2008 4:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually,
I read in a book called Blowback (forget who it was by) that they specifically disagreed with our policies concerning things such as our unconditional support of Israel. If you support Israel then fine, but don’t feed this propaganda about the “enemy” or that makes you just as bad as people like Bin Laden feeding the “enemy” propaganda about us. Or maybe in your case it isn’t propaganda, it’s truth?
by belilaugh on Sep 29, 2008 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
The United States should do what they used to. Not take sides when it comes to wars we aren’t involved in.
Member of the "Stop calling him Beans" movement
by StSaints408 on Sep 29, 2008 4:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
oh like
WWI or WWII? you mean those kind of wars we weren’t involved in?
by sam23 on Sep 29, 2008 5:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I mean pre 20th century.
When the U.S. was only involved in stuff that wasn’t a a danger to the world and didn’t involve them.
Member of the "Stop calling him Beans" movement
by StSaints408 on Sep 29, 2008 6:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I said -
Wasn’t a threat to the world.
Member of the "Stop calling him Beans" movement
by StSaints408 on Sep 29, 2008 10:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
define world then.
Is Islamic extremist terror NOT a threat to the world? Are tyrants like Saddam Hussein or Ahmahinejad not threats to the world? Its pretty fuzzy. If you say we shouldnt enter into pre-emptive wars, you’d have a solid argument, but “shouldnt involve our stuff in stuff that doesnt involve us and isnt a danger to the world” is a pretty bad measuring stick in today’s world of growing globalization. Just about every conflict in the world involves us somehow, and there are many countries and groups that could be considered threats to the world.
by sam23 on Sep 30, 2008 1:56 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
and there are many countries and groups that could be considered threats to the world.
Starting with us and the republican party. Saddam was a threat only to those who dint agree with him in his own country, but far from a threat to the world. Same thing with Iran, big fish small pond.
You gotta learn to follow the money trail so they can’t keep fooling you, Sam. Before you believe something analyze who will profit and how.
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 30, 2008 9:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Saddam was a threat only to those who didn't agree with him in his own country?
Iran wasn’t part of his country during the iran-iraq war and neither is Kuwait when he invaded them.
If he wasn’t a threat to people outside of his country, why did he get rid of the UN inspectors in 98 to break the truce after the persian gulf war?
Why would a democrat like Bill Clinton authorize a missile attack on Iraq if he didn’t believe Saddam was a threat?
by MAZarate21 on Sep 30, 2008 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Iran wasn’t part of his country during the iran-iraq war and neither is Kuwait when he invaded them.
I was talking about at the time of our invasion. Saddam was old, stressed from the embargo and from keeping the country inline. He had no capacity to significantly hurt us. We coulda waited for years to look for those “WMD” But what couldn’t wait was the desire of some to profit from the war. Bush had to act while he had the chance.
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 30, 2008 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was talking about at the time of our invasion.
So even though Saddam had the intent to restart his biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons programs once the sanctions were lifted, you’re saying he had a change of heart by 2003 because of age and fatigue?
The audio tapes from the Duelfer Report clearly prove that even though WMDs weren’t found in Iraq, Saddam had the intent to possess them and balance the middle east region since other countries had them or were in the process of developing them like Israel and Iran.
by MAZarate21 on Sep 30, 2008 5:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There were no WMDs
You have to have evidence of current things, you can’t start a war for stuff that has yet to happen.
Member of the "Stop calling him Beans" movement
by StSaints408 on Sep 30, 2008 5:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So you'd rather wait for him to develop and use WMDs first?
And then start a war?
Don’t forget that he used mustard gas and chemical agents on all of those kurds for their attempt to assassinate him.
The audio tapes of Saddam w/ MIC director, Husayn Kamil should’ve been evidence enough that he was a threat:
Husayn Kamil: “Sir, the best way to transport this weapon and achieve the most harmful affects would come by using planes, like a crop plane; to scatter it. This is, Sir, a thousand times more harmful.”
Saddam: “May God help us do it…we will never lower our heads as long as we are alive, even if we have to destroy everybody.”
by MAZarate21 on Oct 1, 2008 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hm, sounds pretty similar
To our use of firebombs in Dresden and Tokyo, and napalm in Vietnam. Only not nearly as “effective.”
I’m actually a little unclear on the accepted definition of “WMD.” Doesn’t it generally refer to nukes? If we’re talking about mustard gas and crap, how is that any different from the “conventional” weapons we use to kill people we don’t like?
And remind me again: who’s the country in the history of the universe dastardly enough to actually use nukes on human beings?
Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Oct 1, 2008 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
who’s the country in the history of the universe dastardly enough to actually use nukes on human beings?
The same country that fought to protect the freedoms you have today.
WMDs can be biological, chemical, or nuclear. The difference is that I’d trust a policeman with a gun, but not my neighbor down the street who’s been convicted of murder.
by MAZarate21 on Oct 1, 2008 12:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Question is
Who’s the policeman and who’s the criminal. The majority of people arround the world (not just our "enemies") think we’re the biggest threat in the world to world peace. And based on our track record, it’s hard to argue. As Americans, we’re not particularly objective, are we?
If I were morbid enough to bet on the identity of the next country to drop a nuke on another, I’d plunk my money right down on the good ol’ US of A (particularly if we elect Mccain/Palin).
On the bright side, if and when we drop said nuke, it will likely be on poor brown or yellow people half way across the world, so you and yours will be “safe.” Woo-hoo.
Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Oct 1, 2008 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
Who is the policeman and who is the criminal depends on ones perspective, but I believe a true democracy will always remain more civil than a dictatorship who rules with oppression.
But stating that a majority of the world think that the USA is more of a threat to world peace than muslim extremists? That’s a big statement.
If you look around at the wars today, there’s no conflicts between two democratic countries. You look at the middle east and there’s been fighting there for thousands of years.
Personally, I like freedom over oppression but that’s just me.
by MAZarate21 on Oct 1, 2008 12:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed.
I think the “no democracy has ever attacked another democracy” line is actually a very, very compelling and resonant argument.
I even agree that extremist religion, and extremist Islam in particular, needs to be confronted rather than ignored. My Jewish Berkeley uncle, quite a sweet and liberal dude, always likes to say that “they [meaning muslim-led countries] like to stir up trouble.” And if you look around: India, the Middle East, Phillipines, Malaysia, etc., it’s kind of hard to argue.
At the same time, as Obama pointed out, as we confront evil, we always have to try to maintain a sense of humility and perspective. A lot of the same “evil hatred of modernity and freedom” that we purport to want to defeat exists and thrives within our own borders. Indeed, you even get a taste of it within this thread (“I don’t like gays,” e.g.).
You know what they say about people in glass houses…
Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Oct 1, 2008 1:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As much as I like Obama...
as a person, basketball player, and poker player, I just don’t think that trying to maintain a sense of humility towards evil and dangerous leaders in rogue nations is a very safe thing to do.
Clinton played that card with Bin Laden and Bush vowed not to repeat the same mistake.
In an idealistic world, we could be diplomatic with anyone that we considered evil, but we don’t live in a perfect world. If that was the case, we wouldn’t need policemen or security guards and can you imagine how that would affect our already struggling economy?
by MAZarate21 on Oct 1, 2008 5:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the "no democracy has ever attacked another democracy" line is actually a very, very compelling and resonant argument.
I even agree that extremist religion, and extremist Islam in particular, needs to be confronted rather than ignored. My Jewish Berkeley uncle, quite a sweet and liberal dude, always likes to say that "they [meaning muslim-led countries] like to stir up trouble." And if you look around: India, the Middle East, Phillipines, Malaysia, etc., it’s kind of hard to argue.
At the same time, as Obama pointed out, as we confront evil, we always have to try to maintain a sense of humility and perspective. A lot of the same "evil hatred of modernity and freedom" that we purport to want to defeat exists and thrives within our own borders. Indeed, you even get a taste of it within this thread ("I don’t like gays," e.g.).
You know what they say about people in glass houses…
Don’t mess with ^^ !!
You lost any respect for that statement when you said India as an Islamic country. Mayber 5% of India is Muslim. Then, to suggest that all Muslims are terrorists like that, you lose all respect period.Then, when you mention that you’re uncle said that, it make your view biased. Knowing that your uncles is Jewish, shows that his view is obviously biased. You say it’s hard to argue but you don’t even provide any evidence as proof that all Islamic countries are all terrorists.
I’m Muslim, does that mean that I’m a terrorist? I’m just a regular human being like you guys who goes to school and loves the Warriors. Just because I have belief in a different faith than most of you guys, doesn’t mean I hate you guys or that I’m a terrorist.
Member of the "Stop calling him Beans" movement
by StSaints408 on Oct 1, 2008 5:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You lost any respect for that statement when you said India as an Islamic country.
Obviously, I meant India/Pakistan/Kashmir. Yet another “hot” area involving Muslims and another religion. Obviously these conflicts are two way streets But the point remains that Pakistan/Kashmir is yet another edge of the Islamic empire that doesn’t play nice with its neighbors.
Then, when you mention that you’re uncle said that, it make your view biased
Well, yeah: that’s why I mentioned it. We’re all biased, you included.
You say it’s hard to argue but you don’t even provide any evidence as proof that all Islamic countries are all terrorists
“Terrorist” is your word. I never used it. Indeed, I hate the word, and think that as it’s used by the Bush administration, it’s basically code for “anyone who disagrees with me.”
I’m Muslim, does that mean that I’m a terrorist?
Again, your word, not mine. Guilty conscience?
Just because I have belief in a different faith than most of you guys, doesn’t mean I hate you guys or that I’m a terrorist.
I never said otherwise. I’m pretty sure you’re not a terrorist. On the other hand, this lovely line —
“I really dislike gay people … lesbians on the other hand….”
— shows that you’re at least something of an idiot. And it only serves to reinforce my distaste for backward thinking, be it Muslim, Christian, Jewish, or just unenlightened.
Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Oct 1, 2008 7:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
whoa, whoa, whoa guys
Let me try to step in here and break this up, I think its about to get pretty personal. Saint, as an impartial observer/reader I’m fairly certain Sleepy did not mean to imply that you or all Muslims or all middle-easterners are terrorists. I’m sure youve probably endured quite a bit of unwarranted ridicule or prejudice based on your faith since 9/11, but I encourage you to try not to take everything quite so personal. Its quite true that Muslim led countries/organizations have shown a penchant for stirring up trouble and violence. That is in no way statement about your own personal views or faith, but it is a fact. Sleepy, I think its a bit unfair to dismiss religious views as “backward thinking.” Saint’s apparent attempt at humor may have been a bit crude, but isn’t that dismissal of religion and people of faith as unenlightened pretty much the same sort of prejudice youre criticizing him for?
by sam23 on Oct 1, 2008 8:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Er, no, Arbiter Sam.
It’s not the same sort of thing.
He said “I really dislike gay people.”
As messed up a thing as that is to say, I chose to ignore it.
Then he chose to attack me about a bunch of crap I didn’t say, and don’t believe in. I would have ignored that, too, if he wasn’t the guy responsible for the most bigoted comment in the thread. So I called him on his shenanigans.
I didn’t dismiss religious views as backward thinking, or call people of faith unenlightened. I choose my words carefully; try to read them just as carefully. Alas, this isn’t the first time you’ve wasted your time arguing against something I never said.
If you wanna give me crap about something, you should probably give me crap about my comment on Muslim countries, but then you chose to defend that as “fact.”
But feel free to continue living live in your “fair and balanced” universe in which saying “I really dislike gays” is equivalent to saying “I really dislike backward thinking.” ;-P
Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Oct 1, 2008 9:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Muslim led countries/organizations
dont have a penchant for stirring up trouble or causing violence? It is a fact. Sleepy you said it first, I agreed, and now youre trying to disagree? You’d make a great democratic congressman. Its also a fact that Christian-led nations have almost as much of a penchant for causing trouble, though they almost always do so as nations under a banner of democracy and not as networks. Like I said, I think Saint was making a crude attempt at humor that may or may not have some grounding in his religion. I dont share Saint’s beliefs, but its entirely possible that his faith influences his views on homosexuality. If he “dislikes” (and to be totally fair Sleepy he did NOT say hate, which is imo a big distinction if we are gonna split hairs and analyze every single word/sentence) homosexuals because of his belief, he’s entitled to that opinion. He’s not expressing hatred or a desire to commit violence in any way. Just as youre entitled to your opinion that his faith is backwards thinking. And honestly it sounds to me like you dislike religion at least as much as he does homosexuals. Yea he expressed his view (if it even is his view and not simply a joke) in an inappropriate way, but youre “guilty conscience?” comment was also in bad taste, man. So really whats worse, him making an inappropriate joke about disliking someone’s choice of sexual partners or you making an inappropriate joke implying he murders innocents? Just because youre expressing a more liberal point of view doesnt inherantly make you the more accepting, tolerant, or broad minded. As a conservative with not religious affilitation I find it very amusing how hypocritically intolerant liberals in the bay area are towards people of faith. I simply tried to get you guys from attacking each other personally and suddenly youre back goin for my jugular. And you call US the war mongerers. :)
by sam23 on Oct 2, 2008 2:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yay.
Well at least you’ve now you’ve dropped the “whoa, stop fighting guys” BS and returned to ranting incoherently about stuff that bears very little resemblance to anything anyone actually wrote.
Why don’t you chill out and let Saint and me say what we actually want to say, rather than trumping up your own imaginary debate involving what you think we said or what you wish we had said?
Seriously, dude. Take deep breaths, think about what you write, and try to stay focussed. Failing that, have you tried ritalin?
Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Oct 2, 2008 3:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
sleepy
interesting how you squirm when you get called out. Seriously I just didnt want it turn into the same kind of conversation that me and Amoc had in the last thread. And it was headed that direction after your last post directed at him. I guess in a way I’ve now achieved that by drawing your ire, so I’ll get out now.
by sam23 on Oct 2, 2008 9:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
LOL.
To quote John Goodman in Big Lebowski…
So you have no point of reference, [Sam]!. You’re like a child that wanders INTO THE MIDDLE OF A MOVIE!
Like the Steve Buscemi guy, you jumped in the middle of a discussion that had nothing to do with you, and completely mischaracterized both his and my points.
Worse, you used the phony guise of “peacemaker” to bust my balls and spew a bunch of tired Michael-Savage talking points. At least have the decency to own up to what you’re doing. It’s generally not like you to be so disingenuous.
Once again: are you really so obtuse as to not understand the qualitative difference between saying “I really dislike gay people” and saying “I really dislike religion”? (I didn’t say the latter, but you inferred it, not necessarily incorrectly). If so, there’s not a lot more to say on this subject.
I suspect you’re not actually that obtuse, and that your young mind has been poisoned by ovexposure to angry and hateful rightwing pundits. Like the Skeptic, I keep hoping against hope that you’ll see a little light.
Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Oct 2, 2008 9:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No need for personal attacks
We’re all warrior fans, which to me is like family, but when one uses words like obtuse and "see the light " towards someone he disagrees with, that really ruins the benefits of this type of thread along with his credibility.
Flame wars are the downfall of community forums.
Let’s all try to be a little mature and continue this thread with intelligent discussion.
by MAZarate21 on Oct 2, 2008 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
like I said
and they call us war mongerers. I simply said both guys were starting unnecessary personal attacks and both were wrong. sorry if I mischaracterized you using your exact words sleepy. Its not like you to get so angry and defensive when you get called out.
by sam23 on Oct 2, 2008 6:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm
Actually, it is kind of like me.
But thanks for the compliment. ;-)
Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Oct 2, 2008 7:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
not to mention
whether he had WMD’s or not (again his former #3 man George Sadas says in his book that he did, and that he personally signed the papers authorizing their transfer into Syria) he certainly wanted us, and the rest of the world to believe he had them.
by sam23 on Oct 1, 2008 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
One of my friends actually heard General Sada speak
It doesn’t surprise me that his story was never brought to the public’s eye by the mass media because it wouldn’t agree with their motives.
by MAZarate21 on Oct 1, 2008 5:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who exactly is the “they” whose motives it doesn’t agree with? Is it the same “they” that was complacent in the runup to war, presenting more or less no challenge to the “fact” that Iraq possessed WMDs?
Seriously, the notion that there’s some underlying conspiracy from the media to consciously persuade us flies in the face of the mess that actually gets put out there.
by jae on Oct 1, 2008 6:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"they"...
are the same media who focuses on all of the casualties in iraq, but ignores the happier iraqi citizens who no longer live under oppression.
“they” are the same media who focuses on all of the innocent people being blown up at marketplaces but not on the blowing up of jihadist hideouts.
“they” are the same media who focus on the cost of this war and not on the progress we’ve made with the increase in troops.
“they” are the same media who puts any Palin gaffe as a cover story but seems to ignore any gaffe made by Biden.
“they” are the same media who provides polls stating Obama won the debate when a majority of the voters were democratic.
by MAZarate21 on Oct 2, 2008 10:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A yes, the monolith of ‘they’. That convenient scapegoat that is too nonexistent to fight back, a hallmark of poor thinking designed to allow for any prejudice to stick to something.
MAZ, you’re simplifying things far below the level of complexity that actually exists in the world. Are there citizens in Iraq who are happier? Probably. There’s also ones who aren’t and quite a few thousand who are just plain too dead to voice an opinion one way or another.
The cost of the war, financial and in terms of human casualties and the casualty of international relations which are right now in the toilet IS worth focusing on. Your notion that “they” don’t focus on the “progress” assumes that there’s some measure of progress worth focusing on. Weight trillion in spending and 1000s of lives and it’s hard to focus on the positive, especially when the positive is a real, real debatable positive.
But just in terms of focus, do you REALLY think that the reason that ‘they’ don’t look at the positive is some sort of intentional slant? Let’s look at how news gets covered here. A school shooting in the US gets huge news days. A guy who walks into a post office and opens fire, same thing. The notion that there’s so sort of slant, deliberate to avoid the positives and dwell on the negatives is not some liberal propaganda tool, it’s a natural reaction to the negatives. Is it really a liberal bias to cover something like Columbine (or Oklahoma City)?
You think that if someone walked into a hotel and blew himself up in Oakland that the news would have a story about a charter school opening in the Dimond district? Of course not. You’d be filled with reports of people saying how horrible it was, how scary it was, how this was a symptom of this or that and how we need to make sure x, y and z so this sort of thing doesn’t happen again. You would not hear positive. You’d hear about death and destruction because that’s what’s on people’s minds.
Now have this sort of destruction happen every day. You’ve got a country where people are still blowing themselves up more or less every day, where people are dying, being shot, being blown up and it’s very, very hard to ‘look at the progress’.
I think enough has been said about Palin already. Palin’s gaffes are laughable, Maz. She’s a moron. If Biden couldn’t name a newspaper he’d read, or a court decision other than R v. W, or claimed that Obama had introduced reform legislation and then couldn’t name a single instance of such reform legislation, you can bet it would be covered. The negative look at her is because she’s an unknown who came right out of nowhere and immediately showed herself to be unqualified. The slant against Palin is because she’s a totally unqualified grade A moron who shows no intellectual curiosity, whose own stories on what she’s done don’t line up with facts and who is a stinging indictment of McCain’s judgment. If you can’t see that, I can only conclude that you’re as dumb as she is.
by jae on Oct 2, 2008 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are there citizens in Iraq who are happier? Probably. There’s also ones who aren’t and quite a few thousand who are just plain too dead to voice an opinion one way or another.
And a lot more dead if we withdraw before the Iraqi people can protect themselves. And a lot more threatened within and outside of its borders if Iraq remains unstable. Why doesn’t the media ever provide this side of the story? Perhaps it’s because that’s not what they want you to focus on since that would promote prolonging the war.
You’d hear about death and destruction because that’s what’s on people’s minds.
Is that what would be on your mind if the media wasn’t covering it? You’d wanna know about death and destruction after hearing about an accident? I know it’s natural for people to rubberneck, but would they really rubberneck if the cars in front of them didn’t slow down?
If you wanna hear about death and destruction, why doesn’t the media talk more about incidents of Muslim Extremism like the British teacher in Sudan who was almost sentenced to 6 months in prison and 40 lashes (Sentence was reducted to only 15 days) for letting one of her students name the classroom teddy bear “Mohammed”, or the Saudi Arabian woman who was gang raped and then sentenced to 6 months in prison and 200 lashes for being in the presence of males who weren’t her relatives, or the 14 year old Iranian boy who died from 85 lashes which was his sentence for eating in public during the holiday of Ramadan.
I think enough has been said about Palin already. Palin’s gaffes are laughable, Maz. She’s a moron. If Biden couldn’t name a newspaper he’d read, or a court decision other than R v. W, or claimed that Obama had introduced reform legislation and then couldn’t name a single instance of such reform legislation, you can bet it would be covered.
I personally didn’t support the Palin pick either, but you don’t see the mass media blowing up Biden’s mistakes for telling a paraplegic to stand up or for his contradicting statements regarding lobbyists or how he said he was running for president or how he referred to his counterpart as the Lieutenant Governor of Alaska.
If you can’t see that, I can only conclude that you’re as dumb as she is.
No need for name calling. I never said I supported Palin. I just find it funny that liberals claim to be so open minded yet are so quick to insult others that disagree with them.
by MAZarate21 on Oct 2, 2008 3:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My point is that in a situation where crap is blowing up, a real unstable place where there are bombings every day, I don’t think it’s a slight on the “liberal” media to cover it first and foremost. I doubt very much that anyone, progressive or reactionary would focus on “the good stuff.”
Actually what I’m amazed at more than anything is how “the liberal media” doesn’t cover much of what’s going on in Iraq at all anymore.
Maz, I’m having a hard time following you. You cited a story that got quite a bit of play in ‘the media’ as an example of something the media should have covered more thoroughly. I didn’t have to look far outside of “the liberal media” to hear about the schoolteacher. How much coverage should it have gotten beyond what it got? How exactly was this story slighted?
You’d also do better to not direct your vitriol at an anonymous group, e.g. “liberals claim to be so open minded yet are quick to insult”. Who exactly is doing this? When someone makes a blanket statement like that ascribing actions to a group to find inconsistencies which are only inconsistent if it’s the same individual who does it, it pulls zero weight.
by jae on Oct 2, 2008 4:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually what I’m amazed at more than anything is how "the liberal media" doesn’t cover much of what’s going on in Iraq at all anymore.
They don’t need to if Obama will provide a parallel path.
Maz, I’m having a hard time following you. You cited a story that got quite a bit of play in ‘the media’ as an example of something the media should have covered more thoroughly. I didn’t have to look far outside of "the liberal media" to hear about the schoolteacher. How much coverage should it have gotten beyond what it got? How exactly was this story slighted?
The teddy bear incident got more publicity then the latter two I cited. Why? What ever happened to the teacher after the sentencing? Did they ever interview her? Did they ever interview the students or their parents?
You’d also do better to not direct your vitriol at an anonymous group, e.g. "liberals claim to be so open minded yet are quick to insult". Who exactly is doing this? When someone makes a blanket statement like that ascribing actions to a group to find inconsistencies which are only inconsistent if it’s the same individual who does it, it pulls zero weight.
I had to read this about 50 times because it sounds so fluffy. I really admire your vast vocabulary but are you saying not all liberals are open minded or that not all liberals are quick to insult? My bad if I made a general statement about liberals by saying they’re quick to insult. You’re right. I shouldn’t make blanket statements on a whole group of people saying they’re quick to insult if I only hear name calling from you. I apologize.
I doubt very much that anyone, progressive or reactionary would focus on "the good stuff."
Now that sure sounds like a blanket statement.
Like many before us, we obviously agree to disagree. Neither is gonna sway the other person’s perspective and although it’s been a very interesting conversation, I do respect your views and opinions…minus the name calling.
by MAZarate21 on Oct 2, 2008 5:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"they" are the same media who focus on the cost of this war and not on the progress we’ve made with the increase in troops.
Where we “they” when Bush was promoting this war? Seems like "they " were in his pocket? Remember follow the money trail. Who profits from slanted news? Right slant or left slant, which is likely to make more money? That’s motive.
We’ve been PAYING the sunnis not to kill our guys, that’s why there is less killing.
If you recall I said I woulda gone over there and PAYED saddam to leave and avoided all the lives wasted to get to the PAYOFF !
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 2, 2008 2:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also
You never know what’s going to happen between now and the time that he was supposed to have those WMDs developed. Maybe he dies or something. There was no need to go to war for something that hadn’t happened yet. Would you kill your six year old brother if you knew he was going to kill someone in 20 years? It’s the same thing. You never know what’s going to happen until it happens. If the U.S. waited, they would have had the support of all – if there was actual proof of the WMDs that is. Then, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.
Member of the "Stop calling him Beans" movement
by StSaints408 on Oct 1, 2008 5:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
oh
so we should just sit back and hope all the evil people in the world help us out and die of natural causes in a most expediant manner. Would I kill my six year old brother if I knew he was gonna kill someone in 20 years? No. But if I had a 65 year old brother and knew he had already slaughtered thousands and was seeking to slaughter thousands of others…..then I would probably want to capture him and put him on trial for his crimes…and then yes, put him to death. I’d say thats a little bit more of the same thing. Unless you really think Saddam was something of an innocent 6 year old boy…..then we have bigger problems. The idea of the U.S. involving itself in a preemptive war is something which has made me very very uncomfortable and is why I dont think we should have rushed into Iraq. That doesnt mean I oppose the war completely, and it certainly doesnt mean I wish Saddam was still in power. However, I think in todays world where it seems nations are very unlikely to ever fight other nations ever again, and traditional warfare between two militaries is completely dead preemptive war may be an unfortuante necessity.
by sam23 on Oct 1, 2008 8:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
in a world
with Burma’s, Sudan’s, etc. I think maybe we could find some more dictators who are just as deserving as Saddam (if not more?) for capture, a quick little trial, and death sentence (just don’t tell jae)… unless of course you think that the oil might have had something to do with the decision, or the proximity to Iran, or Israel, or Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or even the attempt on W’s father … We did not go into Iraq because Saddam was a bad guy, regardless of how you feel about what he did to the Kurds ‘cause that sort of thing has been happening before, during, and since and we haven’t done jack about it … the case that we went into Iraq because he might be a worse guy in the future with WMDs is weakened severely because Saddam did agree to let UN weapons inspectors back into Iraq immediately prior to the war – which we ignored. We do know he used them against Iran in the 1980s though – ’cause we helped Iraq obtain them through third party countries and used Amerian satelite technology to help Iraq aim them at the Iranian boys massing on the border.
and Russia just invaded Georgia using it’s conventional military might, so ya, nations are still fighting wars the “traditional” way when it suits them (kinda like we did in Iraq?)
by hardcore on Oct 1, 2008 9:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed.
A lot of different countries could have used the help. One of which was Sudan-anyone know who Omar al-Bashir is?-, another by the name of Zimbabwe- the name Robert Mugabe ring a bell?- and a little-known place called Myanmar. Sudan has been in this kind of state for a long time now. The army just goes to villages and takes slaves for mines, rapes the women, and kills anyone leftover. Some of those people don’t even get to go to the mines, the entire village is just brutally murdered.
Member of the "Stop calling him Beans" movement
by StSaints408 on Oct 1, 2008 9:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ah
the good ol’ “theres lots of very bad people in the world, so no point in taking one of them out” argument. Eerily similar to the “drilling offshore wont make any impact on gas prices for 10 years so theres no point in doing it at all, or if we are gonna do it, we should drill so far out that we cant actually get any oil,” argument. Clever, you really leave me with no counter-punch. Well played sir.
by sam23 on Oct 2, 2008 2:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
sam
there’s plenty there for you to counter if you chose to put the thought into it without trying to put words in my mouth about drilling offshore – which, you kind of convinced me on since it won’t make any difference (positive ones that is)
anyway, counter punch away – I’m not smart enough to paint anyone into a corner (but petty enough to draw your attention to the Dan Dickau signing!)
by hardcore on Oct 2, 2008 5:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
no man
I wasnt trying to say you felt one way or another about drilling, just saying the arguments, which are both common democratic talking points, are similarly ridiculous
by sam23 on Oct 2, 2008 6:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
as a pro-choice voter
I hardly qualify as a “common democrat” (see the exchange with Skeptic)
perhaps we all stereotype partisan points too often, but we’re also better off addressing the specific points raised in the thread rather than inserting the partisan talking points
by hardcore on Oct 2, 2008 6:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
again
I wasnt trying to share the exact views of someone on MSNBC, I was just pointing out that both arguments ignore the obvious.
by sam23 on Oct 2, 2008 7:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
disappointed in ya Sam
why dodge the specifics? take the challenge – where someone’s wrong point it out with your evidence or refute mine, there’s plenty of legit points for you to challenge on the merits – oil? geopolitical location? UN inspectors? hell, uniforms? Take your pick – pick one/some out rather than lumping them together as ridiculous or obvious without addressing a single one directly
- simply dodging the issues isn’t gaining any one anything …
by hardcore on Oct 2, 2008 9:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
wait...what?
the specifics of what argument? I’m not dodging anything, because you havent said anything.
by sam23 on Oct 3, 2008 12:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
with all these sub threads stuck over on the right like this it’s easy to lose track – just use the little blue “up” button to follow along and look back at all the arguments
by hardcore on Oct 3, 2008 8:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A lot of different countries could have used the help. One of which was Sudan
Bingo! and why dint we help them if we are so idealistic? cause there was no money in it. War against a poor country with no resources had little payoff for the fatcats who bankrolled the bush/cheney machine. If guys like Sam would learn to read the money trail it would make these discussions a lot easier, we keep getting distracted by rhetoric. They can bullshit us all they want but they can’t hide from the numerical facts.Talk is cheap buy War is expensive.
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 2, 2008 7:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and Russia just invaded Georgia using it’s conventional military might, so ya, nations are still fighting wars the "traditional" way when it suits them (kinda like we did in Iraq?)
Really? Two uniformed armies engaged in combat against one another? NO. Traditional warfare isnt one sided. The dramatically different military strengths of nations around the world as well as mutual assured destruction among the more powerful ensures that we are very unlikely to see conventional warfare again.
by sam23 on Oct 2, 2008 2:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
actually, ya pretty sure
the Georgian military was in uniforms when they at least attempted to defend the northern border and retreated when they were obviously outmatched by the uniformed Russian military
and the Iraqis shed their uniforms at just about the same time our uniformed forces had them pinned …
Sri Lankan civil war has been waging for quite some time, in uniform
War in Kashmir has been fought by uniformed soldiers
Undeclared civil war in Columbia’s mountains is being fought by uniformed soldiers
shall I go on?
by hardcore on Oct 2, 2008 5:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Saddam had no weapons
That’s all there is to it. He had no weapons and no president should be dumb enough to go to war for something that might happen in the future. Keyword=might. Nobody is sure that he was going to actually get WMDs anyways, that was just assumption.
Member of the "Stop calling him Beans" movement
by StSaints408 on Oct 1, 2008 9:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah, but we had an epically dumb president, one almost as dumb and loose with the truth as the present-day vice president nominee for his party.
by jae on Oct 1, 2008 10:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
havent seen one of you
even attempt to address
1. the fact that Saddam’s #3 man admits there were indeed WMD’s which he personally arranged to have sent to Syria immediately before the invasion.
2. the fact that Saddam clearly wanted the world to believe that he did have WMD’s by intentionally not complying fully with UN inspectors.
But hey, if CNN says there were no weapons and the whole thing was a made up oil war then it must be true. I bet Sada just made that all up to impress some chicks at a bar or something. …..Or maybe Cheney personally locked Sada up at Guantanamo and waterboarded him into admitting that, right? Look I’m not denying that Bush gave the country a push into the war, and I dont think thats at all excusable. I certainly do think we should have weighed the options first. Clearly we couldve used the time to weigh our options, train and prepare the troops for the type of enviornment theyd be faced with, gather information, find a general worthy of overseeing the mission and listened to some of our more knowledgeable military minds like saaaay……oh I dont know….John McCain?, about what the most successful strategy would be. We rushed in, but that doesnt mean the whole war is worthless. We tend to gloss over the ideas that maybe its not such a bad idea that Iraq is now a imperfect, but fledgling democracy not led by a genocidal maniac with a hardon for destroying our way of life in our rush to dig up reasons to hate “epically dumb president” and blame all our problems on him.
by sam23 on Oct 2, 2008 2:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
some of our more knowledgeable military minds like saaaay……oh I dont know….John McCain?, about what the most successful strategy would be.
Apparently it’s crash the plane and hunker down it in a box till the war is over then come home and tell us how to live?
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 2, 2008 7:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yea
nevermind his years at the naval academy, lifetime studying military strategy and many years as an officer studying tactics and strategy….. all he knows how to do is be a POW and “hunker down in a box.” Nevermind that he had the right strategy from the start. C’mon dude, thats just ignorant.
by sam23 on Oct 2, 2008 9:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I’d disagree that he had the right strategy from the start. I think the right strategy would have been to avoid the conflict altogether.
Why did Saddam present himself as if he might be hiding something? Because he was a two bit dictator who was flexing his muscle to impress and scare his people. No, he wasn’t a nice guy at all, but he also wasn’t much of a threat to us. His WMD “programs” did appear to be in the toilet, unable to get off the ground because sanctions had worked. His strength was like the golden fixtures around his palace, a facade of gold paint over tin and aluminum.
Is Georges Sada a trustworthy source? Hard to say. Why would he lie about the weapons (if we can in fact call passing on second hand information lying or telling the truth)? Perhaps it to gain as much favor with the US as possible, which seems to have been exactly what happened. I haven’t read his book, but what I can find on line doesn’t suggest that he “personally signed the order” to ship something to Syria, but rather that he knew the pilots and trusts them. So we’re getting his report of second hand information. This doesn’t validate it OR invalidate it. Sam, if you have a real reference to where he ‘signed the order’ I’d love to see it, but this doesn’t seem to fit with the rest of what I’ve seen, including that he said he was jailed in ‘01 by Hussein for refusing to carry out orders to kill prisoners. It seems unlikely that a once jailed retired general, jailed for refusing to follow orders, would ’sign the order’ for something so important.
I’ve using the word something in place of ‘WMD’ because it’s more accurate at this point. WMD itself is a nebulous term that appears to be a creation of hysteria rather than something that helps us know what’s going on. We’ve certainly entered an age when buzzwords replace thinking for so many. The repeated use of the term “WMD” alone becomes a loaded cop out that doesn’t do us any service. Are we talking nuclear weapons (G. Sada said no and there’s no evidence otherwise)? Are we talking biological agents? Chemical weapons? Really big conventional explosives? Not that I want a totalitarian strongman running around with any but in termsn of the military threat, especially to the US, there’s a big difference between Hussein having mustard gas. Putting them under the same umbrella does us no good, but the repeated use of this new language favors fear by allowing us to think nuclear arsenal when reality is far, far, far less dangerous.
by jae on Oct 2, 2008 9:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
a real reference
its his BOOK. Like I said once or twice before. Nuclear weapons arent WMD’s jae, nobody has ever defined them as such. Too different things, always have been. If you were confused and thought WMD might mean nukes, thats your own fault. Biological and chemical agents are NOT a military threat to the US? Dude, you need to brush up on the capabilities of these weapons before you make a statement like that.
by sam23 on Oct 2, 2008 6:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
WHAT?!
Sam, c’mon man. Withdraw that comment now and try to save whatever shred of credibility you might have left afterward! You’ve been a worthy defender of your side’s views on many occasions, but to claim nukes are not WMDs is simply, well, Palinesque.
Since Wikipedia has been embraced by this site, I’ll defer to their definition:
A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a weapon which can kill large numbers of humans and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere in general. The term covers several weapon types, including nuclear, biological, chemical (NBC), and radiological weapons.
by hardcore on Oct 2, 2008 6:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
misunderstood
dude OBVIOUSLY nukes cause mass destruction, but in no way was it ever implied that Saddam had nuclear weapons. Weapons of mass destruction encompasses many types of weapons. Most often Nukes are put into their own category. If we’re afraid of a country or organization obtaining nukes, we dont say we think they may be developing WMD’s, we simply say nukes. If jae or anyone believed the government was attempting to say that Iraq had nuclear weapons, its no one’s fault but their own.
by sam23 on Oct 2, 2008 6:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
in Oct 2002 your President said:
The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime’s own actions — its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.
You said:
If jae or anyone believed the government was attempting to say that Iraq had nuclear weapons, its no one’s fault but their own.
If we citizens are at fault for anything, it was for electing and then believing this administration.
Yup, our own fault.
by hardcore on Oct 3, 2008 6:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
weak
Sam, guess how many times Bush used the term nuclear in that one speech – 5? 9? 13? 18? 20?!
Yup, twenty times. This government hyped the nuclear threat purposefully with every intent of selling the US citizenry on the Iraqi nuclear threat. He didn’t hype chemical weapons, didn’t hype biological weapons. And it turns out even you must admit that there were not any in Iraq.
Syria? ya, c’mon. Do you think for one second that Bush wouldn’t attack Syria if it had nukes? Syrians actually do support terrorists unlike Iraq. If Syria had nukes and we aren’t going there in force, Bush is the biggest hypocrite in the world.
No. This time you’ve painted yourself into the corner all by yourself. Either the nukes are in Syria, theoretically available to be spread to terrorists and Bush is doing nothing about it – OR – the whole Syria line is a diversion away from reality and has zero bearing on the argument. Either way, you’re the one who has put yourself in the hole.
by hardcore on Oct 3, 2008 8:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
what?
nonsensical. reread my post and try again.
by sam23 on Oct 3, 2008 9:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
respecting your right to refuse to engage
the issues when raised specifically and repeatedly – I’ll leave the field to you …
by hardcore on Oct 3, 2008 9:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
what issues
am I refusing to engage? specifically? I’m more than happy to respond, but the problem is I already did. I encourage you to go back and reread
by sam23 on Oct 4, 2008 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
gee, I'm so sorry Sam
let me help you
You refuse to admit you were wrong about WMDs and nukes, claiming to be misunderstood
You refuse to admit Bush sold the Iraq war by hyping up a non-existent nuclear and WMD threat, then you hide behind some kind of trumped up explanation that they might have been shipped to Syria and pursing words like "seeking" to ridiculous extremes – I dare you, DARE you to go back and re-read his speech and try to convince yourself he was not selling the war on a fear of Iraqi’s nuclear capabilities.
Then you refuse to admit that if Iraqi WMDs are in Syria then the Bush admin is hypocritical for not doing anything about it
You bring up the issue of "uniformed" militaries facing one another, and then simply ignore the reality that you are wrong when presented with the evidence to the contrary
When you can’t think of a response you whine that I left you no counter punch and then create a new area to misrepresent my views, meanwhile ignoring the arguments about oil, geopolitical locations, or even the assassination attempt on W’s father because they don’t suit your viewpoint
You over-generalize and misrepresent when you argue about "so we should just sit back and hope all the evil people in the world help us out and die of natural …" and trump up imaginary scenarios where you imagine killing members of your own family …
come to think of it, I’m not professionally qualified to help you there
at least you know I read your posts, and re-read them for you… personally I tire of your misrepresentations, misdirecting tactics, and mistaken claims about the Iraq War in particular because my classmate died for the neocon liars and thieves behind Halliburton, Blackwater, and the DOD and anyone who makes excuses and misrepresentations in that arena draws a bit of ire
When this country goes to war, I demand it is for the right reasons and then done in the right way – we agree on Colin Powell it would seem, and not much else. Let’s just leave it there.
by hardcore on Oct 4, 2008 1:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
(sigh) from the top
You refuse to admit you were wrong about WMDs and nukes, claiming to be misunderstood
-AGAIN-obviously nukes would technically be classified as WMDs because they are capable of mass destruction. However because of their unique power of destruction they fall under their own sub category and you will never hear a military or political leader refer to WMDs when he means nuclear weapons. He/she would simply say nuclear weapons. My first post was a bit vague and didnt really convey the point all that well, but I’m pretty sure its been clear since then.
let me help you
You refuse to admit you were wrong about WMDs and nukes, claiming to be misunderstood
You refuse to admit Bush sold the Iraq war by hyping up a non-existent nuclear and WMD threat, then you hide behind some kind of trumped up explanation that they might have been shipped to Syria and pursing words like “seeking” to ridiculous extremes – I dare you, DARE you to go back and re-read his speech and try to convince yourself he was not selling the war on a fear of Iraqi’s nuclear capabilities.
-I have yet to refute that Bush pushed us into the war a bit prematurely. However, there was substantial evidence that Iraq did have WMDs (chemical and biological not nuclear) Its unknown whether the Syrian government knowingly accepted the weapons shipments if they existed. I’m not saying the weapons were or were not shipped there, just that its very possible and its something that is completely ignored by the national media and the majority of Bush haters. I went back and re-read the majority of Bush’s speech and find no place where he says Iraq HAS nuclear capabilities, only that they were seeking them. Do you dispute that?
You bring up the issue of “uniformed” militaries facing one another, and then simply ignore the reality that you are wrong when presented with the evidence to the contrary
Two uniformed militaries engaged in traditional warfare. Show em to me. Georgia and Russia may get there, but its not there yet, and personally I think its extremely unlikely that they will.
You over-generalize and misrepresent when you argue about “so we should just sit back and hope all the evil people in the world help us out and die of natural …” and trump up imaginary scenarios where you imagine killing members of your own family …
The argument presented was that Saddam may have just died on his own before he obtained the power to hurt us. How the hell am I supposed to interpret that? If you had reread my posts you would also see I was not the one who made the analogy to killing a member of your own family, I simply responded to it by putting it in a more accurate context.
by sam23 on Oct 4, 2008 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Since you seem to have some deference to the military types on such matters, I’ll go wit the Dept. of Defense’s Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms (http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/new_pubs/jp1_02.pdf) definition:
weapons of mass destruction — Weapons that are capable of a high order of destruction
and/or of being used in such a manner as to destroy large numbers of people. Weapons
of mass destruction can be high-yield explosives or nuclear, biological, chemical, or
radiological weapons, but exclude the means of transporting or propelling the weapon
where such means is a separable and divisible part of the weapon. Also called WMD.
See also destruction; special operations. (JP 3-28)
I’m not sure who the “we” you’re referring to are Sam, but you’re not citing a universal by any stretch. Looks like the brass are ok with the term as an umbrella.
As for what the d#4kheads in the current administration meant by the term, Bush and his dweebs quite clearly mentioned a nuclear threat from Iraq.
by jae on Oct 3, 2008 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
like I said before
by satandard definitions nukes DO fall under the umbrella definition of WMD’s. Anyone can pretty much figure as much given the name. However, I again have to point out that though all WMDs are capable of causing catastrophic damage, nukes are on an entirely higher level. Thus most political leaders and military leaders will actually say nuclear weapons when they mean nuclear weapons. If Bush had believed or wanted you to believe that Iraq had nukes, he woulda said something like “Iraq has nukes.” Its a difficult concept, try to keep up. Also, a nuclear threat does not mean they HAVE nuclear weapons. Hardcore pretty much saved me the time I would have spent looking for the quote…they are SEEKING nuclear weapons. Do you dispute that?
by sam23 on Oct 3, 2008 7:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here’s your exact words, Sammy.
Like I said once or twice before. Nuclear weapons arent WMD’s
“Nuclear weapons aren’t WMD’s.” Your exact words. In light of the Dept of Defense’s definition, would you like to revise your answer?
[Yes, I know you tried to change the subject by asking me a different question. You’re also free to admit that you’re just not all that careful in the way you express yourself with prose, that you didn’t actually mean the words you typed, but given that all we have here is prose, I will continue to believe that what you write is what you mean.]
by jae on Oct 3, 2008 10:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’ll take your silence to mean that you realize you were either wrong or incompetent in your ability to actually express what you mean.
by jae on Oct 4, 2008 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
just wish they'd've listened to Colin Powell
by hardcore on Oct 2, 2008 5:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
colin powell
yea thats true, he’s a good man and a great military strategist. woulda been a great candidate we all (or at least most of us) probably couldve agreed upon if he had any interest in running.
by sam23 on Oct 2, 2008 6:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Okay,
If Syria doesn’t have them, and Iraq didn’t have them, where in the world are they? Looks like a case for Scooby Doo.
Member of the "Stop calling him Beans" movement
by StSaints408 on Oct 2, 2008 5:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Syria doesn’t have them, and Iraq didn’t have them, where in the world are they?
I guess the neocons will wanta kill some Syrians just in case? Is there any oil money there? Must not be much cause I haven’t heard of any line at the hog trough.
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 2, 2008 5:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe they'll find nukes
in Saudi Arabia, then we can go to war with them. Maybe they’ll find nukes in the UAE so we could take over Dubai.
Member of the "Stop calling him Beans" movement
by StSaints408 on Oct 2, 2008 6:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
a helpful link
Colonel Pat Lang has a blog I frequent only slightly less frequently than GSOM. Sic Semper Tyrannis is his site, dedicated to rescuing this country from the madness of its current wars.
Lang was a Green Beret in Vietnam, DIA in the 70’s, and founded West Point’s Arabic Language Program. In the run-up to the Iraq War he was brought in to the White House, where he had been a regular for years, to discuss the upcoming invasion. He told them what a catastrophic mistake it would be. They sidelined him.
Col. Lang’s blog is notable also for the quality of its comments from both domestic and international serving and retired defense officials, diplomats, and academics. They’ll be happy to give you a REAL education in the crises we face regarding the Middle East and Islamic extremism. Lang is not a Democrat, yet he is backing Obama. He argues convincingly that McCain is too dangerous.
Go ahead and try posting half the comments on that site you’ve seen fit to share with us here on this basketball blog, Sam. I would relish the Colonel’s reaction.
by Ormolov on Sep 30, 2008 9:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
interesting
thanks for the link. Found a whole host of issues where I think the colonel is just flat out wrong, but it makes for a good read.
by sam23 on Oct 2, 2008 9:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not talking about the extremisits
The main point of my statement was the war between Isreal and Palestine. The people of Palestine are fighting for the land that was theirs until WWII when everyone decided to just give the Jews the land that belonged to the Palestinian people. The Palestinians are fighting to get their land back because the Israelis don’t even want to share. And not every conflict involves us. I’m pretty sure Ahmedinijad never threatened the U.S. directly. I may be wrong about that though.
Member of the "Stop calling him Beans" movement
by StSaints408 on Sep 30, 2008 2:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
nice signature!
+123419073489723
the stop calling him "beans" movement
by pervisNeverNervous on Oct 1, 2008 9:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you.
Member of the "Stop calling him Beans" movement
by StSaints408 on Oct 2, 2008 6:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You don’t have to be a Jew to live in Israel. Say Israeli, not Jew.
by belilaugh on Oct 1, 2008 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
hmm, ya = the good old days when we didn't use war to endanger others
you know, like the -
War of 1812 intending to expand west and North?
the various wars vs. Native American Nations to take their land in the 1800s?
Mexican – American War to capture the southwest and west coast?
Andrew Jackson inspired Wars vs the Seminole to grab Florida from Spain?
Spanish-American-Cuban-Filippino War after which we controlled Guam, and Puerto Rico as well as Cuba and the Philippines?
Hawaii – when American businessmen fomented a white rebellion against the indigenous Hawaiians prior to annexation?
Panamanian Revolution vs. Columbia to gain access to the canal zone?
Except for those, ya – we were only involved in stuff that wasn’t a danger to others … sorry StSaints408, not trying to be sarcastic it just comes naturally when it comes to citing historical evidence
by hardcore on Sep 30, 2008 9:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
1812 is a push
not to throw my hat in the ring for all out aggression or even half-assed aggression, but the war of 1812 had many causes, namely a British blockade preventing the US from trading w/ Napoleon’s France.
causes
the stop calling him "beans" movement
by pervisNeverNervous on Oct 1, 2008 9:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not feeding propaganda about the "enemy"
It’s true that they disprove of our israeli support because Israel is a jewish country and not one of them, but that’s not the only reason why they hate us so much. 9/11 wasn’t an act of war, but a fantasy ideal used to make a statement about their beliefs.
Read the Art of War by Sun Tzu and you’ll know that in order to defeat the enemy you must understand what they’re strengths, weaknesses, motives, etc are. Read Civilization and Its Enemies: The Next Stage of History by Lee Harris and you’ll get a better idea of how they perceive us and why military force is the only way to deal with an enemy that lacks reason.
If there’s any issue about propaganda, it’s obviously how our liberal media portrays only the negative aspects of this war in the same way they did about Vietnam.
by MAZarate21 on Sep 29, 2008 5:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
military force is the only way to deal with an enemy that lacks reason.
You mean we’re gonna hafta invade Alakska?
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 29, 2008 7:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i'd love to know the positive aspects of the vietnam war
the stop calling him "beans" movement
by pervisNeverNervous on Sep 30, 2008 3:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the positive aspects of the vietnam war
The only thing I can think of is it caused us to question the motives of our leaders? Perhaps it expanded the minds of our young ? and it might have gotten Vietnam on track to become a modern nation? The needless deaths certainly overshadowed any good that came from it though.
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 30, 2008 8:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
hippies, ya mean?
and strong blotter acid?
j/k
the sheer amount of destruction, war crimes and mayhem we caused is probably beyond measure. not saying the VC were saints… MAZ insinuating that the Vietnam war had any positive outcome with that in mind is just ridiculous.
the stop calling him "beans" movement
by pervisNeverNervous on Oct 1, 2008 9:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ridiculous?
Helping South Vietnam who were invaded by the NVA was ridiculous?
Preventing further invasians into South Korea and Laos was ridiculous?
Draining the USSRs economy and leading to their subsequent collapse was ridiculous?
Not to mention the techonological advances in body armor and communications such as portable phones.
I compared the liberal media in both wars because the media plays a huge role in swaying the average citizens judgement. Had the media during the vietnam war not been so negative, our decision makers influenced by public outcry would’ve been less reluctant to veto the bombing of vietnamese ports preventing further aid from the USSR. Without the USSR, Vietnam would be a liberated country today.
by MAZarate21 on Oct 1, 2008 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Invasians"
Not sure if that was meant to be a pun, but if it was it’s a damn good one… ;-)
Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Oct 1, 2008 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
where are the positives?
If there’s any issue about propaganda, it’s obviously how our liberal media portrays only the negative aspects of this war in the same way they did about Vietnam.
there were no positive aspects to the vietnam war. it was a war in which tens of thousands were killed for NO REASON, a war that introduced us to the JOYS of agent orange, napalm, jungle defoliants, guerrilla warfare, the Hanoi Hilton…
please provide a positive aspect of this war. not your own version of propaganda.
the stop calling him "beans" movement
by pervisNeverNervous on Oct 1, 2008 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Haven't you seen Forrest Gump?
There’s that scene where he saved Lietenant Dan.
by MAZarate21 on Oct 1, 2008 5:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
the stop calling him "beans" movement
by pervisNeverNervous on Oct 2, 2008 4:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you
for saying extremists, and not Muslims. Shows how you aren’t ignorant.
Member of the "Stop calling him Beans" movement
by StSaints408 on Sep 29, 2008 4:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeeeeaa.... no.
gonna have to strongly disagree with that. Youre reeeeaaally reaching there.
by sam23 on Sep 29, 2008 5:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey what happened?
Nobody told me we moved the party in here! I was still waiting for Sam to respond to me in the other thread. Haha. Oh well, maybe I’ll repost in here later and re-spark the debate about Iraq.
"...OlympicMike is clearly the Barack Obama of GSoM"-Sleepy
by olympicmike on Sep 29, 2008 12:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
i thought the title of this post,
was pretty self explanatory, come on mike : )
63, rest in peace man
by autumnwind on Sep 29, 2008 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Haha
Yeah, I guess I need to pay more attention… lol.
"...OlympicMike is clearly the Barack Obama of GSoM"-Sleepy
by olympicmike on Sep 29, 2008 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Abortions
Does anyone want to voice their opinions on abortions? Should it be legal to have abortions in all the states? When is it too late to have one? Is it considered murder? What scenarios should be allowed to have an abortion (raped, or baby has a deadly illness)?
If I am wrong i will respond with a D'Oh
by StephenO4 on Sep 29, 2008 12:48 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
There are only two moments where one can reasonably say life begins: the moment of conception or the moment of birth. Any point chosen in between those two is completely arbitrary. I think if abortions are legal, they should be legal right up til the day a woman goes into labor. And as I mentioned above when talking about Ron Paul, the decision to allow, regulate, or ban abortions should be left up to the states.
That said, I think abortion is awful, murder. There are probably situations where it should be allowed, but I personally could not accept that in my own life (I admit I’d not make a good legislator).
by deff bridges on Sep 29, 2008 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Arbitrary"
With C-sections and increasing medical ability to keep premature babies alive, you could also say that the moment of birth is pretty arbitrary.
And with in-vitro fertilization you could say conception is pretty arbitrary.
Then again, sometimes there ain’t nothing wrong with arbitrary. It implies an arbiter, or a reasonable compromise among reasonable human beings who agree to disagree to reasonably. This is exactly what Roe v. Wade is.
Personally, I half-agree with my old Berkeley pal Celia, a sweetheat and loving mom who used to say, “I think women shopld be allowed to kill their kids up till the age of 13…” XD
Or at least I think women should be allowed to make these decisions about their bodies for themselves, without interference from old, crotchety, religiously fanatical, sexually frustrated men.
Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 29, 2008 1:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Moment it is out of the womb?
I’m not finding the right words, but maybe that’s clearer.
In-vitro fertilization is still conception, is it not? The method of conception and method of birth do not sufficiently change what those events are.
I didn’t make the argument (at least, I didn’t mean to) that no decision should be made regarding when abortions can and cannot be had during pregnancy. In my personal opinion, I think there should be no distinction between 2 months in and 8.9 months, but like I said — I know that I shouldn’t be in charge of that decision. As long as you say the decision is in fact arbitrary, you and I are in agreement and both of our opinions are valid.
I have a problem with the whole “woman’s body” thing. I admit my position on this is directly derived from my belief that life begins at conception, but I argue that upon conception, it’s no longer a single, woman’s body that she should have total control over. People need to understand the possible consequences of their actions — and hell, in a screwed up way (and very screwed up mental image), I wish men carried babies…that way I’d get to decide what happens to the fetus I’m half-responsible for creating.
And by the way, I’m not old, crotchety or sexually frustrated, and my beliefs and opinions have nothing to do with any religious fanaticism, or any religious doctrine at all.
by deff bridges on Sep 29, 2008 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
after
looking up the definitions of “crotchety” and “sexually” I should correct myself and say that I am most certainly both.
by deff bridges on Sep 29, 2008 2:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
just curious...
my beliefs and opinions have nothing to do with any religious fanaticism, or any religious doctrine at all.
Then where do they come from?
John 8:44 -Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.
by triplesix on Sep 29, 2008 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why
would I have to subscribe to some religious belief in order to say life begins at conception? Life has to begin sometime…I see the only reasonable options as conception or birth.
I don’t see why religion has to come up at all.
by deff bridges on Sep 29, 2008 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
just curious...
you are the one that brought it up.
John 8:44 -Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.
by triplesix on Sep 29, 2008 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nah
my comment was in response to Sleepy Freud’s mention of “religiously fanatical” men.
by deff bridges on Sep 29, 2008 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Life began long before conception. Conception is the moment when that life once again becomes diploid, but those gametes were very much alive prior to this.
by jae on Sep 29, 2008 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Using that logic -
then every sperm cell is a life and millions are murdered during every ejaculation.
by Run DNC on Oct 2, 2008 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Indeed
And every time I commit such a genocide, I weep. ;-(
Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Oct 2, 2008 2:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
every time I commit such a genocide, I weep.
I fall asleep and hope she cooks me breakfast.
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 2, 2008 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your hand?
Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Oct 2, 2008 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your hand?
No, that cheap bastard would probably give me cold cereal.
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 2, 2008 7:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
From any reasonable biological definition of life, gametes are ‘alive’. But ending life does not mean murder.
by jae on Oct 2, 2008 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yea thats kinda
where I’m currently leaning. I’m not at all religious, but I cant really grasp that a woman’s body when she’s pregnant is JUST the woman’s body. I’m really enjoying this debate, you and Sleepy both present well organized arguments, and I constantly go back and forth on the issue. A few months ago I was strongly pro-life but I’d say I’m pretty firmly back in the pro-life camp again……anybody seen that episode of Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia where the guy crosses back and forth between the two sides at an abortion protest based on which side had the hotter girls? Thats what I feel like but I’m choosing between Deff and Sleepy.
by sam23 on Sep 29, 2008 5:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
but I cant really grasp that a woman’s body when she’s pregnant is JUST the woman’s body.
What you need to grasp it’s none of your business. If you are a woman and get pregnant then it’s something you should worry about otherwise you are a tyrant.
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 29, 2008 8:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
tyrant
are we tyrants for having laws forbidding us from murdering others?
by sam23 on Sep 29, 2008 8:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
are we tyrants for having laws forbidding us from murdering others?
No, for snooping in other womens bodies. it’s not such a hard concept.
Do you want to make people “deliver” cancers too?
Can’t you stand letting people make their own medical decisions without consulting you? What the hell did you go fight for if not freedom? or was it just your specific freedoms you are interested in?
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 29, 2008 9:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You sir,
simply cannot understand the belief that “medical decision” does not encompass all aspects of the issue.
by deff bridges on Sep 29, 2008 9:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Like I said before I’m not really positive where I come out on abortion, I go back and forth and a couple months ago I was probably more pro-choice than pro-life, now I think I’m leaning toward pro-life. But, seriously, can you really not even see the pro-life side? Letting it be a state decided issue is the only real solution I can think of.
by sam23 on Sep 30, 2008 1:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But, seriously, can you really not even see the pro-life side?
Of course I can see it. The pro-lifers want to control other womens bodies , the pro-choicers want to let each make their own decision. Pretty hard not to recognize which is correct for a free country?
You gotta eliminate all the stuff that doesn’t apply in a free country such as religion, desire for children to adopt, boost to economy, etc. and just base it on medical privacy and right to control our own health.
The pro-lifers don’t loose anything other than their undeserved tyranny if we have free choice. It’s worked fine since RoeV.Wade. Why go back to a more ignorant time? Knowledge is something to cherish and apply to make our lives better, we can’t let religious zealots hold us all hostage to their self righteous delusions .
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 30, 2008 9:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
do you really think?
the majortiy of pro-lifers simply want to “control women’s bodies”? do you think thats what its all about?
by sam23 on Sep 30, 2008 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I do.
I think the whole “Pro-Life” movement is about 50% about wanting to punish young women for having sex.
25% is a zealous, pseudo-Christian worship of the fetus as a symbol of purity and virtue, diametrically opposed of the fallen whore of a mother.
25% is about being skeeved out by women’s bodies, menses, reproductive organs, etc.
The remainder is probably a genuine concern for the “sanctity of life.”
Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 30, 2008 12:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Iran wasn’t part of his country during the iran-iraq war and neither is Kuwait when he invaded them.
Hi Sam, It doesn’t matter why they think that way, what matters is the outcome. They are willing to pass a law restricting a medical procedure that some people want available. They want to make everyone subscribe to their beliefs instead of respecting the rights of others. A free society cannot survive if we tolerate that kind of dogma.
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 30, 2008 3:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I might agree, if
if you told me you held your child minutes after it was born and still felt that way
if we offered women unfettered access to birth control the way insurance companies connive at the sale of viagra (let’s get rid of the Xtian argument right away)
if we offered women medical guidance during pregnancy, safety from being fired or kicked out of school for being pregnant, and gave them an assurance that the adopters of their child was a capable parent-to-be (getting rid of the economic and social excuses)
then, if women still wanted an abortion and it was denied then maybe I’d agree someone is trying to control their bodies but then again …
… also, not all knowledge is a good thing, atomic bombs ?
how I wish Richardson or another pro-life yet moderate democrat had risen to prominence in the primaries
the fetus is alive Skeptic, it has a heart beat. Put your hand over your chest – it beats. It has a brain wave, put … ah never mind, you get the point.
I am not a zealot Xtian or interested in controlling women’s bodies, I just think if we gave women better options the “choice” would be far less sinister for the fetus’ sake
by hardcore on Sep 30, 2008 9:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I might agree, if?
Why should my feelings for my child give me the right to tell someone else how they should treat their body? It’s two completely separate issues. What’s right for me or for you doesn’t have to be right for everyone, that’s what makes us free.
Of course women should have unfettered access to birth control, sex education, and counseling, but the choice is still theirs to make. If all else fails an abortion is a simple proven procedure that might be right for them ,it’s not our place to decide that. They should not have to explain their actions to us.
Medical procedures should be the private matters between women and their health providers, it’s no one else’s business. If the religious zealots understood this basic tenet of freedom we wouldn’t need to have this discussion. I really think the meddlers should move to a foreign dictatorship if they can’t appreciate individual freedoms , they can align themselves with the tyrant and go around checking wombs all day long if that’s what makes them happy. I really don’t think these type of people deserve to live in a free society.
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 30, 2008 9:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it’s not that I don’t see your point Skeptic, I do – women should have control over their own bodies, and government should not legislate what we do with our person. I get it, and I’m not a religious zealot, and we DO need to have this discussion and it doesn’t have to do with meddlers moving to a fascist state elsewhere.
Meddlers like the Quakers stood up against slavery. At the time they weren’t considered human beings with rights. Was it right?
Meddlers stood up for women’s right to vote. At the time they weren’t considered as intellectually capable as men. Was it right?
Meddlers are standing up for people’s right to marry anyone they choose as we speak. Is this right?
These meddlers all deserve to live in a free society, but in my opinion so do the unborn children who are in question. Who stands up for their rights? Who protects their bodies? Their liberties? Meddlers unite!
Decapitation is a simple medical procedure, that doesn’t make it right for one individual to do to another – right? Sarcastic? ya, but come on – just because a medical procedure can be done doesn’t make it morally right. I know I’m taking an extreme example here to make the point that the procedure isn’t the issue. Abortion is not a procedure the way tonsils or an appendix removal is a procedure. We’re not talking about wisdom teeth or tumors. A fetus grows into a human child.
Perhaps you are feeling like I’m picking a fight, I’m not. I don’t expect you to agree, I don’t expect to convince you, I don’t predict Roe will be overturned if Obama is elected, yet I’m gonna vote for him anyway because I’m not a one-issue voter. But just for this one moment I’m following your advice to keep writing. I’m just meddling for that child who can’t protect him or herself. Take the last word, ciou.
by hardcore on Oct 1, 2008 7:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it’s not that I don’t see your point Skeptic, I do – women should have control over their own bodies, and government should not legislate what we do with our person. I get it, and I’m not a religious zealot
Then that’s the end of that.
Palin is free to never be forced to get an abortion and other women are free to never be forced to not get one. sounds pretty simple doesn’t it once we eliminate the religious aspect which has no place in a free society.
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 2, 2008 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
While it seems that it’s almost entirely a religious perspective that wants abortion ended and they repeatedly cite religion in their reason for opposing it, I don’t think that it necessarily requires a religious perspective to oppose it. There is absolutely no evidence that religion is required to motivate the prohibition against murder (there is some evidence that murder. It’s a prohibition that I think we can all agree on and that no one who is not truly sociopathic can dispute. There is a universal recognition across all human societies that taking a human life is wrong.
There is also, across all societies, exceptions indicating when it is acceptable to take a human life and indeed what is regarded as ‘human’ isn’t a universal. (It is not an accident that military conflict brings about rhetoric to characterize the enemy as something less than human, probably because it’s easier to take his life accordingly if there’s a way to subconsciously rationalize that it’s not a human life.) We tend to take it for granted that anyone alive outside of the womb is human but when that thing became human is not an absolute and there’s much wiggle room as to what makes the cell or collection of cells “human”. If you do regard an embryo or fetus as “human”, then one can invoke the societal prohibition on ending a human life without resorting to religious arguments. It’s just usually that the religious arguments come in when deciding when those cells became “human”, something that otherwise is far, far more arbitrary than any would like to admit.
by jae on Oct 2, 2008 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
eliminate the religious aspect?
I guess I shoulda said eliminate the desire to control other people’s private reproductive decisions aspect? Doesn’t really matter if it’s religious based or reasoning based, the real point is it should not be a matter of how we feel about it, it should be a matter of how the individual woman feels about it. They don’t want their genes in the gene pool? No problem for me. I’m also against forced abortions so I’d say I’m quite balanced on the issue.
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 2, 2008 6:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the difference
is one side is worried about the woman who had a choice over her private reproductive decisions at every juncture and ignored the opportunity to control what happens with her body, behavior, choices to use birth control, and as a result has the choice & power to enforce a lethal decision upon the baby
while the other side is worried about the baby who has no choice, who lacks control over her body, her behavior, and no choice but to be impacted by the potentially lethal decisions of others with nothing but a silent scream as it dies by puncture, slicing, scrape, and scalpel
it’s not about religious zealotry, it’s not about punishing a woman for sex, it’s not about reason
it’s about the innocent human being who is being murdered by scalpel
it’s about that human being’s right to life
Skeptic, I keep trying to walk away from this debate with you but you’re pulling a Sam – changing the argument along the way. I will concede to rape and incest, the abuse of a minor, etc. and say those are exceptions.
The innocent have a right to live, if we deny that right what is our society defined by? What rights can we hold more dear?
by hardcore on Oct 3, 2008 8:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
just me
or does it seem like everyone is a little ass-backwards on the issue of abortion. The government hating conservatives want to be able to control what woment do with their bodies, while the life-loving liberals want to kill babies. Its all whacked out. Despite the fact that he took a backhanded shot at me in the middle of an argument with someone else I gotta hand it to Hardcore, he actually seems to be the only one here consistent in his beliefs when it comes to the abortion issue.
by sam23 on Oct 3, 2008 9:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bill Richardson
is pro-life? Weird, I thought he was just a party puppet.
by sam23 on Oct 1, 2008 9:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Personally ...
I don’t believe that abortion should be taken lightly, and I don’t believe that most women who choose to have one do take it lightly (of course there are exceptions). However, everyone’s situation is different and I don’t feel that I as a male have any right to judge what a woman should do if she were faced with a position that required her to consider it.
by Run DNC on Oct 2, 2008 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well
I really meant any kind of men — be they old, crotchety and sexually frustrated, or young , cheerful and sexually satisfied. It’s just that it tends to be the former group that gets their Hanes in a bunch over the issue. (I think hatred of sex is an underrated cause of a lot of Pro-Life hysteria). I’m not sure men should have NO say in the matter, but I think they should have very little. Or to paraphrase the GSoM motto: WHITE MEN STFU!
Point taken about the moment of conception. I do think it’s less of a magical moment than you make it out to be, as there’s a whole process (citing from sex-ed memory) from the moment the sperm finds its way to the egg, till it penetrates, till the fertilized egg makes its way through the fallopian tubes, etc. etc. And what of the magical moment before that when you, er, shoot your stuff? Or the magical moment before that when your heart starts racing and you both know you’re going to do the deed? Heck, that might be the most magical moment of all. Isn’t coitus interruptus, in a sense, murder?
I guess my point is that I totally respect your personal idea of when life “reasonably” begins, but I don’t think you should expect everyone to agree with it. Compromise is the essence of a democratic society. IMO, Roe v. Wade is a totally reasonable compromise; and more importantly, our country right now has much, much, much bigger fish to fry than messing with Roe v. Wade.
Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 29, 2008 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
our country right now has much, much, much bigger fish to fry than messing with Roe v. Wade.
agreed!
by deff bridges on Sep 29, 2008 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I also agree
that we have much bigger issues….but it makes for spirited and usually not hateful debate. Nicely done guys.
by sam23 on Sep 29, 2008 6:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well the real probelm is
Rape.
where do we draw the line, do we force a 16 year old to have a kid if she was raped, and if we make a an exemption for rape how many girls would scream rape everytime they want an abortion!
I think on the stance of abortion we got it right atleast, first term is ok, get the hell out of here second and third.
On a personal level I am totally against abortion at any level, bt politically you got to be willing to make a comprimise that works on all levels…….
63, rest in peace man
by autumnwind on Sep 29, 2008 11:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’ll always support abortion in the case of rape….you bring up an interesting problem that could result from that, but dont think that would be a major issue. Youre right though compromise is essential.to democracy…(somebody whisper that in Speaker Pelosi’s ear) but imo thats all the more reason to make it a state issue. It brings up another set of problems with preganant women travelling to get abortions, but I think it could be done.
by sam23 on Sep 30, 2008 1:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
old, crotchety and sexually frustrated, or young , cheerful and sexually satisfied
Well, I’ve found it only gets better with experience.
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 30, 2008 3:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I personally could not accept that in my own life
And if you leave the state out of it you’ll never hafta give it a thought. You can’t have a free country if you don’t respect the freedom of those with different viewpoints. suppose the tables were turned and the religious wacko’s were trying to ban birth by making abortions mandatory?
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 29, 2008 2:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My World Religion Teacher
Told me a story about how he was driving in carpool with his pregnant wife and highway patrol pulled him over. The patrolman claimed my teacher did not have 3 people in the car, my teacher replied “if i were to crash and my wife died would i be charged with the death of my wife, or charged with my wife and my unborn son?” the police said wife and unborn son. my teacher did not get a ticket.
If I am wrong i will respond with a D'Oh
by StephenO4 on Sep 29, 2008 9:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the police said wife and unborn son. my teacher did not get a ticket.
I’d have said “How do I know she’s not just fat?” Take it up with the judge, Bozo
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 29, 2008 9:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i wasn't there
maybe she looked pregnant after 6 months (i dunno) it might seem obvious?
If I am wrong i will respond with a D'Oh
by StephenO4 on Sep 29, 2008 11:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m at a loss as to why, just by crashing a car he’d be charged with a crime. Not all crashes involve criminal negligence. Sounds suspiciously like apocryphal make believe.
“Let me guess, you want to sell me a ticket to the Policeman’s ball.”
“No, ma’ma, I’m a highway patrolman, and highway patrolmen don’t have balls.”
by jae on Sep 29, 2008 9:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
For what it’s worth: “http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/carpool.asp” At least in CA, the law is pretty clear that fetus doesn’t count as a person in order to use a HOV lane.
by jae on Sep 29, 2008 10:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
guess he lied
not saying D’OH though you know minus saying it there
If I am wrong i will respond with a D'Oh
by StephenO4 on Sep 29, 2008 11:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well I guess,
when they can charge you with killin your unborn child or something like that(see charles manson) than they will tack it on. But when you want to go in the carpool lane, the laws should be clearly defined and people should have to adhere to them.. The guy should have gotten a warning at the least and possibly a ticket and an explantion why he was….
63, rest in peace man
by autumnwind on Sep 29, 2008 11:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
women
should always be allowed to abort unwanted pregnancies – before they become unwanted children…that which personality disorders are spawned from.
John 8:44 -Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.
by triplesix on Sep 29, 2008 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can we talk about prop 8 for a second?
Prop 8 wants to amend the state constitution to say marriage is only between a man and a woman.
Whether you believe that to be true or false, a vote to ammend the state constitution in this way is a vote for discrimination.
I am very curious to know if any of you guys are against gay marriage, and if there are any valid non-religious reasons for that (and that does not mean religion is a good reason to discriminate either).
I am all for it, especialy when you consider the additional revenue the state will realize through the cost of marriage licenses.
We already have gay and lesbian families all over the place, why not allwo them to marry and have the same legal benefits all us heteros have?
by warriorsvictim on Sep 29, 2008 1:19 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
b/c
marriage is a religious thing. That’s why everybody gets so bent out of shape when talking about this equal rights issue. Christian zealots think that homosexuality is a sin and therefore gays can’t marry. That is why “civil unions” are all the rage now – it takes the religiosity out of marriage.
But that is why this prop 8 needs to be shot down – state constitutions needn’t get involved in these battles.
John 8:44 -Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.
by triplesix on Sep 29, 2008 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
haha
talking about gay marriage in discrimination context while human rights aren’t human rights
build a team & destroy the roof and
Sign Tim Hudson now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by nuttinbutnet
by Lat We N Trash on Sep 29, 2008 2:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nope. I really dislike gay people.
lesbians on the other hand……
Member of the "Stop calling him Beans" movement
by StSaints408 on Sep 29, 2008 4:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I take offesense to that man,
this is 2008, saying you hate gay people is like saying you hate asain people or hating african americans. Does it really bother you so much if gay people are allowed to marry in the same court house as you….
63, rest in peace man
by autumnwind on Sep 29, 2008 11:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I never said I hate gay people
I just said I dislike them. When I say dislike, I mean I wouldn’t associate myself or really talk to any of them. Whatever they want to do, go ahead and do that, I really could care less. But I don’t want to know about it.
The second part, well that was just a bad attempt at a joke.
Member of the "Stop calling him Beans" movement
by StSaints408 on Oct 1, 2008 10:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What if u sat next to a gay dude at a Warriors Game... (Packed house)
…and he got all gay up in your face? Lettin’ the whole world what he’s all about… …and wanted to kick it afterwards? WHAT IF… they wanted to initiate you into their association of jolly homeboys and followed you all the way to your car?
by Tony.psd on Oct 2, 2008 1:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
uhhh, what?
why would anyone need to express his sexual orientation at a game? haha, If I was yelling in StSaint’s face during a game about how much I love to F girls or followed him to his car after he told me not to I would only hope that he would punch me in the face for being a complete jackass. Gay or straight, white or black or brown, Muslim or Jew or Christian or Scientologist, nothing excuses you from being an ass.
by sam23 on Oct 2, 2008 2:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
WHAT IF ?
Yeah, but what if he agreed to bring along a hot lesbian?
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 2, 2008 7:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If it was a WNBA game, I’d say he knew the fan base.
by jae on Oct 2, 2008 9:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Then, I would let hime taste and swallow some of my
fist.
Member of the "Stop calling him Beans" movement
by StSaints408 on Oct 2, 2008 5:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nice.
How ‘bout just telling them you’re not interested in men?
Are you worried you might be tempted?
Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Oct 2, 2008 7:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Saint, man
Imagine if someone said “I don’t hate muslim people, I just dislike them. I mean, I wouldn’t want associate myself or really talk to any of them.”
How would that make you feel? Pretty lousy, huh?
Can I assume whatever moral or religious teaching you were raised with taught you the golden rule: to treat other people as you’d like to be treated?
Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Oct 2, 2008 4:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I remember...
A long ass time ago I worked at Rasputin and I like 2 smile… A LOT. (esp. 2 the honeys) Anyways, as I was helping this guy he tells me “What u smilin’ for?! I just lost my job… u don’t know what struggle is all about… you look like a fag, wipe that smile off your face… you don’t know what it’s like….”
… To this day, I have no idea what I did wrong… shoot, I ain’t even gay! I slept with hella women in college!
by Tony.psd on Oct 2, 2008 4:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
this guy he tells me "What u smilin’ for?! I just lost my job… u don’t know what struggle is all about… you look like a fag, wipe that smile off your face… you don’t know what it’s like…."
Hey Tony, Shoulda suggested he join the military, they are always looking for a “few good men”.
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 2, 2008 7:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't care.
I never said that I’d discriminate against them, I would keep it to myself, but that won’t change my opinion about them. I just don’t think it’s right. I would treat them the same, but I wouldn’t really try to get all social with them.
Once again, I never said that I would discriminate against them.
Member of the "Stop calling him Beans" movement
by StSaints408 on Oct 2, 2008 5:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I never said that either
I just cited your words: you really dislike them. Blanket statement. Before even meeting a person, you dislike him (or her?) because of a sexual orientation that they didn’t choose.
I’m sure there are tons of Americans who would say the exact same thing about muslims: “I don’t discriminate them but I don’t think it’s right. I wouldn’t try to get all social with them…” You really think that’s cool?
Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Oct 2, 2008 8:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've never heard anyone say anything even near that statement.
And I wouldn’t care because if they don’t socialize with me, then I’ll never know that that’s how they think. And if i do find out, I wouldn’t care. Everyone has a right to an opinion regardless of whether society agree with it or not.
Member of the "Stop calling him Beans" movement
by StSaints408 on Oct 2, 2008 9:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think I'd prefer
some alternate, but equal way of recognizing gay couples. I dunno I have to read more about all the propositions before I can really say how I’ll be voting on them.
by sam23 on Sep 29, 2008 6:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The notion
of separate but equal really doesn’t work. The distinction itself creates the climate necessary for the acceptance of discrimination.
by deff bridges on Sep 29, 2008 6:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
some insurance companies very quietly wish the gay marriage issue was settled as ...
hetero marriages are
I’ve talked to a couple reps in the profession and they say that discerning
benefits for spouses other than legal marriages is a complicated and expensive
undertaking which would LOWER ALL OUR COSTS if simplified … that includes
both gay and straight domestic partnerships
by hardcore on Sep 30, 2008 9:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stock Market Question
I don’t know a whole lot about the stock market and I’m just askin’… how man points does it have to drop to crash? I’m lookin’ at today and it’s about -776 down.
Pretty scary stuff… :-(
by Tony.psd on Sep 29, 2008 2:32 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
how man points does it have to drop to crash?
About 1000 points ago :>) The stock market is not the real problem right now though , it’s the credit markets. Our economy needs the ability to get credit to function. These lawmakers need to get their ass in gear and bolster the system. They worry about rewarding the “fatcats” while the “fatcats” are the ones making all the money being short this market. All this additional downside is unnecessary. As a nation we are still here and will buy and consume unless an astroid strikes tonight. Good companies with worthwhile products are gonna stay in business and prosper.
Tony, Markets always over react on the downside and on the upside. We had something similiar in 1987. If you don’t need retirement funds right now don’t worry about it, just save as much as possible, and invest small amounts regularly if you can, and in 30 years you can worry about something else.
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 29, 2008 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks!
My pops said the same thing… if u turn on the news, they make it sound like ish done change! Oh well… I’m gonna go listen to Ice-T’s Original Gangsta’!
speaking of credit… try applying for a Best Buy card… My credit score is high and I didn’t even qualify enough 2 buy a refrigerator!
by Tony.psd on Sep 29, 2008 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow
Been away for a while from this site. Sleepy, well done my man. It’s good to see people using their brains on subjects other than the Dubs. BTW, I can’t fu*king wait till the season starts.
McCain/Palin seems like a step backwards. That’s great they are into keeping it "real" and bringing back the moral fabric that this country and government once had. I’ll keep it real. Actuarials that are accrued by insurance companies say that a man with all of McCains “conditions” has a 66% chance that he will die in the next 4 years of his life. That leaves us with Palin. She is a HUGE reason why I won’t vote for the Repub ticket-not the only one though. Palin is so grotesquely under qualified it makes me sick. Palin God bless her, is WAY over her head. Point blank McCain didn’t choose her because she’d get votes from the Hillary supporters. If anyone knows what Hillary stood for, it’s completely the opposite of what Palin represents. Palin is an Ultra Conservative, something McCain isn’t. Conservative usually = Republican, hence more votes for McCain. McCain is conceived as a little compassionate in the eyes of a lot of Republicans, so Palin and her viewpoints from global warming, Pro Life, Pro Gun, non belief in evolution entice the ultra conservative and might generate more support for McCain that he once didn’t have.
All in all we are gonna be fuc*ed economically for about 5-7 years from all the greed that has spoiled us and our dollar (Repub’s and Demo’s are both to blame)…Look at the Euro…Choose who you want, but choose wisely. You only get one chance in ‘08. Most importantly though. Thank fuc*ing God we live in America and not in Burma, Georgia (former USSR) or Pakistan for example. We have it so good yall. Even if this is as “bad” as it gets for the USA, I’m so glad that our economy, the invasion of Iraq, the choice between wind/solar/natural gas vs. petroleum products is all we are worried about. Most 330,000,000 of us have a roof over our head, food on the table and relatively good health. Go look around the world and it makes this current situation we are having look like chopped liver in contrast to what other countries are going through.
To quote Chuck D from Public Enemy: "Neither party is mine, I don’t trust the jackass or the elephant!"
by gabezgsw on Sep 29, 2008 4:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Another choice for the undecideds...

Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 29, 2008 8:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Bah, I'm not reading all of this....
All I have to say is that I’m a Nader supporter, and you should be too. We really need more than two nearly identical viewpoints. I don’t care if Obama or McCain gets elected, frankly. They’re the same person.
Tony.psd = Da Man
http://nbaokc.blogspot.com/
Check Out My New Blog! (Don't Worry, The Warriors are Still #1)

by 



