PDA

View Full Version : Letter of Apology



Pages : [1] 2

BillyBob
January 19th, 2005, 06:34 AM
Compliments of Frank Ernest:
[Author unknown - sentiment shared]


For good and ill, the Iraqi prisoner abuse mess will remain an issue. On the one hand, right thinking Americans will abhor the stupidity of the actions while on the other hand, political glee will take control and fashion this minor event into some modern day My Lai massacre.

I heard some Arabs are asking for an apology. I humbly offer mine here:

I am sorry that the last seven times we Americans took up arms and sacrificed the blood of our youth, it was in the defense of Muslims (Bosnia, Kosovo, Gulf War 1, Kuwait, etc.).

I am sorry that no such call for an apology upon the extremists came after 9/11.

I am sorry that all of the murderers on 9/11 were Arabs.

I am sorry that Arabs have to live in squalor under savage dictatorships. I am sorry that their leaders squander their wealth.

I am sorry that their governments breed hate for the US in their religious schools.

I am sorry that Yassir Arafat was kicked out of every Arab country and hijacked the Palestinian "cause."

I am sorry that no other Arab country will take in or offer more than a token amount of financial help to those same Palestinians.

I am sorry that the USA has to step in and be the biggest financial supporter of poverty stricken Arabs while the insanely wealthy Arabs blame the USA.

I am sorry that our own left wing elite and our media can't understand any of this.

I am sorry the United Nations scammed the poor people of Iraq out of the "food for oil" money so they could get rich while the common folk suffered.

I am sorry that some Arab governments pay the families of homicide bombers upon their death.

I am sorry that those same bombers are seeking 72 virgins. I can't seem to find one here on Earth.

I am sorry that the homicide bombers think babies are a legitimate target.

I am sorry that our troops died to free more Arabs.

I am sorry they show so much restraint when their brothers in arms are killed. I am sorry that Muslim extremists have killed more Arabs than any other group.

I am sorry that foreign trained terrorists are trying to seize control of Iraq and return it to a terrorist state.

I am sorry we don't drop a few dozen "Daisy Cutters" on Fallujah. (Note: a "Daisy Cutter" is a 10,000 lb bomb, used to clear helicopter landing zones)

I am sorry every time terrorists hide they find a convenient "Holy Site".

I am sorry they didn't apologize for driving a jet into the World Trade Center that collapsed and severely damaged Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church - one of our Holy Sites.

I am sorry they didn't apologize for flight 93 and 175, the USS Cole, the embassy bombings, etc.

I am sorry Michael Moore is American; he could feed a medium sized village in Africa.

I am sorry the French are french?

America will get past this latest absurdity. We will punish those responsible because that is what we do. We hang out our dirty laundry for all the world to see. We move on. That's one of the reasons we are hated so much. We don't hide this stuff like all those Arab countries that are now demanding an apology.

Deep down inside, when most Americans saw this reported in the news, we were like - so what? We lost hundreds and made fun of a few prisoners. Sure, it was wrong, sure, it dramatically hurts our cause, but until captured we were trying to kill these same prisoners. Now we're supposed to wring our hands because a few were humiliated? Our compassion is tempered with the vivid memories of our own people killed, mutilated and burnt amongst a joyous crowd of celebrating Fallujans.

If you want an apology from this American, you're going to have a long wait. You have a better chance of finding those 72 virgins.

On Fire
January 19th, 2005, 06:43 AM
:chuckle:

Crow
January 19th, 2005, 08:50 AM
That last line....:darwinsm:

PureX
January 19th, 2005, 09:08 AM
Let's look only at the good things we do, so that we can ignore the bad things we do. That way we can feel really righteous about ourselves and avoid having to take responsibility for anything that might impune our egos.

OK?

Lucky
January 19th, 2005, 09:12 AM
Who is only looking at the good things we do? :confused:

Poly
January 19th, 2005, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by PureX

Let's look only at the good things we do, so that we can ignore the bad things we do. That way we can feel really righteous about ourselves and avoid having to take responsibility for anything that might impune our egos.

OK?

Are we letting this matter go? Is something being done about it? Are you ever capable of seeing a point that is trying to be made?

We are expected to give an apology to something miniscule in comparison to the evil that they've committed. They're certainly not going to offer apologies to us. Sounds to me as if as far as your concerned they shouldn't be expected to suffer any consequences whatsoever for their actions but by golly, we'd better be willing to just offer whalings and apologies if we even sneeze wrong. :rolleyes:

NavyDude
January 19th, 2005, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by BillyBob

I am sorry the French are french?
:crackup:

Redfin
January 19th, 2005, 01:58 PM
Gary King (http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art27002.asp) attributes this to Chuck Pitman, Lieutenant General, US Marine Corps (Retired). The "French" line is not in that version.

Redfin
January 19th, 2005, 02:13 PM
The "other side" apparently has some thoughts on this too...


Letter of Apology
(author unknown)

In Italics:
Response to Letter
(Ralou)


For good and ill, the Iraqi prisoner abuse mess will remain an issue. On the one hand, right thinking Americans will abhor the stupidity of the actions while on the other hand, political glee will take control and fashion this minor event into some modern day My Lai massacre.

It's not minor. Americans have maimed, tortured, and murdered prisoners since the war in Afghanistan began. It has continued on in Iraq. If it were your family member, you would want vengeance, not belittlement.

I heard some Arabs are asking for an apology. I humbly offer mine here:

None of this is an apology. It's squirming out of the facts, negating evidence, belittling suffering, and pointing fingers and saying 'they're bad, too!' rather than accepting blame and being willing to fix the problem.

I am sorry that the last seven times we Americans took up arms and sacrificed the blood of our youth, it was in the defense of Muslims (Bosnia, Kosovo, Gulf War 1, Kuwait, etc.).

That doesn't excuse the times before when we took up arms against Muslims, such as in Iran, Iraq (we armed Saddam, he attacked Muslims, therefore, we had a hand in it), and Indonesia (we support to this day human rights violators who murder Muslims and others).

I am sorry that no such call for an apology upon the extremists came after 9/11.

No, a call for their heads on sticks came. And for the heads of any government who supported them. And for the head of a government who didn't even support them. Now, what if our heads are called for over Abu Ghraib?

I am sorry that all of the murderers on 9/11 were Arabs.

Does this justify Abu Ghraib for you?

I am sorry that Arabs have to live in squalor under savage dictatorships. I am sorry that their leaders squander their wealth.

Our favorite Arab regime, Saudi Arabia, is the worst for this, yet we support them to this day. In fact, Iran gave power to its people in a referendum over oil revenues. The people voted in a way we didn't like. They voted to nationalize Iran's oil. Our planes started bombing a couple days later.

I am sorry that their governments breed hate for the US in their religious schools.

Not all do. In fact, many of the friendly governments in these regions are repressing the few democratic reforms that have been achieved in order to stop their people from sending support and even fighters to Iraq. The hate is often bred by our own actions. And by our support for brutal dictators friendly to our interests. Like Saddam Hussein was for thirty years.

I am sorry that Yassir Arafat was kicked out of every Arab country and hijacked the Palestinian "cause."

Do you honestly think that, without Arafat, there would be no 'Palestinian Cause'?

I am sorry that no other Arab country will take in or offer more than a token amount of financial help to those same Palestinians.[

They don't take them in or help them because they want the Palestinians to keep fighting.

I am sorry that the USA has to step in and be the biggest financial supporter of poverty stricken Arabs while the insanely wealthy Arabs blame the USA.

They are sorry that their oil wealth has, for decades, been siphoned out of their treasuries and into corporate hands, depriving them of the wealth of their own nations.

I am sorry that our own left wing elite and our media can't understand any of this.

Wrong. We do understand. We also understand what the media doesn't tell us. We understand what the right will not even look squarely at: that America's own actions have bred most of the hatred others feel toward us.

I am sorry the United Nations scammed the poor people of Iraq out of the "food for oil" money so they could get rich while the common folk suffered.

The Iraqis are sorry we supported Saddam for thirty years, and they are also sorry that many of our own corporations participated in this Oil for Food Scandal. They are likely also sorry that millions starved and died because of our sanctions.

I am sorry that some Arab governments pay the families of homicide bombers upon their death.

They are sorry our fighter pilots get paid to drop cluster bombs on civilian areas.

I am sorry that those same bombers are seeking 72 virgins. I can't seem to find one here on Earth.
I am sorry that the homicide bombers think babies are a legitimate target.

I am wondering why you are looking for a virgin. Clearly, you aren't one, or you would have found one.
They are sorry that their children have been maimed and killed by our bombs.

I am sorry that our troops died to free more Arabs.

They are sorry that people like you seem to define the word 'freedom' in such a way that occupation, death, maiming, and torture in our prisons constitutes the 'freedom' those troops died for. I'm sure the troops are sorry, too.

I am sorry they show so much restraint when their brothers in arms are killed. I am sorry that Muslim extremists have killed more Arabs than any other group.

They are sorry to be in the middle of a civil war with two sides supported by Iraqis: our side, and their side.

I am sorry that foreign trained terrorists are trying to seize control of Iraq and return it to a terrorist state.

They are sorry that we have mercenaries from Pinochet's brutal regime and from the apartheid regime of South Africa in their country. They see this as an indication that we intend to terrorize, brutalize, torture, and murder any Iraqi who feels free to disagree with our occupation.

I am sorry we don't drop a few dozen "Daisy Cutters" on Fallujah. (Note: a "Daisy Cutter" is a 10,000 lb bomb, used to clear helicopter landing zones)

They are sorry we cluster bombed Baghdad (note, cluster bombs are known for indiscriminately maiming and killing civilians). They are also no doubt sorry about our use of napalm.

I am sorry every time terrorists hide they find a convenient "Holy Site".

They are no doubt sorry they don't have the foliage of Vietnam to fight from.

I am sorry they didn't apologize for driving a jet into the World Trade Center that collapsed and severely damaged Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church - one of our Holy Sites.[

They are sorry that some Americans are still so ignorant that they think Iraqis were on that plane.

I am sorry Michael Moore is American; he could feed a medium sized village in Africa.

I am sorry Bush is President. He couldn't care less about feeding a medium sized village anywhere.

I am sorry the French are french?

I am sorry that fascism, racism, and other isms are growing steadily in America today.

America will get past this latest absurdity. We will punish those responsible because that is what we do. We hang out our dirty laundry for all the world to see. We move on. That's one of the reasons we are hated so much. We don't hide this stuff like all those Arab countries that are now demanding an apology.

The higher levels responsible will never be punished. The dirty laundry only got hung because those cameras (hated openly by Rumsfeld) found there way into the prison. 6000 pages of the Taguba report, minus fifty or so pages of excerpts, and thousands of photos and videos, and the names of contractors and Military Intelligence officers involved, have not been hung out. We are all sorry about that. It tells us that our Government has no intention of coming clean.

Deep down inside, when most Americans saw this reported in the news, we were like - so what? We lost hundreds and made fun of a few prisoners. Sure, it was wrong, sure, it dramatically hurts our cause, but until captured we were trying to kill these same prisoners. Now we're supposed to wring our hands because a few were humiliated? Our compassion is tempered with the vivid memories of our own people killed, mutilated and burnt amongst a joyous crowd of celebrating Fallujans.

Prisoners were murdered and raped. But most Americans ducked deep down to avoid the truth. As usual. "So what?" comes from deliberate ignorance. It's also evident that reports that at least 60 percent and perhaps 90 percent of all Abu Ghraib prisoners were innocent of any crime has also been ducked by the willfully ignorant.

If you want an apology from this American, you're going to have a long wait. You have a better chance of finding those 72 virgins.

They don't want your kind of American to apologize. They want your kind of American in a place where flames, and not virgins, dance around you for eternity.

I don't blame them.

Source (http://ralou.radioleft.com/blog/_archives/2004/10/24/165810.html)

PureX
January 19th, 2005, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by Poly

Are we letting this matter go? Is something being done about it? Are you ever capable of seeing a point that is trying to be made?

We are expected to give an apology to something miniscule in comparison to the evil that they've committed. They're certainly not going to offer apologies to us. Sounds to me as if as far as your concerned they shouldn't be expected to suffer any consequences whatsoever for their actions but by golly, we'd better be willing to just offer whalings and apologies if we even sneeze wrong. :rolleyes: When we as individuals or as a nation, screw up, we should admit it and make amends for our screw up as best we can.

We invaded another country under false pretenses and we killed many thousands of people. You think this is a "miniscule" error? Somehow I suspect that the thousands of families who've lost loved ones because of our "miniscule" mistake would feel differently. Yet the point of this thread seemed to be to glorify some of the good things we've done (for other muslims) so that we can ignore having to take responsibility for this horrible and deadly mistake. And in fact this seems to likewise be the point of your post.

I understood the "point" of this thread quite clearly. And that's why I wasn't going to let it go unchallenged.

Poly
January 19th, 2005, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by PureX

When we as individuals or as a nation, screw up, we should admit it and make amends for our screw up as best we can. And we are doing something about it.


We invaded another country under false pretenses and we killed many thousands of people. You think this is a "miniscule" error? Somehow I suspect that the thousands of families who've lost loved ones because of our "miniscule" mistake would feel differently. Yet the point of this thread seemed to be to glorify some of the good things we've done (for other muslims) so that we can ignore having to take responsibility for this horrible and deadly mistake. And in fact this seems to likewise be the point of your post.


I understood the "point" of this thread quite clearly. And that's why I wasn't going to let it go unchallenged.
OOOO!! PureX has done his "holy deed for the day" in challenging this thread.
I still say you need to get your "point" checker checked.
The point of the letter was in response to the enemy seeking an apology for an isolated event. Not the war as a whole and yeah, we all know how you feel about the war as a whole. :yawn:

PureX
January 19th, 2005, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by Poly The point of the letter was in response to the enemy seeking an apology for an isolated event. Not the war as a whole and yeah, we all know how you feel about the war as a whole. We owe them an apology for all of it. Though what good an apology would do without making amends is questionable. And how do we make amends for such an incredible blunder? How do we make amends for killing thousands and thousands of people based on lies?

This is why Bush can't face his own cataclysmic mistake, and why most Americans would rather continue the killing than admit to themselves what we've really done.

And this is why we're an embarrassment among nations, just as an individual that would behave this way is an embarrassment among men.

aikido7
January 19th, 2005, 03:49 PM
What about not apologizing for the United States being the divine city on the hill which can decide that "freedom" is the right of every person and the future of every nation, and that the liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, but a declaration of divine wishes? About not apologizing for Geroge Bush's mandate as a prophet--not a humble petitioner--of God who can issue divine desires for the nation and the world.?

Everything America does comes from good intentions. Even the deaths of millions can be justified, because each one of those deaths--though regrettable--has made the world a better place so that the peace won afterwards--at least until the next necessary war is begun--will reign forever.





Hitler had good intentions, too. He wanted to unite Germany and make the nation feel strong and worthy again after the humiliation of the 1919 surrender terms at Versailles

Frank Ernest
January 19th, 2005, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by :mock:PureeX

We owe them an apology for all of it. Though what good an apology would do without making amends is questionable. And how do we make amends for such an incredible blunder? How do we make amends for killing thousands and thousands of people based on lies?
Ask your terrorist friends. They can go first.


This is why Bush can't face his own cataclysmic mistake, and why most Americans would rather continue the killing than admit to themselves what we've really done.
:cow:


And this is why we're an embarrassment among nations, just as an individual that would behave this way is an embarrassment among men.

None of this is true, of course. Don't "you people" ever get tired of shilling for the terrorists?

Frank Ernest
January 19th, 2005, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by :mock::aikido:7

What about not apologizing for the United States being the divine city on the hill which can decide that "freedom" is the right of every person and the future of every nation, and that the liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, but a declaration of divine wishes? About not apologizing for Geroge Bush's mandate as a prophet--not a humble petitioner--of God who can issue divine desires for the nation and the world.?
:cow: Commie shill.


Everything America does comes from good intentions. Even the deaths of millions can be justified, because each one of those deaths--though regrettable--has made the world a better place so that the peace won afterwards--at least until the next necessary war is begun--will reign forever.
:kookoo:


Hitler had good intentions, too. He wanted to unite Germany and make the nation feel strong and worthy again after the humiliation of the 1919 surrender terms at Versailles
Oh, boy! There's the ol' Hitler comparison again. :yawn:

Skeptic
January 19th, 2005, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by BillyBob

Compliments of Frank Ernest:
[Author unknown - sentiment shared]


For good and ill, the Iraqi prisoner abuse mess will remain an issue. On the one hand, right thinking Americans will abhor the stupidity of the actions while on the other hand, political glee will take control and fashion this minor event into some modern day My Lai massacre. Right thinking Americans will abhor the stupidity and immorality of the government that ordered such actions.


I heard some Arabs are asking for an apology. I humbly offer mine here:

I am sorry that the last seven times we Americans took up arms and sacrificed the blood of our youth, it was in the defense of Muslims (Bosnia, Kosovo, Gulf War 1, Kuwait, etc.). The LAST time that Americans took up arms and sacrificed the blood of our youth, it was for an unnecessary and immoral invasion and occupation of a country the was not a threat. Bush's order has resulted in the unnecessary and immoral deaths of over 1300 of our brave troops, as well as tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children.


I am sorry that no such call for an apology upon the extremists came after 9/11. I'm sorry that Bush has not apologized for the unnecessary and immoral deaths of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in Iraq.


I am sorry that all of the murderers on 9/11 were Arabs. I'm sorry, but making the obvious point that all of the 9/11 terrorists were Arabs simply reinforces the hatred of Arabs in general. This is harmful, not helpful in fighting terrorism.


I am sorry that Arabs have to live in squalor under savage dictatorships. I am sorry that their leaders squander their wealth. I'm sorry that Bush thinks it is OK to solve the problem of squalor by unnecessarily and immorally slaughtering tens of thousands of men, women and children to overthrow a dictator, who was not a threat. There were better and more ethical ways of dealing with Saddam.


I am sorry that their governments breed hate for the US in their religious schools. I'm sorry that some of their hatred of the U.S. is understandable, considering the actions the U.S. has taken against their people. But all terrorist acts are unacceptable, even when they are perpetrated by the U.S. government. I also hate the fact the Bush unnecessarily and immoral killed tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in Iraq. Hatred toward America would dramatically decrease if Bush and his neocon buddies apologized for their atrocities.


I am sorry that Yassir Arafat was kicked out of every Arab country and hijacked the Palestinian "cause." I'm sorry that Israel and the Bush administration do not care about the Palestinian cause.


I am sorry that no other Arab country will take in or offer more than a token amount of financial help to those same Palestinians. I'm sorry that you are wrong. Arab countries have provided hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to Palestinians. For example, after a short search, I found that, in 2002, Saudi Arabia gave Palestinians over $2 billion.


I am sorry that the USA has to step in and be the biggest financial supporter of poverty stricken Arabs while the insanely wealthy Arabs blame the USA. The U.S. has not been a very big contributor to Palestinians. "Palestinians benefit from $70 million a year in U.S. aid through U.N. refugee assistance programs, as well as about $75 million administered to water, housing, employment, and democracy programs." http://www.terrorismanswers.com/policy/foreignaid2.html


I am sorry that our own left wing elite and our media can't understand any of this. I'm sorry that our own right-wing elite and right-wing media can't understand the truth. They are encouraging a faith-based support of the Bush righties, as opposed to a reality-based understanding.


I am sorry the United Nations scammed the poor people of Iraq out of the "food for oil" money so they could get rich while the common folk suffered. I'm sorry that you falsely imply that the UN as a whole "scammed" Iraq.

"No one has questioned the commitment or the integrity or the impact of the United Nations humanitarian efforts," he said in response to a question on the Oil-for-Food allegations. "That has not even been a matter in dispute."

The White House website, he pointed out, has UNICEF and the overall UN relief effort on its list of charities that are reliable. "So there is absolutely no dispute about that as far as I know across the political spectrum in America," he said.

Mr. Dujarric (UN spokesperson) pointed out that the Oil-for-Food programme "did fulfil its main objective by providing humanitarian relief to 27 million Iraqis and thereby helping to maintain political support for the sanctions which, in turn, prevented Saddam Hussein's regime from acquiring weapons of mass destruction." http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=13001&Cr=iraq&Cr1=oil&Kw1=Oil%2Dfor%2DFood&Kw2=&Kw3=


I am sorry that some Arab governments pay the families of homicide bombers upon their death. So am I. At least you used the word "some."


I am sorry that those same bombers are seeking 72 virgins. I can't seem to find one here on Earth. An example of what can happen when people believe in fairy tales and superstitions.


I am sorry that the homicide bombers think babies are a legitimate target. So am I. I'm also sorry that Bush thought that the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children were considered a legitimate consequence of invading a country that was not a threat.


I am sorry that our troops died to free more Arabs. I'm sorry that our brave troops died unnecessarily and immorally in Iraq, along with the tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children, who were only freed of their lives. Any alleged "freedom" the Iraqi people might acquire as a result of Bush's unnecessary and immoral invasion will NOT justify the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children.


I am sorry they show so much restraint when their brothers in arms are killed. I am sorry that Muslim extremists have killed more Arabs than any other group. Since March 2003, Bush is responsible for the deaths of more Iraqi people than are Muslim extremists.


I am sorry that foreign trained terrorists are trying to seize control of Iraq and return it to a terrorist state. Thanks to Bush.


I am sorry we don't drop a few dozen "Daisy Cutters" on Fallujah. (Note: a "Daisy Cutter" is a 10,000 lb bomb, used to clear helicopter landing zones) I'm sorry you think that our troops need to kill more people who are fighting an invading and occupying force that unnecessarily and immorally killed tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children, beginning in March 2003.


I am sorry every time terrorists hide they find a convenient "Holy Site". I'm sorry that Bush and company refer to the majority of Iraqis fighting the invading and occupying U.S. as "terrorists" (who are the minority).


I am sorry they didn't apologize for driving a jet into the World Trade Center that collapsed and severely damaged Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church - one of our Holy Sites. I'm sorry that Bush and company continue to falsely implicate Iraq with 9/11.


I am sorry they didn't apologize for flight 93 and 175, the USS Cole, the embassy bombings, etc. Arab countries gave their condolences. Only al-Qaeda was responsible. Only al-Qaeda should apologize.


I am sorry Michael Moore is American; he could feed a medium sized village in Africa. I'm sorry George Bush is our President.


I am sorry the French are french? I'm sorry the U.S. government didn't listen to the French, before unnecessarily and immorally invading Iraq. Oh, ... did I mention that the invasion unnecessarily and immorally killed tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children?


America will get past this latest absurdity. We will punish those responsible because that is what we do. We hang out our dirty laundry for all the world to see. The real masterminds behind the abuses have not been punished. The real masterminds behind Bush's unnecessary and immoral slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in Iraq have not been punished.


Deep down inside, when most Americans saw this reported in the news, we were like - so what? We lost hundreds and made fun of a few prisoners. Sure, it was wrong, sure, it dramatically hurts our cause, but until captured we were trying to kill these same prisoners. Our troops were trying to kill some of these prisoners, most of whom where merely trying to repel an invading and occupying force. Many of the tortured prisoners had not been charged with fighting Americans.


Now we're supposed to wring our hands because a few were humiliated? Tortured.


If you want an apology from this American, you're going to have a long wait. You have a better chance of finding those 72 virgins. You'll come around to seeing the truth, eventually.

BillyBob
January 19th, 2005, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by Broken Record [Skeptic]

:blabla:....skip...... :blabla:....skip......:blabla:....skip...... :blabla:....skip......:blabla:....skip...... :blabla:....skip......:blabla:....skip......:blabl a:....skip...... :blabla:....skip...... :blabla:....skip......:blabla:....skip...... :blabla:

Skeptic
January 19th, 2005, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by BillyBob

Broken Record [Skeptic] I only repeat what is likely the case, based on the evidence.

Bush, his buddies and followers remain "on message" by repeating the same lies over, and over, and over, and over, and .......

BillyBob
January 19th, 2005, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by Skeptic

I only repeat what is likely the case, based on the evidence.

No, you repeat the demo-commie/Michael Moore talking points...over...and over... and over......and over....and over.....




:blabla:


:yawn:

keypurr
January 19th, 2005, 10:30 PM
Two wrongs NEVER make a right.

All killing is wrong. There has to be a better way to peace.

BillyBob
January 19th, 2005, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by keypurr

Two wrongs NEVER make a right.

All killing is wrong. There has to be a better way to peace.

So..... you are saying that if a person is going to kill you, it is wrong to kill him first?

firechyld
January 20th, 2005, 12:44 AM
100 000 civilians at last count, peeps. Not tens of thousands.

Lighthouse
January 20th, 2005, 01:18 AM
Originally posted by keypurr

Two wrongs NEVER make a right.

All killing is wrong. There has to be a better way to peace.
Tell that to God who demanded that murderers, adulterers, homosexuals and many more, be killed for their crimes.

aikido7
January 20th, 2005, 01:55 AM
100 000 civilians at last count, peeps. Not tens of thousands.


Some would call "100,000" tens of thousands because it is made up of 100 groups of 10,000.









Then again, when it comes to math I'm not exactly a mental giant, either.

firechyld
January 20th, 2005, 02:12 AM
"tens of thousands" just sounds smaller.

By that argument, hundreds of people live in the US.

*grin*

Lighthouse
January 20th, 2005, 02:19 AM
Originally posted by aikido7

Then again, when it comes to math I'm not exactly a mental giant, either.
Nor in any other thing.

SOTK
January 20th, 2005, 03:47 AM
Originally posted by Skeptic

Right thinking Americans...........

:darwinsm:

Skeptic,

You're arrogance is almost sickening. :down:

Wait a second.....it is sickening. :vomit:

BillyBob
January 20th, 2005, 05:25 AM
Originally posted by aikido7
I'm not exactly a mental giant.

Frank Ernest
January 20th, 2005, 06:03 AM
Originally posted by :mock:keypurr

Two wrongs NEVER make a right.
How about three?


All killing is wrong. There has to be a better way to peace.
Enjoy your burger. Would you like fries with that?

Frank Ernest
January 20th, 2005, 06:05 AM
Originally posted by :mock::aikido:7

Some would call "100,000" tens of thousands because it is made up of 100 groups of 10,000.

Then again, when it comes to math I'm not exactly a mental giant, either.
:darwinsm:

Frank Ernest
January 20th, 2005, 06:15 AM
I'm going to self-actualize some internalizations here. Regards to :zakath:.

:mock::skeptic: "right-thinking Americans" (a group from which he excluded himself)
:mock::aikido:7 "... not exactly a mental giant." (The Truth is finally out!)
:mock: keypurr "There has to be a better way to peace." (There is. It's called Superior Firepower.)

Skeptic
January 20th, 2005, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by BillyBob

So..... you are saying that if a person is going to kill you, it is wrong to kill him first? If someone is going to kill me, I will first try to do whatever I can to find other ways to stop that person or otherwise avoid being killed. Killing the person trying to kill me is a LAST resort.

Saddam was NOT about to kill Americans (i.e. he was not a threat). Bush had NO clear hard pre-invasion evidence that Saddam posed a real, significant and imminent threat, which is what would constitute "a person is going to kill you," as opposed to "a person might someday in the future develop the capacity to kill you, IF the U.S. and the world allow him the opportunity to develop such a capacity, which is unlikely."

Bush had plenty of time to find other more ethical ways of dealing with Saddam. If Bush had take the time, he might have avoided the unnecessary and immoral slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in Iraq.

Skeptic
January 20th, 2005, 01:42 PM
Killing the person trying to kill me is a LAST resort.

Do you think Jesus would agree with this? Or do you think Jesus would have preferred that people, as a FIRST resort, simply kill whoever is trying to kill them?

BillyBob
January 20th, 2005, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by Skeptic

If someone is going to kill me, I will first try to do whatever I can to find other ways to stop that person or otherwise avoid being killed.

Thereby giving him more time to kill you.


Killing the person trying to kill me is a LAST resort.

It should be the first resort.




Saddam was NOT about to kill Americans (i.e. he was not a threat).

That's not what John Kerry said.


Bush had NO clear hard pre-invasion evidence that Saddam posed a real, significant and imminent threat, which is what would constitute "a person is going to kill you," as opposed to "a person might someday in the future develop the capacity to kill you, IF the U.S. and the world allow him the opportunity to develop such a capacity, which is unlikely."

Saddam was a terrorist.




Bush had plenty of time to find other more ethical ways of dealing with Saddam. If Bush had take the time, he might have avoided the unnecessary and immoral slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in Iraq.

Saddam was given 12 years to comply, he refused. 12 years was more than enough time, Bush did the right thing.

Rolf Ernst
January 20th, 2005, 02:33 PM
BILLYBOB--you are really in fine form on this one!

BillyBob
January 20th, 2005, 02:34 PM
Thanks! :banana:

aikido7
January 20th, 2005, 03:33 PM
BILLYBOB--you are really in fine form on this one!

Take it from me--he's got the snappy comebacks. I just notice he has nothing to say about Skeptic's remarks concerning Jesus.

One Eyed Jack
January 20th, 2005, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by Skeptic

Killing the person trying to kill me is a LAST resort.

Good. Unfortunately, your killer had no such compunctions and killed you while you were still sorting thru your options. Now your family is at his mercy, which doesn't sound very good considering how much he just showed you.


Do you think Jesus would agree with this?

No, I think He would think you're an idiot. In fact, I know He thinks you're an idiot.


Or do you think Jesus would have preferred that people, as a FIRST resort, simply kill whoever is trying to kill them?

I don't think He would hold it against you for taking the life of someone who was trying to take yours. Why would He?

Skeptic
January 20th, 2005, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

I don't think He would hold it against you for taking the life of someone who was trying to take yours. Even if there were other nonlethal first-resort options, which would make killing the person a last resort?

Mr. 5020
January 20th, 2005, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by aikido7

Take it from me--he's got the snappy comebacks. I just notice he has nothing to say about Skeptic's remarks concerning Jesus. That's because BB doesn't post theologically. It's a known fact.

One Eyed Jack
January 20th, 2005, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by Skeptic

Even if there were other nonlethal first-resort options, which would make killing the person a last resort?

Skeptic, don't be an idiot. When somebody's trying to take your life, you've pretty much reached the last resort.

Mr. 5020
January 20th, 2005, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

Skeptic, don't be an idiot. When somebody's trying to take your life, you've pretty much reached the last resort. This is true.

Lighthouse
January 21st, 2005, 12:29 AM
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

Skeptic, don't be an idiot.
Riiiight. That'll happen.:rolleyes:

Skeptic
January 21st, 2005, 05:27 AM
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

Skeptic, don't be an idiot. When somebody's trying to take your life, you've pretty much reached the last resort. Just because someone is trying to take your life, it does not logically follow that there is no other way to prevent them from succeeding except killing them first.

Was invading Iraq a last resort? Was Saddam such a grave and imminent threat that there were no other options for dealing with him but invading Iraq and killing tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in the process?

PureX
January 21st, 2005, 07:44 AM
Originally posted by Skeptic Just because someone is trying to take your life, it does not logically follow that there is no other way to prevent them from succeeding except killing them first.

Was invading Iraq a last resort? Was Saddam such a grave and imminent threat that there were no other options for dealing with him but invading Iraq and killing tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in the process? The whole point of being an absolutist is to pretend that the world and it's problems are all very simple. That's why absolutism always leads to extremism - to eliminate having to recon with complexity, the absolutist simply views everything in polar extremes. That way he can imagine that no matter what problem or circumstance he's looking at, it'll always appear as simple as 'this' or 'that'.

George Bush and many of his supporters are absolutists. They are the haters of complexity, and are the haters of intellectuals because intellectuals are willing to embrace complexity. They view the world in polar extremes because that makes the world look simple to them. And they really want to believe that the world and everything in it is very simple. They both fear and resent complexity and the people who can embrace complexity. They actually believe that the intellectuals among us are really just fools who over-complicate everything, or are using the confusion of complexity to get away with something. In fact, they really believe that they're the smart ones because they can see how simple the world really is while the intellectuals can't, or won't. But in reality they're just being governed by their emotions and are therefor basically irrational.

This is why absolutists can't see any other solution to a problem or a threat but overwhelming force and total anihilation. In fact, if you watch these threads for a while, you'll see that basically killing people is the absolutist's preferred solution to almost everything. To consider anything else causes them to have to confront life's complexity and ambiguity. And they both fear and hate complexity and ambiguity so much that they'd basically rather just propose killing people.

And sadly, one of these absolutists is now our president.

Frank Ernest
January 21st, 2005, 07:55 AM
Originally posted by :mock:PureeX

The whole point of being an absolutist is to pretend that the world and it's problems are all very simple. That's why absolutism always leads to extremism - to eliminate having to recon with complexity, the absolutist simply views everything in polar extremes. That way he can imagine that no matter what problem or circumstance he's looking at, it'll always appear as simple as 'this' or 'that'.
By the time you've "reconned the complexity", you're either dead or enslaved.


George Bush and many of his supporters are absolutists. They are the haters of complexity, and are the haters of intellectuals because intellectuals are willing to embrace complexity. They view the world in polar extremes because that makes the world look simple to them. And they really want to believe that the world and everything in it is very simple. They both fear and resent complexity and the people who can embrace complexity. They actually believe that the intellectuals among us are really just fools who over-complicate everything, or are using the confusion of complexity to get away with something. In fact, they really believe that they're the smart ones because they can see how simple the world really is while the intellectuals can't, or won't. But in reality they're just being governed by their emotions and are therefor basically irrational.
:yawn: Lie-beral screed.


This is why absolutists can't see any other solution to a problem or a threat but overwhelming force and total inihilation. In fact, if you watch these threads for a while, you'll see that basically killing people is the absolutist's preferred solution to almost everything. To consider anything else causes them to have to confront life's complexity and ambiguity. And they both fear and hate complexity and ambiguity so much that they'd basically rather just propose killing people.
:yawn: Simplistic and stupid lie-beral screed.


And sadly, one of these absolutists is now our president.
YEAH!! :thumb:

dotcom
January 21st, 2005, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by PureX

The whole point of being an absolutist is to pretend that the world and it's problems are all very simple. That's why absolutism always leads to extremism - to eliminate having to recon with complexity, the absolutist simply views everything in polar extremes. That way he can imagine that no matter what problem or circumstance he's looking at, it'll always appear as simple as 'this' or 'that'.

George Bush and many of his supporters are absolutists. They are the haters of complexity, and are the haters of intellectuals because intellectuals are willing to embrace complexity. They view the world in polar extremes because that makes the world look simple to them. And they really want to believe that the world and everything in it is very simple. They both fear and resent complexity and the people who can embrace complexity. They actually believe that the intellectuals among us are really just fools who over-complicate everything, or are using the confusion of complexity to get away with something. In fact, they really believe that they're the smart ones because they can see how simple the world really is while the intellectuals can't, or won't. But in reality they're just being governed by their emotions and are therefor basically irrational.

This is why absolutists can't see any other solution to a problem or a threat but overwhelming force and total anihilation. In fact, if you watch these threads for a while, you'll see that basically killing people is the absolutist's preferred solution to almost everything. To consider anything else causes them to have to confront life's complexity and ambiguity. And they both fear and hate complexity and ambiguity so much that they'd basically rather just propose killing people.

And sadly, one of these absolutists is now our president.

Were the 9/11 terrorists absolutists?

PureX
January 21st, 2005, 08:16 AM
Skeptic,

You'll notice that because these absolutists can't deal with anything complex, their only response to the posts that offend them is this sort of idiotic name-calling and irrational drivel. They can't actually address the issue, because real issues tend to be complicated and to have various viable points of view. So the only way they have of expressing their negative emotions toward this complexity (remember that they are emotionally driven) is to spit irrational insults at those who dare to expose the complexity of life to them, and their inability/unwillingness to deal with it.

In the Bush's case, he can't go around spitting irrational insults at people who dare to contradict his extremist oversimplifications of reality, so he "punishes" them in other ways. When news people ask him questions that expose his aversion to the complexities of tort reform, for example, he has their access to him and the white house barred. When other nation's leaders questioned his blinding over-simplification of the "danger in Iraq" he began cutting off our dealings with them as a form of retribution. Being driven by emotion, absolutists often become very petty and spiteful in their behavior, and George Bush is well known for having a very egosistical vindictive streak, just as he is also well known for rewarding those who support his extremist views of reality.

It's a sad time in America.

PureX
January 21st, 2005, 08:18 AM
Originally posted by dotcom Were the 9/11 terrorists absolutists? Yes, they are a perfect example of the extremism of absolutists - particularly of religious absolutists. The only solution they can see to any problem is "kill it".

Mr. 5020
January 21st, 2005, 08:21 AM
Originally posted by PureX

It's a sad time in America. You don't have to stay.

dotcom
January 21st, 2005, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by PureX

Yes, they are a perfect example of the extremism of absolutists - particularly of religious absolutists. The only solution they can see to any problem is "kill it".

OK, now identify the complexity both the terrorists and Bush were/was trying to avoid respectively.

BillyBob
January 21st, 2005, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

Skeptic, don't be an idiot. When somebody's trying to take your life, you've pretty much reached the last resort.

POTD (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=659232#post659232) :thumb:

PureX
January 21st, 2005, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by dotcom OK, now identify the complexity both the terrorists and Bush were/was trying to avoid respectively. The terrorists divide all humanity up into the righteous and the unrighteous because they are absolutists, and absolutists view everything through opposite extremes. They imagine that they are the righteous ones, of course, and so anyone who would disagree with their religious conception of righteousness is perceived to be 'at war' with them. As absolutists, they can allow for only one "right way" and that way is their way, so anyone who would dare to embrace another way will automatically be embracing the "wrong way", or in religious extremist's terms, they must be embracing/promoting evil. Thus they see themselves as the only righteous human beings on Earth, and everyone else as an infidel. And not only is everyone else an infidel, but all infidels are the enemies of righteousness, and therefor are God's enemies, and their enemies.

Since they preceive themselves to be at war with all infidels, and since the only solution to war is to anihilate, by violence, the "enemy", that's what they intend to do.

Interestingly enough, George Bush views his own position in very much the same way. He believes that he and those who support him are the only truly righteous ones on Earth (the "born again" Christians) - appointed by God to "fight the evildoers", and that anyone who would disagree with him is likewise an infidel (he would call them "unbelievers", I suppose) who is working either wittingly or unwittingly for satan. Thus, they would be the an "enemy" of God, and so their enemy, too. And the only solution an absolutist has for dealing with enemies is to anihilate them. Bush can't kill everyone he perceives to be an enemy as the terrorists might, but he eliminates them from 'his world' as he is able.

The complexity that both these examples of absolutists deny is that "righteousness" is relative. And because it's relative, it's also ambiguous. It's difficult to be sure that we're "right" when we understand that what appears right from one person's perspective may appear very wrong from another's perspective in any given circumstance. Recognizing this would mean that to try and determine our own righteousness in any given situation would mean that we'd have to try and view the situation from the perspective of the other people involved, and not just from our own. And then we'd be forced to see that we're probably not going to be "right" from every perspective and some of those perspectives will be as valid as our own. We'll end up having to compromise and do the best we can given the specific conditions leaving our feeling of "righteousness" in a somewhat ambiguous position. And in fact this is how it will be for us most of the time and it's this ambiguity that the absolutists can't abide.

Bush attacked Saddam basically only because he perceived Saddam as his enemy and he understands only one way of dealing with enemies. The 9/11 attack had nothing to do with Iraq but this was irrelevant to Bush. Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction but this too was irrelevant to Bush. They were just excuses Bush used to get the american people to let him do what he was absolutely convinced was right. The possibility that he (Bush) could have been "wrong" is inconceivable to Bush because Bush has already been convinced by his absolutist religious dogma that he is one of the "righteous ones" and is therefor an extension of God's will in this world. God can't make mistakes, and so neither can Bush as he's doing God's will. This is his "logic". It's the same "logic" that the terrorist's used to justify flying planes into the WTC, but neither can see this because neither of them can view theor own actions through the eyes of others, and neither want to. To do so would render their "righteousness" ambiguous. It would render their own perspectives subjective and relative. And they can't accept that.

The whole point of absolutism is to presume one's self to be absolutely right and anyone who disagree with you to be absolutely wrong. And this is what falls apart when we begin to recognize the relativism of our limited human perspectives. This is what the complexity of reality does to us, it makes us have to confront the relative and limited nature of our human perspective on existence. In the real world, we don't get to be "right". We only get to be as right as we can be given our limited understanding of what's right and our limited ability to indulge it, which means that we're very likely to be wrong even when we think we're right. And this is what's so unsettling to absolutists. They'd rather anihilate other human beings than admit to themselves that they might be wrong even when they think they're right. They'd rather anihilate other human beings than take the time to consider the circumstances from those other people's perspective. Their own imagined righteousness is far more important to them than the existence or well-being of other people. And this selfishness is reflected in their behavior.

dotcom
January 21st, 2005, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by PureX

The terrorists divide all humanity up into the righteous and the unrighteous because they are absolutists, and absolutists view everything through opposite extremes. They imagine that they are the righteous ones, of course, and so anyone who would disagree with their religious conception of righteousness is perceived to be 'at war' with them. As absolutists, they can allow for only one "right way" and that way is their way, so anyone who would dare to embrace another way will automatically be embracing the "wrong way", or in religious extremist's terms, they must be embracing/promoting evil. Thus they see themselves as the only righteous human beings on Earth, and everyone else as an infidel. And not only is everyone else an infidel, but all infidels are the enemies of righteousness, and therefor are God's enemies, and their enemies.

Since they preceive themselves to be at war with all infidels, and since the only solution to war is to anihilate, by violence, the "enemy", that's what they intend to do.

Interestingly enough, George Bush views his own position in very much the same way. He believes that he and those who support him are the only truly righteous ones on Earth (the "born again" Christians) - appointed by God to "fight the evildoers", and that anyone who would disagree with him is likewise an infidel (he would call them "unbelievers", I suppose) who is working either wittingly or unwittingly for satan. Thus, they would be the an "enemy" of God, and so their enemy, too. And the only solution an absolutist has for dealing with enemies is to anihilate them. Bush can't kill everyone he perceives to be an enemy as the terrorists might, but he eliminates them from 'his world' as he is able.

The complexity that both these examples of absolutists deny is that "righteousness" is relative. And because it's relative, it's also ambiguous. It's difficult to be sure that we're "right" when we understand that what appears right from one person's perspective may appear very wrong from another's perspective in any given circumstance. Recognizing this would mean that to try and determine our own righteousness in any given situation would mean that we'd have to try and view the situation from the perspective of the other people involved, and not just from our own. And then we'd be forced to see that we're probably not going to be "right" from every perspective and some of those perspectives will be as valid as our own. We'll end up having to compromise and do the best we can given the specific conditions leaving our feeling of "righteousness" in a somewhat ambiguous position. And in fact this is how it will be for us most of the time and it's this ambiguity that the absolutists can't abide.

Bush attacked Saddam basically only because he perceived Saddam as his enemy and he understands only one way of dealing with enemies. The 9/11 attack had nothing to do with Iraq but this was irrelevant to Bush. Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction but this too was irrelevant to Bush. They were just excuses Bush used to get the american people to let him do what he was absolutely convinced was right. The possibility that he (Bush) could have been "wrong" is inconceivable to Bush because Bush has already been convinced by his absolutist religious dogma that he is one of the "righteous ones" and is therefor an extension of God's will in this world. God can't make mistakes, and so neither can Bush as he's doing God's will. This is his "logic". It's the same "logic" that the terrorist's used to justify flying planes into the WTC, but neither can see this because neither of them can view theor own actions through the eyes of others, and neither want to. To do so would render their "righteousness" ambiguous. It would render their own perspectives subjective and relative. And they can't accept that.

The whole point of absolutism is to presume one's self to be absolutely right and anyone who disagree with you to be absolutely wrong. And this is what falls apart when we begin to recognize the relativism of our limited human perspectives. This is what the complexity of reality does to us, it makes us have to confront the relative and limited nature of our human perspective on existence. In the real world, we don't get to be "right". We only get to be as right as we can be given our limited understanding of what's right and our limited ability to indulge it, which means that we're very likely to be wrong even when we think we're right. And this is what's so unsettling to absolutists. They'd rather anihilate other human beings than admit to themselves that they might be wrong even when they think they're right. They'd rather anihilate other human beings than take the time to consider the circumstances from those other people's perspective. Their own imagined righteousness is far more important to them than the existence or well-being of other people. And this selfishness is reflected in their behavior.

That was quick!
So what you PureX can quickly identify MUST be ambiguous and complex for the absolutists. Would that be a correct inference? I am asking you whether in your opinion what you have just explained was complex for you. Or was it simple?

PureX
January 21st, 2005, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by dotcom

That was quick!
So what you PureX can quickly identify MUST be ambiguous and complex for the absolutists. Would that be a correct inference? I am asking you whether in your opinion what you have just explained was complex for you. Or was it simple? Why don't you address the ideas presented in the post instead of asking these silly baiting question? Is it that you can't refute them, or just couldn't understand them?

dotcom
January 21st, 2005, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by PureX

Why don't you address the ideas presented in the post instead of asking these silly baiting question? Is it that you can't refute them, or just couldn't understand them?

Here is your statement that I found irrational:

George Bush and many of his supporters are absolutists. They are the haters of complexity, and are the haters of intellectuals because intellectuals are willing to embrace complexity. They view the world in polar extremes because that makes the world look simple to them. And they really want to believe that the world and everything in it is very simple. They both fear and resent complexity and the people who can embrace complexity. They actually believe that the intellectuals among us are really just fools who over-complicate everything, or are using the confusion of complexity to get away with something. In fact, they really believe that they're the smart ones because they can see how simple the world really is while the intellectuals can't, or won't. But in reality they're just being governed by their emotions and are therefor basically irrational.

If you want to talk about absolutism, talk about absolutism, but don't think it such a complex issue only non-Bush supporters can understand. You are just full of hot air wasting time with useless semantics. If PureX can figure it out, anybody can figure it out. Don't claim complexity where there is none.

PureX
January 21st, 2005, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by dotcom

Here is your statement that I found irrational:

George Bush and many of his supporters are absolutists. They are the haters of complexity, and are the haters of intellectuals because intellectuals are willing to embrace complexity. They view the world in polar extremes because that makes the world look simple to them. And they really want to believe that the world and everything in it is very simple. They both fear and resent complexity and the people who can embrace complexity. They actually believe that the intellectuals among us are really just fools who over-complicate everything, or are using the confusion of complexity to get away with something. In fact, they really believe that they're the smart ones because they can see how simple the world really is while the intellectuals can't, or won't. But in reality they're just being governed by their emotions and are therefor basically irrational.

If you want to talk about absolutism, talk about absolutism, but don't think it such a complex issue only non-Bush supporters can understand. You are just full of hot air wasting time with useless semantics. If PureX can figure it out, anybody can figure it out. Don't claim complexity where there is none. The problem with your objection is that you seem to have imagined that I claimed these people are stupid, and so are unable to handle complexity. This is not the case. They aren't too stupid to address the complexity of life, they're willfully ignorant, and so refuse to address it. They prefer to pretend that life is absurdly simple by viewing it only through polar extremes. This makes them feel smart and strong and decisive without having to address the confusion and ambiguity that comes with the complicated reality of life.

I get a kick out of watching Bush on TV - after repeating for the thousanth time about how Saddam was and evil-doer and the terrorists are evil-doers too because they refuse to accept Bush and the american way as their divinely appointed saviors he always says: "see?" as if he were explaining some very clever bit of insight to a slow-minded child. He really believes that he can see through the clutter of imaginary complexity to the simple truth of the matter. It's absurd, of course, but Bush is an absolutist. In his world everything is about the good-doers and evil-doers. Saddam = bad. Bush = good. That's all there is to it .... "see?"

hahaha

dotcom
January 21st, 2005, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by PureX

The problem with your objection is that you seem to have imagined that I claimed these people are stupid, and so are unable to handle complexity. This is not the case. They aren't too stupid to address the complexity of life, they're willfully ignorant, and so refuse to address it. They prefer to pretend that life is absurdly simple by viewing it only through polar extremes. This makes them feel smart and strong and decisive without having to address the confusion and ambiguity that comes with the complicated reality of life.

I get a kick out of watching Bush on TV - after repeating for the thousanth time about how Saddam was and evil-doer and the terrorists are evil-doers too because they refuse to accept Bush and the american way as their divinely appointed saviors he always says: "see?" as if he were explaining some very clever bit of insight to a slow-minded child. He really believes that he can see through the clutter of imaginary complexity to the simple truth of the matter. It's absurd, of course, but Bush is an absolutist. In his world everything is about the good-doers and evil-doers. Saddam = bad. Bush = good. That's all there is to it .... "see?"

hahaha

Liberal view of absolutism.

http://cscwww.cats.ohiou.edu/~Chastain/ac/absoluti.htm

One Eyed Jack
January 21st, 2005, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by Skeptic

Just because someone is trying to take your life, it does not logically follow that there is no other way to prevent them from succeeding except killing them first.

That's the surest way. I've never heard of a dead person committing murder. Have you?


Was invading Iraq a last resort?

Yes. Saddam could have met the UN resolutions, or failing that, he could have stepped down when he was given the chance. He didn't do either, so we went in and took him down just like we said we would.


Was Saddam such a grave and imminent threat that there were no other options for dealing with him but invading Iraq

We've been trying other options for years, and they simply didn't work. Allowing him to remain in power presented too much of a threat to our allies in the region, and inflicted too many hardships on the people of Iraq. Removing him from power was the best option, and really the only one left.


and killing tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in the process?

I'm not aware of tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children being killed in our invasion of Iraq. Did people just start slaughtering their families when they heard we were coming in, or what?

Skeptic
January 21st, 2005, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by PureX

The whole point of being an absolutist is to pretend that the world and it's problems are all very simple. That's why absolutism always leads to extremism - to eliminate having to recon with complexity, the absolutist simply views everything in polar extremes. That way he can imagine that no matter what problem or circumstance he's looking at, it'll always appear as simple as 'this' or 'that'.

George Bush and many of his supporters are absolutists. They are the haters of complexity, and are the haters of intellectuals because intellectuals are willing to embrace complexity. They view the world in polar extremes because that makes the world look simple to them. And they really want to believe that the world and everything in it is very simple. They both fear and resent complexity and the people who can embrace complexity. They actually believe that the intellectuals among us are really just fools who over-complicate everything, or are using the confusion of complexity to get away with something. In fact, they really believe that they're the smart ones because they can see how simple the world really is while the intellectuals can't, or won't. But in reality they're just being governed by their emotions and are therefor basically irrational.

This is why absolutists can't see any other solution to a problem or a threat but overwhelming force and total anihilation. In fact, if you watch these threads for a while, you'll see that basically killing people is the absolutist's preferred solution to almost everything. To consider anything else causes them to have to confront life's complexity and ambiguity. And they both fear and hate complexity and ambiguity so much that they'd basically rather just propose killing people.

And sadly, one of these absolutists is now our president. Good points! Well said! :thumb:

Skeptic
January 21st, 2005, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by PureX

Skeptic,

You'll notice that because these absolutists can't deal with anything complex, their only response to the posts that offend them is this sort of idiotic name-calling and irrational drivel. Yes. They prefer to demonize the messenger, rather than rationally address the message.


They can't actually address the issue, because real issues tend to be complicated and to have various viable points of view. So the only way they have of expressing their negative emotions toward this complexity (remember that they are emotionally driven) is to spit irrational insults at those who dare to expose the complexity of life to them, and their inability/unwillingness to deal with it. So I've noticed.


In the Bush's case, he can't go around spitting irrational insults at people who dare to contradict his extremist oversimplifications of reality, so he "punishes" them in other ways. When news people ask him questions that expose his aversion to the complexities of tort reform, for example, he has their access to him and the white house barred. When other nation's leaders questioned his blinding over-simplification of the "danger in Iraq" he began cutting off our dealings with them as a form of retribution. Being driven by emotion, absolutists often become very petty and spiteful in their behavior, and George Bush is well known for having a very egosistical vindictive streak, just as he is also well known for rewarding those who support his extremist views of reality.

It's a sad time in America. Indeed! :noid:

Skeptic
January 21st, 2005, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by PureX

Yes, they are a perfect example of the extremism of absolutists - particularly of religious absolutists. The only solution they can see to any problem is "kill it". The current war between Muslim extremist absolutists and Right-wing Christian absolutists (fundies and the Bush Administration) can only result in an endless battle, just like what has been happening for years between Israel and the Palestinians.

Since absolutism is irrational, I feel that, unless absolutists give up their absolutism, there is little hope for progress. Perhaps the best we can do is try to unite the voices of reason in the hope that they will someday be heard.

Skeptic
January 21st, 2005, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by dotcom

OK, now identify the complexity both the terrorists and Bush were/was trying to avoid respectively. What? Have you not been reading "commie" posts for the past few years? If you had, you would have some sense of the complex issues at hand.

BillyBob
January 21st, 2005, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by Skeptic

What? Have you not been reading "commie" posts for the past few years? If you had, you would have some sense of the complex issues at hand.

Translation: "I have no idea, I just keep repeating the demo-commie talking points hoping I won't actually have to explain them"

Skeptic
January 21st, 2005, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

Yes. Saddam could have met the UN resolutions, or failing that, he could have stepped down when he was given the chance. He didn't do either, so we went in and took him down just like we said we would. Just because Saddam had not previously met UN resolutions, it does not follow that would continue to do so. In fact, Saddam was complying with such resolutions in the months leading up to March 2003. Just because Saddam didn't step down from power when Bush asked him to, it does not follow that there was no other ways to eventually remove him from power. Bush's invasion was unnecessary and immoral.


We've been trying other options for years, and they simply didn't work. We DID NOT exhaust our options by any means.


Allowing him to remain in power presented too much of a threat to our allies in the region, and inflicted too many hardships on the people of Iraq. Saddam was NOT a threat. And there is no clear hard evidence that shows otherwise. One does NOT invade a country, killing thousands of innocent people in the process, because of hardships a dictator inflicts on his people. If Saddam had been in the middle of mass exterminations, in March 2003, this would have been a different story. Saddam was boxed in and monitored 24/7. He was unlikely to pull such crap.


Removing him from power was the best option, and really the only one left. As most people now agree, invading Iraq was HARDLY the best option! And it was FAR from the only option left.


I'm not aware of tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children being killed in our invasion of Iraq. Did people just start slaughtering their families when they heard we were coming in, or what? How many innocent men, women and children do you think really died during and since Bush's invasion of March 2003?

BillyBob
January 21st, 2005, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by Skeptic

Just because Saddam had not previously met UN resolutions, it does not follow that would continue to do so.


:darwinsm:


My sides are hurting, that was hilarious!

BillyBob
January 21st, 2005, 07:09 PM
Thanks for the laugh, Skeptic! :darwinsm:

::still laughing::

BillyBob
January 21st, 2005, 07:10 PM
:darwinsm:

drbrumley
January 21st, 2005, 07:23 PM
Question, if the United States had sactions placed upon us, would we not break them?

If so, why?

If not,why?

BillyBob
January 21st, 2005, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by drbrumley

Question, if the United States had sactions placed upon us, would we not break them?

If so, why?

Of course we would break them. Screw the rest of the world, we are the LONE SUPERPOWER!

WE DON'T HAVE TO SUBMIT TO ANYBODY! :banana:

drbrumley
January 21st, 2005, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by BillyBob

Of course we would break them. Screw the rest of the world, we are the LONE SUPERPOWER!

WE DON'T HAVE TO SUBMIT TO ANYBODY! :banana:

Thank you for the straightforward answer. So Iraq doesn't have that right that we have? No SOVERIGN nation can break the sanctions unless it is the United States?

BillyBob
January 21st, 2005, 07:36 PM
Originally posted by drbrumley

Thank you for the straightforward answer. So Iraq doesn't have that right that we have?

They have no rights at all, unless they can defend and maintain them.


No SOVERIGN nation can break the sanctions unless it is the United States?

Any sovereign nation can break sanctions if it has the military stregnth to do so. Saddam gambled and lost. So is the way of the world.

Are you suggesting we have Global Laws that the US should submit to?

drbrumley
January 21st, 2005, 08:08 PM
Global laws? Of course not. That infringes upon the right of EVERY nation.

EVEN IRAQ!

So I submit to you, that the United Nations has no juristidiction in any nations affairs, whether they are weak or powerful. And if the United Nations cant be allowed to sanction us, then the United Nations cant sanction anyone.

Iraq pre Kuwait, had our blessing and approval to do what they did. Let me quote the ambassodor to Iraq in the transcript to a meeting held with Saddam Hussein:


Saddam Hussein - As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.

GLASPIE: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.

I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly.

And if I may, your reasoning begs the question. If we can do whatever we so please when it comes to other nations and the world body of the U.N., what did Iraq do that was so different from us? Nothing. Kuwait was infringing on the borders, everyone knows this, including Bush 1 and he gave tasit approval. Until the U.N. freaked out, nothing was going to be done. As our ambassodor said and rightfully so..... "But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait."

It is pretty self evident where the facts take us and the facts take us we had NO business over there in the first place.

drbrumley
January 21st, 2005, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by elected4ever

BB, I'm surprised. you have a might makes right attitude. England had an embargo on us and the French broke that embargo and we became a nation. You are much worse than a communist. You are a globalists neo con and I don't care if you get angry. I will refrain from further comment as anything else I might say is for worse than what I have already said.

Can I have a civilized discussion without all the negativity for once?

drbrumley
January 21st, 2005, 08:24 PM
OEJ says

Saddam could have met the UN resolutions, or failing that, he could have stepped down when he was given the chance. He didn't do either, so we went in and took him down just like we said we would.

Who gave us that right?

PureX
January 21st, 2005, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by Skeptic

The current war between Muslim extremist absolutists and Right-wing Christian absolutists (fundies and the Bush Administration) can only result in an endless battle, just like what has been happening for years between Israel and the Palestinians.

Since absolutism is irrational, I feel that, unless absolutists give up their absolutism, there is little hope for progress. Perhaps the best we can do is try to unite the voices of reason in the hope that they will someday be heard. Yes, the attacks happening in Iraq are not going to stop, now, until we leave. And we aren't going to leave until they stop, because that would make us look like losers. So the Iraqi absolutists (insurgents) and the american absolutists (Bush conservatives) are now locked in battle by their own willful ignorance, costing many lives and billions of dollars and with no end in sight.

Basically what's going to happen is that the Bush administration will have to tell ever more outrageous lies about how Iraq has been "freed from tyrany" until they can begin to pull out while pretending that they have succeeded. Meanwhile the anti-american forces in Iraq will claim that they have "beat" the americans and will try to use their "victory" to gain them popular influence and ultimately political control of Iraq. And they may well succeed. But by then all the participants in this fiasco will be retired from public office, and will just ignore the incredible damage they've done through their willful ignorance and hubris. And the american people will be paying for this mess for decades to come. No one will think about the many thousands that have died, except those who knew and loved them personally.

elected4ever
January 21st, 2005, 09:59 PM
I deleted the last post that I made at the request of doc. I do not apologize for my indignation at those who flaunt the US Constitution and treat it as though it were toilet paper. I Have no respect for communist, neocons, liberals or progressives. I believe you all are enemies of this country and of the constitution whether you are citizens or not.

BillyBob
January 21st, 2005, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by elected4ever

BB, I'm surprised. you have a might makes right attitude.

Why? That is the only way to enforce your will?


England had an embargo on us and the French broke that embargo and we became a nation.

Yep, we became mightier than England!


You are much worse than a communist.

I can't wait to hear your explanation of this...:rolleyes:


You are a globalists

You are a liar, I am anything BUT a globalist.


neo con

I'm not Jewish,


and I don't care if you get angry.

Obviously.


I will refrain from further comment as anything else I might say is for worse than what I have already said.

Why stop now, you've already demonstrated a total incomprehension of reality, why not go for the gusto?

elected4ever
January 21st, 2005, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by BillyBob


Why? That is the only way to enforce your will? Why is it necessary to enforce our will. Defense and aggression are two different things.




Yep, we became mightier than England! How is that when we pay tribute to the English.




I can't wait to hear your explanation of this...:rolleyes: How is overtly destroying a nation from within in order to justify global expansion.




You are a liar, I am anything BUT a globalist.How am I a lier. It is not me who has their sights set on world domination. If you don't believe me read GW's inaugural speech but this time think about what he is saying.




I'm not Jewish, Never said you were. What has that got to do with being a neocon?



Why stop now, you've already demonstrated a total incomprehension of reality, why not go for the gusto? I am not the one falling for the propaganda and defending it. I understand it and have to deal with it but I am not fooled by it. Doc gave you an example of the neocon thinking by quoteing Henry Hide and you flipped him off. So you must agree with them.

Mr. 5020
January 21st, 2005, 10:57 PM
Originally posted by elected4ever

How am I a lier. No, no, no....he called you a "liar."

BillyBob
January 22nd, 2005, 04:28 AM
Originally posted by elected4ever

Why is it necessary to enforce our will. Defense and aggression are two different things.

Saddam was a terrorist, removing him from power was a defensive move.





How am I a lier. It is not me who has their sights set on world domination. If you don't believe me read GW's inaugural speech but this time think about what he is saying.

Spreading democracy does not equate to world domination. However, world wide democracies are in our own best interest, simply because democracies are much less likely to wage war, dictatorships are much more likely to wage war.




Never said you were. What has that got to do with being a neocon?

Being Jewish is on of the riquirements of a 'neocon'.




I am not the one falling for the propaganda and defending it. I understand it and have to deal with it but I am not fooled by it. Doc gave you an example of the neocon thinking by quoteing Henry Hide and you flipped him off. So you must agree with them.

I flipped off Doc because he started his post exclaiming that I don't care about the Constitution.

elected4ever
January 22nd, 2005, 05:05 AM
Originally posted by BillyBob


Saddam was a terrorist, removing him from power was a defensive move. Then why was it necessary to by-pass the constitution? Saddam was not a treat to the US. He was a treat to his neighbors. I don't see his neighbors doing anything but obstructing.






Spreading democracy does not equate to world domination. However, world wide democracies are in our own best interest, simply because democracies are much less likely to wage war, dictatorships are much more likely to wage war. I would not walk across the street to spread democracy. Democracy is a code word for socialism. According to Bush, he will do what ever it takes to spared socialism. There is no liberty or freedom in lawless societies especially the minorities of that society. Democracies are oppressive in nature and unstable. God favors monarchies. That makes God a despot I suppose.




Being Jewish is on of the requirements of a 'neocon'. Not to any definition that I have heard. Anyone in favor of the New world order is a neocon. That don't have to be Jewish






I flipped off Doc because he started his post exclaiming that I don't care about the Constitution. You don't. Your actions prove it. If I am wrong prove me wrong.

Frank Ernest
January 22nd, 2005, 05:47 AM
Originally posted by drbrumley

Thank you for the straightforward answer. So Iraq doesn't have that right that we have? No SOVERIGN nation can break the sanctions unless it is the United States?

We are not discussing rights, we are not discussing sanctions against the United States. International relations are not a matter of some misguided view of moral parity, much as you would like to imply it so.

We are dealing with sovereign nations. Saddam Hussein amassed a 14-year track record of violating the sanctions which were imposed upon him by other sovereign nations. Saddam's ability to withstand or defeat those sanctions were based upon his power to do so, not some chimerous "right" to do so.

Let's get real, doctor. A sovereign nation exists because of its ability to defend its territory and sovereignty. A nation exists because of the forebearance of other sovereign nations. The rules imposed by other sovereign nations against a sovereign nation are effective only if the rules imposed can be enforced. Enforcement can come about through compliance, diplomacy, and/or force of arms.

With Saddam Hussein compliance was never an issue, diplomacy failed and the United States, and others, resorted to armed force. That's the way of the world, like it or lump it.

BillyBob
January 22nd, 2005, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by elected4ever


Then why was it necessary to by-pass the constitution?

Congress approved our action in Iraq.


Saddam was not a treat to the US. He was a treat to his neighbors. I don't see his neighbors doing anything but obstructing.

Saddam was threat to the entire western civilizastion, he was a terrorist.






I would not walk across the street to spread democracy.

Nobody is asking you to.


Democracy is a code word for socialism. According to Bush, he will do what ever it takes to spared socialism.

:darwinsm:


There is no liberty or freedom in lawless societies especially the minorities of that society. Democracies are oppressive in nature and unstable. God favors monarchies. That makes God a despot I suppose.

:darwinsm:




Not to any definition that I have heard. Anyone in favor of the New world order is a neocon. That don't have to be Jewish

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)) is a page with quite a few in depth definitions of neocon. After reading it, you will conclude that the term has absolutely no definitive meaning.






You don't. Your actions prove it. If I am wrong prove me wrong.

:wave2:

Oh, there's that pesky smilie again....how many fingers is he holding up this time?

BillyBob
January 22nd, 2005, 10:11 AM
Criticism of term Neoconservative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)#Criticism_of_term)

The term was coined by socialist Michael Harrington, who wanted a way to characterize former leftists who had moved significantly to the right – people he had been deriding as "socialists for Nixon."

Many of the men and women to whom the neoconservative label is applied reject it as artificial and too abstract. The fact that its use has rapidly risen since the 2003 Iraq War is cited by conservatives as proof that the term is largely irrelevant in the long term. David Horowitz, a purported leading neo-con thinker offered this critique in a recent interview with an Italian newspaper:

Neo-conservatism is a term almost exclusively used by the enemies of America's liberation of Iraq. There is no "neo-conservative" movement in the United States. When there was one, it was made up of former Democrats who embraced the welfare state but supported Ronald Reagan's Cold War policies against the Soviet bloc. Today neo-conservatism identifies those who believe in an aggressive policy against radical Islam and the global terrorists.

Similarly, many other supposed neoconservatives believe that the term has been adopted by the political left to stereotype supporters of U.S. foreign policy under the George W. Bush administration. Others have similarly likened descriptions of neoconservatism to a conspiracy theory and attribute the term to anti-Semitism. Paul Wolfowitz has denounced the term as meaningless label, saying:

[If] you read the Middle Eastern press, it seems to be a euphemism for some kind of nefarious Zionist conspiracy. But I think that, in my view it's very important to approach [foreign policy] not from a doctrinal point of view. I think almost every case I know is different. Indonesia is different from the Philippines. Iraq is different from Indonesia. I think there are certain principles that I believe are American principles – both realism and idealism. I guess I'd like to call myself a democratic realist. I don't know if that makes me a neo-conservative or not.

Other "traditional" conservatives (e.g., Jonah Goldberg) have rejected the label as trite and over-used, arguing "There's nothing 'neo' about me: I was never anything other than conservative." Other critics have similarly argued the term has been rendered meaningless through excessive and inconsistant use. For example, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are often identified as leading "neocons" despite the fact that both men have been life-long conservative Republicans. Such critics thus largely reject the claim that there is a neoconservative movement separate from traditional American conservatism.

Other traditional conservatives are likewise skeptical of the contemporary usage term, and may dislike being associated with the stereotypes, or even the supposed agendas of the "neocons." Conservative columnist David Harsanyi wrote, "These days, it seems that even temperate support for military action against dictators and terrorists qualifies you a neocon."

PureX
January 22nd, 2005, 10:17 AM
The term "neo-conservative" only means "new conservative". It is used today in america to differentiate between the old (past) political conservative platform, and those who believed in it, and a new politically conservative platform that has been emerging since Reagan. There are some similarities, of course, but there are also some striking differences. And it's these striking differences that have made the term "neo-conservative" so necessary and functuonal.

It's a proper term, and in most cases today it's being used properly.

BillyBob
January 22nd, 2005, 10:27 AM
It's a meaningless term because there is no consensus for its definition. The demo-commies love to throw the term around because they think it has a derogatory meaning, but they just end up looking stupid, as usual.

PureX
January 22nd, 2005, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by BillyBob It's a meaningless term because there is no consensus for its definition. The demo-commies love to throw the term around because they think it has a derogatory meaning, but they just end up looking stupid, as usual. Conservatives themselves use the term. You're only objecting to it because you know full well that it has some derogatory implications. One of the most prominant characteristics of the neo-cons is that they are extremely aggressive, so much so that they will do most anything to facilitate their own agenda, not the least of which is lying. They sanction and even promote violence as a viable method of furthering their agenda, and they have no respect for the rights or desires of other people or nations. They worship power, and they believe the ability to use force automatically justifies the decision to do so. "Might makes us right" could be their motto. I've seen you promote this nonsense yourself, and if you don't like the way makes you look, then that's your own problem, isn't it. Don't try and blame what you are on what it's called.

BillyBob
January 22nd, 2005, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by PureX

Conservatives themselves use the term.

So?


You're only objecting to it because you know full well that it has some derogatory implications.

I don't think it's derogatory at all, but as I have clearly demonstrated, there is no consensus as to the word's definition.


One of the most prominant characteristics of the neo-cons is that they are extremely aggressive, so much so that they will do most anything to facilitate their own agenda, not the least of which is lying. They sanction and even promote violence as a viable method of furthering their agenda, and they have no respect for the rights or desires of other people or nations. They worship power, and they believe the ability to use force automatically justifies the decision to do so. "Might makes us right" could be their motto. I've seen you promote this nonsense yourself, and if you don't like the way makes you look, then that's your own problem, isn't it. Don't try and blame what you are on what it's called.

:yawn:

Go read the links I provided, then get back to us....

dotcom
January 22nd, 2005, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by PureX

Conservatives themselves use the term. You're only objecting to it because you know full well that it has some derogatory implications. One of the most prominant characteristics of the neo-cons is that they are extremely aggressive, so much so that they will do most anything to facilitate their own agenda, not the least of which is lying. They sanction and even promote violence as a viable method of furthering their agenda, and they have no respect for the rights or desires of other people or nations. They worship power, and they believe the ability to use force automatically justifies the decision to do so. "Might makes us right" could be their motto. I've seen you promote this nonsense yourself, and if you don't like the way makes you look, then that's your own problem, isn't it. Don't try and blame what you are on what it's called.

Constructive dialogue set aside, why are you seething in anger? It is just a discussion.

BillyBob
January 22nd, 2005, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by dotcom

Constructive dialogue set aside, why are you seething in anger? It is just a discussion.


Liberals are very reactionary. They live in the world of 'feelings' and 'emotions', not the world of thought and logic. That explains their policies and the method of pandering their leaders prefer.

PureX
January 22nd, 2005, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by dotcom Constructive dialogue set aside, why are you seething in anger? It is just a discussion. I'm not "seething in anger" at all. These "new conservatives" are extremely aggressive. They are dishonest in pursuit of their agenda. They do promote violence as the means to their ends. They do believe that "might makes right". And these attitudes are distinctly different than the attitudes of conservatives of days past. Don't blame the words, or the people using them, just because you don't like what they mean.

Frank Ernest
January 22nd, 2005, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by PureeX

I'm not "seething in anger" at all. These "new conservatives" are extremely aggressive. They are dishonest in pursuit of their agenda. They do promote violence as the means to their ends. They do believe that "might makes right". And these attitudes are distinctly different than the attitudes of conservatives of days past. Don't blame the words, or the people using them, just because you don't like what they mean.

Gee! Looks like "new conservative" = commie.

The again, lie-berals always accuse their opponents of doing exactly what they are doing.

Jackielabby
January 22nd, 2005, 05:03 PM
Jeez, how on earth does one not fall into the 'commie' category in FE's eyes?

Jackielabby
January 22nd, 2005, 05:04 PM
Almost half the population of the USA must be 'commie'!!

BillyBob
January 22nd, 2005, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by Jackielabby

Almost half the population of the USA must be 'commie'!!

Exactly!

Mr. 5020
January 22nd, 2005, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by Jackielabby

Jeez, how on earth does one not fall into the 'commie' category in FE's eyes? By not being a commie.

Frank Ernest
January 23rd, 2005, 05:57 AM
Yes, Indeed, Mr. 5020! :thumb:

elected4ever
January 23rd, 2005, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by Jackielabby

Jeez, how on earth does one not fall into the 'commie' category in FE's eyes? 1. By not challenging the policies of the Bush neocons. One word of descent and you become a commie to BB and the rest of the illiterate neocon supporters. 2. being a commie and supporting communist like the Dems and Rep. do.:crackup:

Frank Ernest
January 23rd, 2005, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by :mock::e4e:

1. By not challenging the policies of the Bush neocons. One word of descent and you become a commie to BB and the rest of the illiterate neocon supporters. 2. being a commie and supporting communist like the Dems and Rep. do.:crackup:
:darwinsm: You are challenging :aikido:7's preeminence for posting simplistic stupidities.

One Eyed Jack
January 23rd, 2005, 11:08 AM
I dunno. I think aikido7 has some of the stupidest posts I've ever read around here, but at least he can spell. I generally skip over e4e's posts because I don't feel like deciphering them.

elected4ever
January 23rd, 2005, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

I dunno. I think aikido7 has some of the stupidest posts I've ever read around here, but at least he can spell. I generally skip over e4e's posts because I don't feel like deciphering them. I hardly read yours at all . You usually have nothing useful to say.:p

One Eyed Jack
January 23rd, 2005, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by elected4ever

I hardly read yours at all . You usually have nothing useful to say.:p

You read that last one.

elected4ever
January 23rd, 2005, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

You read that last one. I said hardly. I never said never:rolleyes:

One Eyed Jack
January 23rd, 2005, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by elected4ever

I said hardly. I never said never:rolleyes:

It's not like it really matters to me anyway. If you want to prejudge my posts as having no value, then knock yourself out.

dotcom
January 23rd, 2005, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by PureX


George Bush and many of his supporters are absolutists. They are the haters of complexity, and are the haters of intellectuals because intellectuals are willing to embrace complexity. They view the world in polar extremes because that makes the world look simple to them. And they really want to believe that the world and everything in it is very simple. They both fear and resent complexity and the people who can embrace complexity. They actually believe that the intellectuals among us are really just fools who over-complicate everything, or are using the confusion of complexity to get away with something. In fact, they really believe that they're the smart ones because they can see how simple the world really is while the intellectuals can't, or won't. But in reality they're just being governed by their emotions and are therefor basically irrational.

PureX,

I read your post again and thouhjt the lieberal Dems are so out-of-touch with reality they will never get it.

Here is what Anthony Stahelski of Central Washington University says about obsession of Dems with intellectuals:

" Unfortunately for Democrats, the Democratic Party is currently dominated by activists and financial contributors who think that intellectuals make good presidents. Consequently potential Democratic candidates who have the common touch and are perceived as non-intellectuals are eliminated in the Democratic primaries. Bill Clinton was the perfect Democratic candidate because he had the intellectual credentials to appeal to the activists that dominate the primaries and he had the common touch to be successful in the general election. However, candidates who have both sets of attributes are rare. If the Democratic Party wants to elect more presidents, Democrats may have to give up their love affair with intellectuals."

BillyBob
January 23rd, 2005, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by elected4ever

1. By not challenging the policies of the Bush neocons. One word of descent and you become a commie to BB

That's not true. :nono:


and the rest of the illiterate neocon supporters.

I'm illiterate???? :confused:

PureX
January 23rd, 2005, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by dotcom PureX,

I read your post again and thouhjt the lieberal Dems are so out-of-touch with reality they will never get it.Yeah, how could they not know that D students with resentments against smart people make the best presidents?

One Eyed Jack
January 23rd, 2005, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by PureX

Yeah, how could they not know that D students with resentments against smart people make the best presidents?

If you ask me, they make the best democrats.

elected4ever
January 23rd, 2005, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

It's not like it really matters to me anyway. If you want to prejudge my posts as having no value, then knock yourself out. You prejudged me as not knowing anything because of my spelling.. I never could spell well. That doesn't make me stupid. Some of the best spellers in the world are stupid people.

One Eyed Jack
January 23rd, 2005, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by elected4ever

You prejudged me as not knowing anything because of my spelling..

Where did I do that? I simply said that I generally skip over your posts because I didn't feel like deciphering them. That's not making any judgements concerning the quality of your ideas. I simply find them hard to read.

elected4ever
January 23rd, 2005, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

Where did I do that? I simply said that I generally skip over your posts because I didn't feel like deciphering them. That's not making any judgments concerning the quality of your ideas. I simply find them hard to read. I will try to do better and its my misunderstanding of your intent.

One Eyed Jack
January 23rd, 2005, 02:37 PM
No sweat.

dotcom
January 24th, 2005, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

If you ask me, they make the best democrats.

That's the truth.

BillyBob
January 24th, 2005, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

If you ask me, they make the best democrats.

:darwinsm:

Skeptic
January 24th, 2005, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by BillyBob

Saddam was a terrorist, removing him from power was a defensive move. :darwinsm: Saddam was not a threat. There was no pre-invasion and is no post-invasion hard evidence that suggests otherwise. Even if you make the stretch that Saddam was a "terrorist," not all "terrorist" dictators need to be overthrown by an invasion that unnecessarily and immorally kills tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children!

Terrorism has been with us for a very long time. It will continue to be with us for a very long time. No "war on terrorism" will EVER be won! This does not mean that terrorism should not be fought. We should ALSO fight terrorism when it is perpetrated by the United States! Trying to fight terrorism by overthrowing dictators or low-level "terrorists" that are not a threat by invading sovereign nations, killing tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in the process, not only does NOT help the fight against terrorism, it actually HURTS the fight. The invasion and occupation of Iraq is a prime example!!

Invading Iraq was not a "defensive move." Bush and his neocon Pentagon/CIA buddies KNEW that Iraq was not a threat for the following reasons:

1. They knew that they destroyed most of Iraq's military infrastructure back during the first Gulf War. They knew that Saddam's military was no match for the U.S.

2. They knew that Iraq's WMDs and WMD programs had been destroyed back in the early 1990s.

3. They knew that Iraq did not have the resources or capability to reconstitute it's demolished WMD programs, as long as the sanctions and monitoring was in place.

4. They knew that they had their military thumb on Saddam's back. Remember the "No-Fly" zones? Iraq was surrounded by U.S. and international military forces.

5. They knew that Iraq was monitored 24/7 by U.S. forces and the international community, and that Saddam was not able to make viable threats to the U.S. or other nations.

6. They knew that the UN weapons inspectors were doing their job in Iraq, prior to the invasion, and had found ZERO WMDs or active WMD programs.

7. They knew that the so-called "intelligence" they had received from Iraqi exiles had ZERO basis in empirical evidence. They knew that all they were being fed was hearsay, suspicions, lies, distortions and exaggerations.

8. They knew they had ZERO hard evidence of any real or significant ties between Saddam and 9/11, despite the Bush Administration's rhetoric to the contrary.

9. They knew they had ZERO hard evidence of any real or significant ties between Saddam and al-Qaeda, despite the Bush Administration's rhetoric to the contrary.

10. They knew that invading Iraq would result in the deaths of many thousands of innocent men, women and children.

11. They knew that they could pull off such an invasion, after having hoodwinked a majority of the Republican-controlled Congress and a majority of the American public.

12. They knew that the Right-wing media moguls would support their invasion, and that the fear of being labeled "unpatriotic," which might have depressed their "bottom line," would be sufficient to suppress most anti-war dissent in the general news media.

13. Most of all, they knew that they would not have bothered to put such military power into overthrowing a dictator, who was not a threat, unless Iraq had among the greatest oil resources on the planet.


Spreading democracy does not equate to world domination. Spreading it at the point of a gun defeats the purpose of democracy.


However, world wide democracies are in our own best interest, simply because democracies are much less likely to wage war, dictatorships are much more likely to wage war. No county, including the self-righteous U.S., has a right to wage war, and kill thousands of innocent men, women and children, in order to overthrow dictatorships that are not a threat, or to impose what we think of as "democracy" on other nations.

Skeptic
January 24th, 2005, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by Frank Ernest

A sovereign nation exists because of its ability to defend its territory and sovereignty. In your Right-wing militaristic world view.


A nation exists because of the forebearance of other sovereign nations. In your Right-wing militaristic world view.


The rules imposed by other sovereign nations against a sovereign nation are effective only if the rules imposed can be enforced. The effectiveness of rules is one thing. The morality of rules is another.

By your standards, if you can't prevent me from killing you, then the laws prohibiting murder are ineffective. Then, should such laws be abolished? If the weaker cannot effectively prevent the stronger from dominating them, should the strong inherit the earth? Does the fact that the U.S. is now the world's strongest superpower give them the right to dictate what kind of governments other nations can have?


Enforcement can come about through compliance, diplomacy, and/or force of arms. With Saddam Hussein compliance was never an issue, diplomacy failed and the United States, and others, resorted to armed force. That's the way of the world, like it or lump it. Saddam was complying with UN inspectors. Iraq was being truthful when it told the UN that they no longer had any WMD or WMD programs. When the U.S. claimed that Iraq did have WMD or WMD programs, the burden of proof was on those who made the claim, i.e. the U.S. The Bush Administration failed to substantiate any such claims. Bush failed at diplomacy with Iraq, not the other way around. Bush was not even interested in diplomacy! If Bush and company had pursued diplomacy, they would have not been able to achieve their goal of invading Iraq, which unnecessarily and immorally killed tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children, for their political, economic and strategic interests.

BillyBob
January 24th, 2005, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by Skeptic

:darwinsm: Saddam was not a threat.

Saddam was a terrorist, of course he was a threat! :doh:




Spreading it at the point of a gun defeats the purpose of democracy.

Over 80% of eligible voters in Iraq have registered to vote in next week's election, do you think they were all held at gunpoint and forced to register? What about the Million or so Iraqi's in this country who are also participating in the election, were they also forced to register? Are they going to be forced at gunpoint to vote?

The obvious answer is "NO", once again proving that you don't have a clue about what is really going on.

Gerald
January 24th, 2005, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by Skeptic
If the weaker cannot effectively prevent the stronger from dominating them, should the strong inherit the earth?Well, that pretty much sums up the way the Real World™ works, Skep...

:: shrug ::

BillyBob
January 24th, 2005, 04:53 PM
Yep! :banana:

Gerald
January 24th, 2005, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by BillyBob

Yep! :banana: Then why do you have a problem with people who cheat to get ahead?

BillyBob
January 24th, 2005, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by Gerald

Then why do you have a problem with people who cheat to get ahead?

That's a fair question.

I see the international political landscape as being under different 'rules' than our social interactions with fellow American citizens, or even other people in general. I don't know if I can explain it any clearer than that, but there is a difference.

Poeple in this country can get ahead without 'cheating'.

Gerald
January 24th, 2005, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by BillyBob
Poeple in this country can get ahead without 'cheating'. My experience has been that it isn't as much fun, though.

My high school won a state football championship, thanks to a can of itching powder...and I oughtta know, I'm the one who provided it... :chuckle:

Skeptic
January 24th, 2005, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by Gerald

Well, that pretty much sums up the way the Real World™ works, Skep... One goal of modern civilization has been to fight against the might-makes-right mentality that has dominated human history. I think this is a worthy goal. Whether it is current "way of the Real World" is not the issue. Murder is a current why of dealing with things for many in today's real world. But does this mean that we should simply accept murder as a fact of life and not try to do anything to prevent or reduce it?

BillyBob
January 24th, 2005, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by Gerald

My experience has been that it isn't as much fun, though.

My high school won a state football championship, thanks to a can of itching powder...and I oughtta know, I'm the one who provided it... :chuckle:

Just just can't keep your hands off of other mens underwear, eh? :nono:

BillyBob
January 24th, 2005, 05:24 PM
:eek:

Lighthouse
January 24th, 2005, 10:03 PM
Gerald-
Do you ever get tired of sounding like a...:noid: Uh, do you ever get tired of meowing all the time?:D

Frank Ernest
January 25th, 2005, 05:07 AM
Originally posted by :mock::skeptic:

One goal of modern civilization has been to fight against the might-makes-right mentality that has dominated human history. I think this is a worthy goal. Whether it is current "way of the Real World" is not the issue. Murder is a current why of dealing with things for many in today's real world. But does this mean that we should simply accept murder as a fact of life and not try to do anything to prevent or reduce it?

Might Makes Right = Survival of the Fittest :up:
Is there a problem here? :confused:

BillyBob
January 25th, 2005, 07:02 AM
Originally posted by Frank Ernest

Might Makes Right = Survival of the Fittest :up:
Is there a problem here? :confused:

I have no problem with it. If our enemies were mightier than us, they certainly wouldn't hesitate conquering the US and killing as many of us as possible.

The difference is that the US does not abuse its power or conquer nations, if we did, Japan, Germany and Italy would be the 51st, 52nd and 53rd States!

Gerald
January 25th, 2005, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Gerald-
Do you ever get tired of sounding like a...:noid: Uh, do you ever get tired of meowing all the time?:D
A resounding "no" to both questions! :D

And you have PM.

On Fire
January 25th, 2005, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by Gerald

A resounding "no" to both questions! :D

And you have PM.

I'd love to read it.

Gerald
January 25th, 2005, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by BillyBob
Just just can't keep your hands off of other mens underwear, eh? :nono: I just provided the weapon, I didn't deploy it. That task fell to others.

Like a bullet after it leaves the muzzle of a rifle, once it was out of my hands, it was no longer under my control.

:chuckle:

Gerald
January 25th, 2005, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by On Fire

I'd love to read it. Nothing of consequence, I assure you. Just pointing out a spelling error on lighthouse's part... :chuckle:

On Fire
January 25th, 2005, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by Gerald

Nothing of consequence, I assure you. Just pointing out a spelling error on lighthouse's part... :chuckle:
Oh...I'm familiar with those.

elected4ever
January 25th, 2005, 10:04 AM
Might makes right. True democracy. God help you if you are a minority because no one else will. That is why this government was designed to be a republic, not a democracy. To protect the rights of the weak from the tyranny of the strong. Equal justice under law not unequal justice to the powerful.

BillyBob
January 25th, 2005, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by elected4ever

Might makes right. True democracy. God help you if you are a minority because no one else will. That is why this government was designed to be a republic, not a democracy. To protect the rights of the weak from the tyranny of the strong. Equal justice under law not unequal justice to the powerful.

None of that has anything to do with our international/foreign policy.

elected4ever
January 25th, 2005, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by BillyBob

None of that has anything to do with our international/foreign policy. It has everthing to do with forign policy:p

Skeptic
January 25th, 2005, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by Frank Ernest

Might Makes Right = Survival of the Fittest
Is there a problem here? "Might Makes Right" does not equal "Survival of the Fittest."

"This claim exemplifies the naturalistic fallacy -- arguing that the way things are implies how they ought to be. It is like saying that, if someone's arm is broken, it should stay broken. But "is" does not imply "ought." Evolution is descriptive. It tells how things are, not how they should be.

Humans, being social, improve their fitness through cooperation with other people. Even if survival of the fittest were taken as a basis for morals, it would imply treating other people well."

From: Claim CA002 (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA002.html)


Often, those who negotiate and cooperate have a better chance of long-term survival than those who try to kill each other.

Would Jesus agree with "Might Makes Right"? :confused:

Skeptic
January 25th, 2005, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by elected4ever

Might makes right. True democracy. God help you if you are a minority because no one else will. That is why this government was designed to be a republic, not a democracy. To protect the rights of the weak from the tyranny of the strong. Equal justice under law not unequal justice to the powerful. :thumb:

BillyBob
January 25th, 2005, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by Skeptic

Would Jesus agree with "Might Makes Right"? :confused:



You guys [commies] always ask what Jesus would do when discussing US foreign policy. Jesus wasn't the President of the US, he taught people how to intearct with one another, not how governments should interact. Your point is moot.

Skeptic
January 25th, 2005, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by BillyBob

You guys [commies] always ask what Jesus would do when discussing US foreign policy. Jesus wasn't the President of the US, he taught people how to intearct with one another, not how governments should interact. Your point is moot. Your argument is lame.

What, only the the President of the U.S. knows what's best for the world?

Are you saying that morality only applies to interpersonal relations, not to international relations? :kookoo:

BillyBob
January 25th, 2005, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by Skeptic

Your argument is lame.



My argument is lame????? You, an avowed atheist, attempts to use Jesus in an argument in a totally irrelevant way and you wanna call me lame?

BillyBob
January 25th, 2005, 01:35 PM
Are you suggesting that the US President use the Bible as his guide for all policies he makes?????

BillyBob
January 25th, 2005, 01:37 PM
Is that what you are suggesting, Mr. Seperation of Church and State, anti-theocracy, Christianity is a stupid fairy tale, demo-commie?

Skeptic
January 25th, 2005, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by BillyBob

My argument is lame????? You, an avowed atheist, attempts to use Jesus in an argument in a totally irrelevant way and you wanna call me lame? Did I touch a nerve, BillyBob? :chuckle:

For the nth time, I'm an agnostic.

My use of Jesus was not meant to claim that his morality was the Final word on morality. Rather, I used Jesus to point out the hypocrisy of those who claim to be good moral Christians, while making statements with which Jesus would likely disagree.

Do you believe that morality only applies to interpersonal relations, not to international relations?

Skeptic
January 25th, 2005, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by BillyBob

Are you suggesting that the US President use the Bible as his guide for all policies he makes????? Not at all. :chuckle:

Do you believe that morality only applies to interpersonal relations, not to international relations?

Skeptic
January 25th, 2005, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by BillyBob

Is that what you are suggesting, Mr. Seperation of Church and State, anti-theocracy, Christianity is a stupid fairy tale, demo-commie? Not at all. :chuckle:

Do you believe that morality only applies to interpersonal relations, not to international relations?

Gerald
January 25th, 2005, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by BillyBob
Seperation of Church and State
You are against this?

anti-theocracyYou are pro-theocracy?

Christianity is a stupid fairy taleWhy do you so vehemently disagree with this? You're only a Christian insofar as you regularly play guitar at a church.

Jackielabby
January 25th, 2005, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by BillyBob

Christianity is a stupid fairy tale. :bannana:

elected4ever
January 25th, 2005, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by Gerald

That is about the value of anything you say concerning God. Don't worry though you and Skeptic will find out soon enough if its a fairy tell.:(

Gerald
January 25th, 2005, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by elected4ever
That is about the value of anything you say concerning God. Don't worry though you and Skeptic will find out soon enough if its a fairy tell.:( I will find it out the moment a Christian grows a pair and succeeds in killing me.

Care to try your luck?

Jackielabby
January 25th, 2005, 02:38 PM
The universe is over 6 billion years old.
The earth is over 4 billion years old.
Man dates back 2 million years.
Adam and Eve were created about 6,500 years ago.:)
Go figure.

elected4ever
January 25th, 2005, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by elected4ever

and please if you are going to quote please leave it in context. :p

Gerald
January 25th, 2005, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by elected4ever

That is about the value of anything you say about anything.

elected4ever
January 25th, 2005, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by Jackielabby

The universe is over 6 billion years old.
The earth is over 4 billion years old.
Man dates back 2 million years.
Adam and Eve were created about 6,500 years ago.:)
Go figure. That is all theory. Prove it if you can. But you can't.

Skeptic
January 25th, 2005, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by Jackielabby

"There is no reason for believing that any sort of gods exist, and quite good reasons for believing that they do not exist and never have. It has all been a gigantic waste of time and a waste of life. It would be a joke of cosmic proportions if it weren't so tragic."
— Richard Dawkins :thumb:


"I think if you know what you believe, it makes it a lot easier to answer questions. I can't answer your question"
-- George Bush. :chuckle:

Skeptic
January 25th, 2005, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by elected4ever

That is all therory. Prove it if you can. But you can't. Science is not about proofs. Proofs are for geometry.

Science is about coming up with reasonable theories that are supported by empirical evidence.

So I ask, is the Biblical God-poofed hypothesis a reasonable theory that is supported by empirical evidence?

I think not! :chuckle:

Jackielabby
January 25th, 2005, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by elected4ever

That is all theory. Prove it if you can. But you can't.

Apply this quote to the bible and the fairy tale termed creationism.

elected4ever
January 25th, 2005, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by Gerald

I will find it out the moment a Christian grows a pair and succeeds in killing me.

Care to try your luck? I told you before. Give me your location and agenda and we will see.

Skeptic
January 25th, 2005, 02:52 PM
:sozo: Hey, BillyBob,

Do you believe that morality only applies to interpersonal relations, not to international relations?

elected4ever
January 25th, 2005, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by Jackielabby

Apply this quote to the bible and the fairy tale termed creationism. Now you have it. Nether can be proved. . To me God is real because He proved Himself to me. I cannot prove God exist and you cannot prove that He doesn't. But don't worry we will both find out soon enough. Why is it important to you that God does not exist?:think:

Jackielabby
January 25th, 2005, 03:09 PM
I have got an ammonite I picked up on the beach in Charmouth. Took it to my local museum and was told that it was at least 3 million years old. The person who told me this was an esteemed paleontologist. Sounds a lot more credible than a book that was written two thousand years ago which is full of contradictions. Now, if you want me to quote some of the myriad contradictions found in the book, just ask.
I used to believe in the bible, Jesus and God.... a long time ago. Like the majority of atheists/agnostics I was once a theist.

elected4ever
January 25th, 2005, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by Jackielabby

I have got an ammonite I picked up on the beach in Charmouth. Took it to my local museum and was told that it was at least 3 million years old. The person who told me this was an esteemed paleontologist. Sounds a lot more credible than a book that was written two thousand years ago which is full of contradictions. Now, if you want me to quote some of the myriad contradictions found in the book, just ask.
I used to believe in the bible, Jesus and God.... a long time ago. Like the majority of atheists/agnostics I was once a theist. OK. Im challenging you. But not on this tread. create a seprate tread and name it, "Biblecal Contridictions." Let's see how many contradictions there are. You game.

Jackielabby
January 25th, 2005, 03:27 PM
Righto, elected. Not just tonight. My favourtie tv program is just starting....much more important than biblical debates! Will start the thread tomorrow. One or two to start off, though:
1. God is satisfied with his works
Gen 1:31
God is dissatisfied with his works.
Gen 6:6

2. God dwells in chosen temples
2 Chron 7:12,16
God dwells not in temples
Acts 7:48
:)

elected4ever
January 25th, 2005, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by Jackielabby

Righto, elected. Not just tonight. My favourtie tv program is just starting....much more important than biblical debates! Will start the thread tomorrow. One or two to start off, though:
1. God is satisfied with his works
Gen 1:31
God is dissatisfied with his works.
Gen 6:6

2. God dwells in chosen temples
2 Chron 7:12,16
God dwells not in temples
Acts 7:48
:) Fine you start the tread tomorrow. Just tell me where it is.

Skeptic
January 25th, 2005, 04:39 PM
:sozo: Hey, BillyBob,

Do you believe that morality only applies to interpersonal relations, not to international relations?

BillyBob
January 25th, 2005, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by Skeptic

Did I touch a nerve, BillyBob? :chuckle:

No, I just pointed out how stupid you sound referring to Jesus when you make a habit of deriding George Bush for doing the same thing.

Lame! :loser:




For the nth time, I'm an agnostic.

Fine, but you're still Mr. Seperation of Church and State, anti-theocracy, Christianity is a stupid fairy tale, demo-commie who suddenly wants to cite Jesus while deriding all others who do so.

Lame! :loser:




My use of Jesus was not meant to claim that his morality was the Final word on morality. Rather, I used Jesus to point out the hypocrisy of those who claim to be good moral Christians, while making statements with which Jesus would likely disagree.

Do you believe that morality only applies to interpersonal relations, not to international relations?

No, but you did not mention morality, you mentioned Jesus. So tell me, Mr. Biblical scholar, what was Jesus' foreign policy? What did he have to say about sovereign nations defending themselves against terrorists? What did he have to say about the US Constitution???


Take your time, I'll be here all week.

BillyBob
January 25th, 2005, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by Gerald

You are against this?

No, not at all. You failed to get the point, go back to your mailroom.



You are pro-theocracy?

Nope, you missed the point....again. Hey, how much does it cost to mail a clue, I'll send you one?



Why do you so vehemently disagree with this?

I don't. Standard shipping is what, 3 days? When your clue arrives, maybe you'll understand my point.


You're only a Christian insofar as you regularly play guitar at a church.


I better make that 2 clues. Hey, if I send them directly to YOUR Post Office, I bet it'll knock a day off of shipping. You should have an understanding of this whole thing in 2 days, 3 days tops. Unless your coworkers lose your mail, of course...

Art Deco
January 25th, 2005, 07:34 PM
Originally posted by Skeptic

:sozo: Hey, BillyBob,

Do you believe that morality only applies to interpersonal relations, not to international relations? Pragmatism rules in international relations...

Art Deco
January 25th, 2005, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by Gerald

I will find it out the moment a Christian grows a pair and succeeds in killing me.

Care to try your luck? the odds are greater that you will be whacked by a Muslim suicide bomber at your local Wendys fast food joint than by an angry Christian. Remember this is PC America run by the ACLU and lunatic left.

Art Deco
January 25th, 2005, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by Jackielabby

The universe is over 6 billion years old.
The earth is over 4 billion years old.
Man dates back 2 million years.
Adam and Eve were created about 6,500 years ago.:)
Go figure. Says who? Read your NIV Bible. There is a vast stretch of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. :angel:

BillyBob
January 25th, 2005, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by Art Deco

the odds are greater that you will be whacked by a Muslim suicide bomber at your local Wendys

How did you know about Gerald's second job????

Mr. 5020
January 25th, 2005, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by Art Deco

Read your NIV Bible. :vomit:

Art Deco
January 25th, 2005, 07:50 PM
Originally posted by Skeptic

Science is not about proofs. Proofs are for geometry.

Science is about coming up with reasonable theories that are supported by empirical evidence.

So I ask, is the Biblical God-poofed hypothesis a reasonable theory that is supported by empirical evidence?

I think not! :chuckle: I believe you think not, or don't think as it were. Your Secular Humanist mind is clouded with half truths and lies that fit your view of reality.

Read "The Hiden Face of God" by Dr Gerald Schroder. Honest atheists wilt under the logic. :angel:

Art Deco
January 25th, 2005, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by Jackielabby

Apply this quote to the bible and the fairy tale termed creationism. God created animals and plants with the ability to reproduce their kind . Without that ability all life would have died without the chance to reproduce. :angel:

the Sibbie
January 25th, 2005, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by Jackielabby

The universe is over 6 billion years old.
The earth is over 4 billion years old.
Man dates back 2 million years.
Adam and Eve were created about 6,500 years ago.:)
Go figure. Wow, that works out just peachy! Each sequential step was 2 million years apart!

Skeptic
January 26th, 2005, 12:38 AM
Originally posted by BillyBob

No, but you did not mention morality, you mentioned Jesus. I asked Frankie, not you, what Jesus would think about "Might Makes Right."

I asked you about morality and international relations.

So, you agree that morality is not restricted to interpersonal relations, but also applies to international relations.

If it is wrong for a strong person to dominate a weak person, then isn't it also wrong for strong nations to dominate weak nations?


So tell me, Mr. Biblical scholar, what was Jesus' foreign policy? Jesus does not explicitly talk about international relationships. Jesus did not do much traveling outside his own region or culture. He may have talked more about it, if he had traveled widely. However, if morality can be extended to the international realm, then doesn't it make sense that Jesus would have wanted nations to interact in moral ways?

I suspect that the following passages could apply to both persons and nations:

Matthew 5:9
Matthew 5:44
Matthew 7:12
Matthew 22:39
Matthew 26:52
Luke 14:13
Luke 18:22

I brought up Jesus in response to what Frankie said: "Might Makes Right = Survival of the Fittest."

I responded by saying: "Would Jesus agree with 'Might Makes Right'?"

Then you said: "Jesus wasn't the President of the US, he taught people how to intearct with one another, not how governments should interact."

Doesn't this imply that Jesus would not have cared about the morality of interactions between nations? I think he probably cared, even though that was not his focus.

While we're talking about the Bible, BillyBob, do you think your reaction to Bush's invasion of Iraq is in line with this passage?: Proverbs 24:17-18


What did he have to say about sovereign nations defending themselves against terrorists? I don't know. But I suspect he might have been opposed to invading nations that are not a threat, and unnecessarily killing tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children. Don't you think, BillyBob?

Skeptic
January 26th, 2005, 12:50 AM
Originally posted by Art Deco

Pragmatism rules in international relations... Why should pragmatism rule international relations any more than interpersonal relations?

Also, you seem to fail to see the difference between what is and what ought to be. Pragmatism deals with the former, while morality deals with the latter. People often murder others for what they believe to be pragmatic reasons. Likewise, nations sometimes invade other nations for what they believe to be pragmatic reasons. But, when nations are invaded that are not a threat to the invaders, and tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children are killed as a result of the invasion, don't you think there are moral issues to be considered?

elected4ever
January 26th, 2005, 01:06 AM
Laying aside our objections to the war that we can't change anyway. Don't you think it wise to leave Iraq better off than when we found it or had you rather leave it in the hands of the proven thugs that kill there own people. We destroyed their ability to defend themselves don't you think we should at least restore that ability before we leave?

War is a messy business and that is why the framers outlined the powers of the branches of government. It is supposed to be hard for us to go to war. War is not something one would leave to the whim of the likes and dislikes of one man.

Frank Ernest
January 26th, 2005, 05:35 AM
Originally posted by :mock::skeptic:

I asked Frankie, not you, what Jesus would think about "Might Makes Right."


It is irrelevant what Jesus would think. You don't believe in fairy tales, etc. Besides IF there was a Jesus, He was just another protocell descendant of no more value or intelligence than anyone else. :ha:

Might Makes Right = Survival of the Fittest. That's the ONLY scientific, rational and empirical way, is it not? :confused:

Frank Ernest
January 26th, 2005, 05:37 AM
Originally posted by Art Deco

I believe you think not, or don't think as it were. Your Secular Humanist mind is clouded with half truths and lies that fit your view of reality.

Read "The Hiden Face of God" by Dr Gerald Schroder. Honest atheists wilt under the logic. :angel:

Now there's an oxymoron for you! :thumb:

BillyBob
January 26th, 2005, 06:13 AM
Originally posted by Skeptic

I asked Frankie, not you, what Jesus would think about "Might Makes Right."

That doesn't change my response in any way.



I asked you about morality and international relations.


Morality? Is that what the UN has?



So, you agree that morality is not restricted to interpersonal relations, but also applies to international relations.

No.




If it is wrong for a strong person to dominate a weak person, then isn't it also wrong for strong nations to dominate weak nations?

No. But that is not what we are doing in Iraq. We are deposing a tyrranical terrorist, freeing 25 million people and installing a democracy.

If you are going to speculate about Jesus' disposition, my guess is that he would support our effort. I bet he'd even vote Republican! :sam:




Jesus does not explicitly talk about international relationships. Jesus did not do much traveling outside his own region or culture. He may have talked more about it, if he had traveled widely. However, if morality can be extended to the international realm, then doesn't it make sense that Jesus would have wanted nations to interact in moral ways?

There is no point in putting words in his mouth that he did not say.






I don't know. But I suspect he might have been opposed to invading nations that are not a threat, and unnecessarily killing tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children. Don't you think, BillyBob?

Yep, but that is not what we did! :banana:

On Fire
January 26th, 2005, 06:15 AM
Originally posted by Mr. 5020

:vomit:
Nice. Vomiting over someone reading the bible.

Frank Ernest
January 26th, 2005, 07:04 AM
Originally posted by On Fire

Nice. Vomiting over someone reading the bible.
I believe it was the NIVersion that caused the pukery.

Art Deco
January 26th, 2005, 07:10 AM
Originally posted by Mr. 5020

:vomit: I thought it would be easier to read for non-believers... :o ...sorry...:(





Mr. 5020 ...:confused: www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42564


From the article:
This makes 50:20 a great pro-life verse... ...Mr.5020...:idea:

Art Deco
January 26th, 2005, 07:15 AM
Originally posted by Frank Ernest

Now there's an oxymoron for you! :thumb: I know it sounds impossible, but there are rare instances when honest atheists will accept the result of human logic even when that logic flys in the face of all they hold dear.

Art Deco
January 26th, 2005, 07:18 AM
Originally posted by On Fire

Nice. Vomiting over someone reading the bible. The KJV is far superior to the NIV for the more exact translation of the Greek, but I don't hold it up as a religious relic as some do... :angel:

Frank Ernest
January 26th, 2005, 07:22 AM
Originally posted by Art Deco

I know it sounds impossible, but there are rare instances when honest atheists will accept the result of human logic even when that logic flys in the face of all they hold dear.
Do they remain "honest" atheists after that? :confused:

Art Deco
January 26th, 2005, 07:22 AM
Originally posted by BillyBob

How did you know about Gerald's second job???? I thought he stopped there on the way home. I didn't know that was his part-time job. I think he's saving up to buy a 50 cal sniper rifle....:D

Art Deco
January 26th, 2005, 07:27 AM
Originally posted by Frank Ernest

Do they remain "honest" atheists after that? :confused: Only in so far as they allow themselves to be guided by logical truth rather than subjective reality. :angel:

Art Deco
January 26th, 2005, 07:50 AM
Originally posted by Skeptic

Why should pragmatism rule international relations any more than interpersonal relations? I can see you have never been exposed to college level "political science" classes...

Posted by Skeptic:
Also, you seem to fail to see the difference between what is and what ought to be. Pragmatism deals with the former, while morality deals with the latter. People often murder others for what they believe to be pragmatic reasons. Likewise, nations sometimes invade other nations for what they believe to be pragmatic reasons. But, when nations are invaded that are not a threat to the invaders, and tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children are killed as a result of the invasion, don't you think there are moral issues to be considered? Historians and pundits have looked at WW II in retrospect and suggested that if Hitler had been taken out of power early on, many millions of lives would have been saved. That would have been a pragmatic use of war. Even then the idea would have been opposed by those who call themselves opposed to all wars or anti-war advocates.

Only time will tell whether the U.S. was wise in the pre-emptive strike against the evil that controlled Iraq. I think they were. We'll see... :think:

On Fire
January 26th, 2005, 07:50 AM
Originally posted by Art Deco

The KJV is far superior to the NIV for the more exact translation of the Greek, but I don't hold it up as a religious relic as some do... :angel:

So all those who read the KJV are well versed in the nuances of Greek etymology? :ha:

Gerald
January 26th, 2005, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by elected4ever
I told you before. Give me your location and agenda and we will see. Why should I have to do that?

You claim to have the ear of the Almighty, perhaps he can help you. :chuckle:

Gerald
January 26th, 2005, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by Art Deco
Historians and pundits have looked at WW II in retrospect and suggested that if Hitler had been taken out of power early on, many millions of lives would have been saved.Or, he would have been replaced by somebody as bad or worse, accomplishing nothing in the long term.

Which is why nations don't fight by assassinating each other's leaders; better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

1PeaceMaker
January 26th, 2005, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by Gerald

Which is why nations don't fight by assassinating each other's leaders; better the devil you know than the devil you don't. Why, silly me.

And here I thought that the reason they don't just assassinate was because they were more interested in making money off of wars.

Gerald
January 26th, 2005, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by 1PeaceMaker

Why, silly me.

And here I thought that the reason they don't just assassinate was because they were more interested in making money off of wars. Well, there's that, too.

But the reason most folks get into positions of leading countries is that they have the sense to ask ahead of time "Is this action likely to turn around and bite me?"

I mean, if you assassinate Vile and Evil Leader X, his lieutenant, Viler and Eviller Sub-Leader Y might come around and assassinate you, your mother, your kids, and your dog.

See how things can escalate?

Skeptic
January 26th, 2005, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by Frank Ernest

It is irrelevant what Jesus would think. Not according to you.

So, according to you, what would Jesus think about "Might Makes Right"?


Might Makes Right = Survival of the Fittest. That's the ONLY scientific, rational and empirical way, is it not? :confused: As I said before, "Might Makes Right" does not equal "Survival of the Fittest." If might equaled right, then the dinosaurs would still rule the earth.

BillyBob
January 26th, 2005, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by Skeptic



As I said before, "Might Makes Right" does not equal "Survival of the Fittest." If might equaled right, then the dinosaurs would still rule the earth.

Wow, you have about as much understanding of dinosaur extinction as you do of Jesus. :loser:

Gerald
January 26th, 2005, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by Art Deco
the odds are greater that you will be whacked by a Muslim suicide bomber at your local Wendys fast food joint than by an angry Christian.That might be the case...if there had been rashes of bombings and shootings in public places immediately following 9/11/01.

But there has been no such occurence on US soil since that day. You no doubt attribute this to some magical force field that God has deployed to prevent such things from happening. :chuckle:

The more reasonable conclusion is that the Bad Guys™ shot their wad when they knocked down the towers, and simply don't have anything else to throw.

I can think of dozens of things The Terrorists™ could easily and cheaply do to wreak havoc in the US. If I can think of such things, then they can, too.

So why has so much nothing happened?

Could it be that all those terrorist sleeper cells that we've been warned about are nothing more than boogeymen...?

On Fire
January 26th, 2005, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by Gerald
So why has so much nothing happened?

Bush implemented better security.

Bush shut down many sources of $$$.

Bush surprised them with a couple of our own attacks. :chuckle:

Perhaps they are wondering if/when Allah is going to help them. :darwinsm:

Gerald
January 26th, 2005, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by On Fire
Bush implemented better security.Where? I have yet to see metal detectors installed in restaurants and shopping malls.

Bush shut down many sources of $$$.
You can do some really nasty things for very little money. Know what happens when you mix ammoniated soap and Clorox? When you mix Styrofoam and gasoline?

Bush surprised them with a couple of our own attacks. :chuckle:On the other side of the world, yeah.

Perhaps they are wondering if/when Allah is going to help them. :darwinsm: Sort of like those Christians in Darfur, wonder if/when God is going to help them, hmmm?

On Fire
January 26th, 2005, 12:34 PM
Nothing you said refutes my points. Typical atheist.

Zakath
January 26th, 2005, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by Art Deco

the odds are greater that you will be whacked by a Muslim suicide bomber at your local Wendys fast food joint than by an angry Christian. Remember this is PC America run by the ACLU and lunatic left. I don't think so...

Don't forget that American prisons are populated by criminals, like convicted murderers, who are overwhelmingly Christian... ;)

Gerald
January 26th, 2005, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by On Fire
Nothing you said refutes my points.True enough. It's hard to refute what doesn't exist.

There is no security measure you can name that can't be circumvented, which puts security forces in a perpetually reactive position.

Not a good position to be in.

Gerald
January 26th, 2005, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

I don't think so...

Don't forget that American prisons are populated by criminals, like convicted murderers, who are overwhelmingly Christian... ;) Ah, but they're not real Christians, they're only saying they are to get sympathy... :chuckle:

On Fire
January 26th, 2005, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by Gerald

True enough. It's hard to refute what doesn't exist.

There is no security measure you can name that can't be circumvented, which puts security forces in a perpetually reactive position.

Not a good position to be in.
Wow. 3 for 3. You rule. :bow:

Frank Ernest
January 27th, 2005, 06:44 AM
Originally posted by :mock::skeptic:
As I said before, "Might Makes Right" does not equal "Survival of the Fittest." If might equaled right, then the dinosaurs would still rule the earth.


Originally posted by :BillyBob:

Wow, you have about as much understanding of dinosaur extinction as you do of Jesus. :loser:

If he's thinking of Tom Dashle, Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton, he might have a point. :chuckle:

BillyBob
January 27th, 2005, 06:49 AM
Originally posted by Frank Ernest

If he's thinking of Tom Dashle, Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton, he might have a point. :chuckle:

Dashle is gone [it's about time], Kennedy has become a sad cartoon who nobody takes seriously. Hillary, however, is going to make a bid for POTUS. I don't think she stands a chance, but we are going to have to hear her loud mouth for at least 4 more years.

Art Deco
January 27th, 2005, 07:27 AM
Originally posted by BillyBob

Dashle is gone [it's about time], Kennedy has become a sad cartoon who nobody takes seriously. Hillary, however, is going to make a bid for POTUS. I don't think she stands a chance, but we are going to have to hear her loud mouth for at least 4 more years. Shrill Hill is up for re-election in '06. Rudy my run against her...

www.1010wins.com/topstories/local_story_026070028.html

BillyBob
January 27th, 2005, 07:42 AM
Do you think she'll run for Senate in '06?

My guess is that she's gonna focus on the Presidency and won't run for Senate if she thinks there's a chance she'll lose. How will it look for an ex Senator who lost her most recent election running for President?

Mr. 5020
January 27th, 2005, 08:18 AM
Originally posted by BillyBob

Do you think she'll run for Senate in '06?

My guess is that she's gonna focus on the Presidency and won't run for Senate if she thinks there's a chance she'll lose. How will it look for an ex Senator who lost her most recent election running for President? It will look like she's an idiot ... which she is.

1PeaceMaker
January 27th, 2005, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by Gerald

Well, there's that, too.

But the reason most folks get into positions of leading countries is that they have the sense to ask ahead of time "Is this action likely to turn around and bite me?"

I mean, if you assassinate Vile and Evil Leader X, his lieutenant, Viler and Eviller Sub-Leader Y might come around and assassinate you, your mother, your kids, and your dog.

See how things can escalate? I get it.

The idea is not to put the battle where it counts,(and risk one's own elite skin) but to plan a war poorly enough that it lasts as long as possible, and hopefully without losing in the proccess. (In order to make the most money, and hopefully retain pride as well as riches.)

Sounds like the ultimate game of chicken.

Pretty sick, huh? :nono:

Gerald
January 27th, 2005, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by BillyBob
Hillary, however, is going to make a bid for POTUS. I don't think she stands a chance...We agree, but for different reasons. You think she'll simply lose an election; I think she'll be killed if she announces her candidacy. There is simply too much visceral hatred towards the woman.

Granite
January 27th, 2005, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by Gerald

We agree, but for different reasons. You think she'll simply lose an election; I think she'll be killed if she announces her candidacy. There is simply too much visceral hatred towards the woman.

I dunno. I'm cynical but not THAT cynical...

Gerald
January 27th, 2005, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by granite1010
I dunno. I'm cynical but not THAT cynical... Cynicism is like whiskey, duct tape and sugar on grapefruit: better to have too much than not enough.

:chuckle:

Art Deco
January 27th, 2005, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

I don't think so...

Don't forget that American prisons are populated by criminals, like convicted murderers, who are overwhelmingly Christian... ;) You must be alluding to "Jailhouse Conversions." Post episodic data hardly supports your contention that the majority of convicted murderers are Christians. Then there's the question: Where is the proof that the murderer was a born again Christian at the time of the murder?...:think:

Art Deco
January 27th, 2005, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by On Fire

So all those who read the KJV are well versed in the nuances of Greek etymology? :ha: No, only the original KJV scholars were well versed in the nuances of Greek etymology.

Gerald
January 27th, 2005, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by Art Deco
You must be alluding to "Jailhouse Conversions." Post episodic data hardly supports your contention that the majority of convicted murderers are Christians.As I said, they claim to be so in order to gain sympathy.

This makes them pansies.

Art Deco
January 27th, 2005, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by Gerald

That might be the case...if there had been rashes of bombings and shootings in public places immediately following 9/11/01.Could it be that all those terrorist sleeper cells that we've been warned about are nothing more than boogeymen...? I find your newborn naivete rather refreshing Gerald...:chuckle:

Gerald
January 27th, 2005, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by Art Deco
I find your newborn naivete rather refreshing Gerald...:chuckle: So, how do you account for the lack of activity?

DHS may be good, but they ain't that good.

If terrorist cells were routinely being captured, this Administration would be trumpeting it from the highest rooftop. Unless you consider secret arrests and detention to be acceptable in our society... :think:

What will you do if they come for you? A sniper rifle won't work on a Bradley...

Art Deco
January 27th, 2005, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by BillyBob

Do you think she'll run for Senate in '06?

My guess is that she's gonna focus on the Presidency and won't run for Senate if she thinks there's a chance she'll lose. How will it look for an ex Senator who lost her most recent election running for President? Hillary is in for a penny, in for a pound. She will run for the Senate. It's her power base, without her senate seat she is merely ex-senator Clinton. Her massive ego requires that she be seen as an active participant in the senate's business during the ramp up to '08. Rudy will clean her clock...in '06. :thumb:

Art Deco
January 27th, 2005, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by Gerald

So, how do you account for the lack of activity?

DHS may be good, but they ain't that good. They are awaiting orders to strike. It will happen again.


Posted by Gerald:
If terrorist cells were routinely being captured, this Administration would be trumpeting it from the highest rooftop. Unless you consider secret arrests and detention to be acceptable in our society... Surveillance requires stealth and persistence. Trumpeting is not in their bag of tricks.

Posted bt Gerald:
What will you do if they come for you? A sniper rifle won't work on a Bradley... When the excrement hits the fan, as a retired E-9 U.S. Navy, I'll be in the Bradley looking for the bad guys with my trusty 50 cal. sniper rifle.

Art Deco
January 27th, 2005, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by Gerald Which is why nations don't fight by assassinating each other's leaders; better the devil you know than the devil you don't. This archaic form of chivalry has lost its luster. Personally, I think capping boneheaded evil leaders is a more progressive form of modern warfare. Think of the lives it would save...

BillyBob
January 27th, 2005, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by Art Deco

Hillary is in for a penny, in for a pound. She will run for the Senate. It's her power base, without her senate seat she is merely ex-senator Clinton. Her massive ego requires that she be seen as an active participant in the senate's business during the ramp up to '08. Rudy will clean her clock...in '06. :thumb:

I agree, Rudy will win. If Hillary is sure she is going to lose, she could easily save face by announcing her Presidential candidacy early and play the martyr by claiming she won't run for Senate because she wouldn't be able to properly do her job while running a Presidential campaign. Also, she would remind everyone that she'd have to give up her Senatorial seat two years into her term and it wouldn't be fair to those who voted for her, blah blah blah.......

Gerald
January 27th, 2005, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by Art Deco
They are awaiting orders to strike. It will happen again.You read too many comic books, man. This ain't HYDRA or THRUSH we're dealing with here, it's a bunch of little squads of guys who are supposed to hit targets of opportunity, without direction from a central authority. If one squad gets nabbed, it doesn't know about any of the others, and so can't rat anybody else out. That's how a sleeper cell network operates.

If they've been sitting around waiting for orders for the last three years, they're pretty pathetic as terrorists go. If you want to terrorize the populace, the best way to do it is to show that you can strike without warning, anytime and anywhere.

I can think of a dozen prime targets within walking distance of where I work, and I can think of precisely how to cause the most damage. Now if I can do that, it is a sure bet the bad guys can, too.

And yet there have been no attacks, not a single one.


Surveillance requires stealth and persistence. Trumpeting is not in their bag of tricks.But tripping over themselves certainly is.

When the excrement hits the fan, as a retired E-9 U.S. Navy, I'll be in the Bradley looking for the bad guys with my trusty 50 cal. sniper rifle. And how will know who the "bad guys" are, if they melt into the populace at large?

Do you plan to just pop a cap in every unshaven brown guy you see?

Gerald
January 27th, 2005, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by Art Deco
This archaic form of chivalry has lost its luster. Personally, I think capping boneheaded evil leaders is a more progressive form of modern warfare. Think of the lives it would save... Just remember, if you do it to them, they'll do it to you.

Unless you plan to hide the entire national leadership in "undisclosed locations", a move not particularly inspiring to the populace, because then they'll be the ones taking the heat...

Art Deco
January 27th, 2005, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by Gerald

Just remember, if you do it to them, they'll do it to you.

Unless you plan to hide the entire national leadership in "undisclosed locations", a move not particularly inspiring to the populace, because then they'll be the ones taking the heat... Think of the good that would have been done had Hitler been assassinated early in his evil career. The symbology of cutting off the head of the snake works well. Retaliation? Never happen... :nono:

Gerald
January 27th, 2005, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by Art Deco
Think of the good that would have been done had Hitler been assassinated early in his evil career.Somebody smarter, less crazy and no less evil would have replaced him, most likely. Nazi Germany would have likely continued to expand, albeit more slowly.

You are aware, are you not, that there was in the 1930s a sizable amount of support for forming an alliance between the US and the Reich?

The symbology of cutting off the head of the snake works well.Ah, the "Who else wants a piece?" approach to diplomacy. That generally works only if your opponent is smaller than you.

Let me ask you this: Following the atomic bombing of Japan, do you believe that Truman should have pressed his advantage and carried the fight on to Russia? Atomic bombs on Vladivostok? Kiev? Moscow itself?


Retaliation? Never happen... :nono:And you call me naive. No doubt you whistle whenever you pass a graveyard...

Art Deco
January 27th, 2005, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by Gerald Let me ask you this: Following the atomic bombing of Japan, do you believe that Truman should have pressed his advantage and carried the fight on to Russia? Atomic bombs on Vladivostok? Kiev? Moscow itself? No, but he should have used atomic weapons on Red China when they attacked us in South Korea. Circa 1952.

Granite
January 27th, 2005, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by Art Deco

No, but he should have used atomic weapons on Red China when they attacked us in South Korea. Circa 1952.

Way to destabilize the planet even more so, up the ante during the Cold War, and spawn ANOTHER generation of folks across the sea who hate our guts.

Turtledove material...:think:

Art Deco
January 28th, 2005, 07:37 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

Way to destabilize the planet even more so,It would have brought the Korean war to a hasty conclusion saving the lives of thousands of Americans and another check in our win column.


Posted by Granite1010:
up the ante during the Cold War, That's how wars are won. Read Clausewitz.


Posted by Granite1010:
and spawn ANOTHER generation of folks across the sea who hate our guts. Do not tire in well doing...who cares what the rest of the world thinks. Are they going to refuse our foreign aid or stop selling into our free market?

Granite
January 28th, 2005, 08:27 AM
"It would have brought the Korean war to a hasty conclusion saving the lives of thousands of Americans and another check in our win column..."

"Another check." :nono:

Dear gods, is it a wonder why people shake in their boots at this neo-con mentality? We're talking the nuclear football, folks, not a Friday night gridiron, for crying out loud.

There's always the strong probability that this would accelerated the arms race and given the Reds an even itchier trigger finger. But I digress.

"That's how wars are won."

I don't see how incinerating civilians does much more than confirm what the rest of the world and many of your countrymen think: that our leaders happen to be nuts.

Gerald
January 28th, 2005, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by Art Deco
No, but he should have used atomic weapons on Red China when they attacked us in South Korea. Circa 1952. Why not? If Stalin had been taken out in 1945, the Cold War would never have started. No Korea, no Vietnam, no arms race, no space race, and the US would've held dominion over the whole globe.

Don't tell me that you have a problem with stabbing an ally in the back after he's served his purpose. If the positions were reversed, you know Stalin would've done it to us...

On Fire
January 28th, 2005, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by Art Deco

No, only the original KJV scholars were well versed in the nuances of Greek etymology.

puh-lease

Gerald
January 28th, 2005, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by On Fire

puh-lease Indeed. Deco seems to think that Greek scholarship has only slid downhill since 1611... :chuckle:

Skeptic
January 28th, 2005, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by Art Deco

Your Secular Humanist mind is clouded with half truths and lies that fit your view of reality. Secular Humanists base their ideas on reason.

No, it is YOUR fundie mind that is clouded with fairy tales and superstitions that fit YOUR view of reality.

Jackielabby
January 28th, 2005, 01:27 PM
Awesome, Skeptic.:cool:

Skeptic
January 28th, 2005, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by elected4ever

Laying aside our objections to the war that we can't change anyway. Don't you think it wise to leave Iraq better off than when we found it... That ain't going to happen any time soon. Iraq is now worse off than before Bush's unnecessary and immoral invasion. As long as the U.S. is in Iraq, things are not going to get better.


... or had you rather leave it in the hands of the proven thugs that kill there own people. Saddam had not committed mass murders, since the late 1980s. There are other countries that are governed by "thugs," who kill their own people, that the U.S. has actually installed into power. Why is it that Bush only invaded and overthrew Saddam? It was NOT because he was a thug. Bush's stated reason was because Saddam posed a WMD threat, which we now know was a lie (and Bush knew it). No, Iraq was invaded, tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children were killed, and Saddam was overthrown because of the misguided perception of Bush and his neocon Pentagon/CIA buddies that somehow they would gain political, economic and strategic advantage. No oil, no invasion.


We destroyed their ability to defend themselves don't you think we should at least restore that ability before we leave? We destroyed their ability to defend themselves back in 1991.

There are lots of countries that have little ability to defend themselves. I say let Iraq remain in the ranks of these other countries, until they build up their own forces using their oil revenues.


War is a messy business and that is why the framers outlined the powers of the branches of government. It is supposed to be hard for us to go to war. The framers should have made it much more difficult than they did. Yes, it IS supposed to be hard for us to go to war. But, Bush and company tweaked the system and hoodwinked Congress and the American people into thinking war was necessary with Iraq. It wasn't.


War is not something one would leave to the whim of the likes and dislikes of one man. Agreed. So, just because Saddam was a bad guy (in a world full of bad guys), it was wrong to invade Iraq, killing tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in the process, in March 2003.

War is not something one should leave to the whim of the President and his neocon Pentagon/CIA buddies. There needs to be tighter controls on the power of our own governmental thugs to wage wars.

Jackielabby
January 28th, 2005, 01:54 PM
Why the hell doesn't Bush invade Tibet and drive the Chinese out?

On Fire
January 28th, 2005, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by Skeptic
Secular Humanists base their ideas on reason.


Reason. I love reason. Oh, wait, love is an emotion. I don't love reason. No, wait, it's not that I do or do not love reason - I actually have no emotion for or against reason. I actually hove no emtion for anything. Emotions are illogical.

:loser: = live long and prosper

Skeptic
January 28th, 2005, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by BillyBob

No. No? I asked whether you agreed that morality is not restricted to interpersonal relations, but also applies to international relations. And you say "No"?

I earlier asked whether you believed that morality only applies to interpersonal relations, not to international relations. To which you replied "No."

Is this not a contradiction?

Which is it BillyBob? Does morality apply to international relations, as well as interpersonal relations, or not?

Then, when I ask you this: If it is wrong for a strong person to dominate a weak person, then isn't it also wrong for strong nations to dominate weak nations? To which you reply:

No. So, you think it is right for strong nations to dominate weak ones?


But that is not what we are doing in Iraq. We are deposing a tyrranical terrorist, freeing 25 million people and installing a democracy. Bull! If Iraq had no oil, Bush would not have invaded them. Saddam was a tyrant, but there are lots of tyrants in the world. The U.S. has no right to invade and overthrow tyrants, who are not a threat, while killing tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in the process.

It's quite a stretch to call Saddam a "terrorist." If we use your definition of "terrorist," then ALL dictators are terrorists and their countries should be invaded, even at the cost of many thousands of innocent people!

We should fight real terrorist groups. But when Bush foolishly declares a so-called "war on terrorism" and begins labeling anyone he wants to overthrow a "terrorist," it is obvious that this label is simply designed to justify the unjustifiable in the minds of the hoodwinked American public. Al-Qaeda are the real international terrorists that we should be fighting, not some alleged low-level so-called "terrorist" dictators, who had ZERO connection to 9/11 and who were NOT a threat.


If you are going to speculate about Jesus' disposition, my guess is that he would support our effort. I bet he'd even vote Republican! I doubt that!

I suspect that Jesus would have been quite the anti-war protester. Bush would probably have found a way to crucify him again - this time by placing him at Guantanamo Bay, on some unspecified charges, and giving him the "Git-mo" treatment.


There is no point in putting words in his mouth that he did not say. Preachers do it every day from the pulpit. It's called Biblical interpretation!

Remember this?: WWJD? :chuckle:


Yep, but that is not what we did! That's EXACTLY what we did. Bush did indeed invade a nation that was not a threat, unnecessarily killing tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children.

Skeptic
January 28th, 2005, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by On Fire

Reason. I love reason. Oh, wait, love is an emotion. I don't love reason. No, wait, it's not that I do or do not love reason - I actually have no emotion for or against reason. I actually hove no emtion for anything. Emotions are illogical. Reason tells us that humans are emotional animals. Humans are both reasoning and emotional beings. It would be unreasonable and foolish to try to weed emotions from our lives, in a Vulcan-like way. But, when it comes to making decisions that affect the lives of others or have the potential to change the nation or the world, reason should win over emotions during the decision-making process.

When people primarily base their decisions on emotions, they often regret it. Emotions can cloud judgment (reason). But emotions are a fact of human nature, and, from the biased standpoint of one such emotional/reasonable human (me), I'm glad we have them.

BillyBob
January 28th, 2005, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by Skeptic

No?

No.


I asked whether you agreed that morality is not restricted to interpersonal relations, but also applies to international relations. And you say "No"?

I earlier asked whether you believed that morality only applies to interpersonal relations, not to international relations. To which you replied "No."

Is this not a contradiction?

No.


Which is it BillyBob?

No.


Does morality apply to international relations, as well as interpersonal relations, or not?

No.




Then, when I ask you this: If it is wrong for a strong person to dominate a weak person, then isn't it also wrong for strong nations to dominate weak nations?

No.


So, you think it is right for strong nations to dominate weak ones?

Yes.


Bull!

No.


If Iraq had no oil, Bush would not have invaded them.

Bull!


Saddam was a tyrant, but there are lots of tyrants in the world.

So it's OK to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people?


The U.S. has no right to invade and overthrow tyrants, who are not a threat,

Saddam was a terrorist.


while killing tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in the process.

You just said it was OK for Saddam to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Now you are going to complain about a tenth that? Do you see any inconsistency here??? :think:




It's quite a stretch to call Saddam a "terrorist."

Not at all, that's exactly what he was.


If we use your definition of "terrorist," then ALL dictators are terrorists and their countries should be invaded, even at the cost of many thousands of innocent people!

Is that what you are suggesting?




We should fight real terrorist groups.

We are.


But when Bush foolishly declares a so-called "war on terrorism" and begins labeling anyone he wants to overthrow a "terrorist," it is obvious that this label is simply designed to justify the unjustifiable in the minds of the hoodwinked American public.

Hey Teddy Kennedy, what have you done with our Skeptic??? Sure, he's a commie, but he's our commie and we want him back!


Al-Qaeda are the real international terrorists that we should be fighting,

We are.


not some alleged low-level so-called "terrorist" dictators, who had ZERO connection to 9/11 and who were NOT a threat.

Saddam had ties with Al Queda as the countless links I have provided proves.




I suspect that Jesus would have been quite the anti-war protester. Bush would probably have found a way to crucify him again - this time by placing him at Guantanamo Bay, on some unspecified charges, and giving him the "Git-mo" treatment.

One can only hope the same fate for you.



Preachers do it every day from the pulpit. It's called Biblical interpretation!

So, are you saying that Bush's foreign policy should be guaged by his interpretation of what Jesus would do?




Remember this?: WWJD? :chuckle:

Isn't that in the Bill Of Rights???




:blabla: :blabla: :blabla:

:yawn:

Skeptic
January 28th, 2005, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by BillyBob

No.

No.

No.

No.

No. Contradictions.

BillyBob, why doesn't morality apply to international relations, as well as interpersonal relations?


Yes. BillyBob, why is it right for strong nations to dominate weak ones?


Bull! Wrong. If Iraq had no oil, Bush would not have invaded them.


So it's OK to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people? Two wrongs do not make a right.

Saddam's atrocities during the late 1980s where wrong. It was also wrong for daddy Bush to have stood by, watching the atrocities unfold, and do nothing to stop it.

There are many atrocities that the U.S. has watched and done nothing to stop.

See: Who was the Bloodiest Tyrant of the 20th Century? (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/tyrants.htm)

Intervening to stop an ongoing atrocity is one thing. Invading a country, killing thousands of innocent people in the process, to overthrow a dictator, who was not a threat, many years after atrocities were committed, is something entirely different.


Saddam was a terrorist. The U.S. has no right to invade and overthrow tyrants or so-called "terrorist" leaders, in the absence of evidence that they pose a real, significant and imminent threat.

ANY leader of a country, whether they are self-appointed dictators or democratically elected Presidents, can potentially proliferate technology that could be used to make WMDs. Therefore, this potential ALONE does not justify invading and occupying their country, killing thousands of innocent people in the process.

Now, you might think that the U.S. does have the right to overthrow anyone who has the mere potential to spread WMD technology to some anti-American entity. In that case, the way to be most certain that this potential is eliminated is for the U.S. to take over the entire planet and create one U.S.-controlled World Order! Is this what you would like to see, BillyBob?


You just said it was OK for Saddam to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people. I said no such thing.


Saddam had ties with Al Qaeda as the countless links I have provided proves. Your unconfirmed right-wing nonsense has proved nothing.


So, are you saying that Bush's foreign policy should be guaged by his interpretation of what Jesus would do? No, I'm saying the exact opposite. Bush IS essentially claiming that his foreign policy would be approved by Jesus. Now, THAT's dangerous!!

However, MY interpretation of some of the moral principles that Jesus professed is that he would be opposed to Bush's foreign policies. My moral principles do not derive from anything Jesus or the Bible has to say.

BillyBob
January 28th, 2005, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by Skeptic

Wrong. If Iraq had no oil, Bush would not have invaded them.

How much oil is in Afghanistan? I will allow that you are partially correct about the oil in Iraq. If Saddam didn't have oil, he would not have been able to afford to fund terrorism and would not have been a threat. However, it was his terroristic tendencies that gave us a reason to depose him, not oil. If he had a gold mine and funded terrorism with the profits from it, we would have removed him from power likewise.

Now, stop with the stupid accusations, the consatnt repitition of your anti-American drivel, pull your head out of your asss and take a look around at the real world sans all the demo-commie propaganda.


(_!_)

..:idea:

BillyBob
January 29th, 2005, 05:25 AM
:banana:

BillyBob
January 29th, 2005, 04:21 PM
:devil:

BillyBob
January 30th, 2005, 07:13 AM
Skeppies not gonna respond to my post?

Maybe he didn't like my artwork demonstrating the removal of his head from his.....uh.....posterior. :D

Art Deco
January 30th, 2005, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

"It would have brought the Korean war to a hasty conclusion saving the lives of thousands of Americans and another check in our win column..."

"Another check." :nono:

Dear gods, is it a wonder why people shake in their boots at this neo-con mentality? We're talking the nuclear football, folks, not a Friday night gridiron, for crying out loud. In 1952, Red China did not have the atomic bomb. McArthur wanted to bomb the Yalu river banks to keep the Red Chineese from crossing the river. Truman unfortunately said no. This was the first Democrat President to tie one arm behind the American fighting man's back while fighting a war. Democrats never learn...



Posted by Granite1010
:mock: There's always the strong probability that this would accelerated the arms race and given the Reds an even itchier trigger finger. But I digress.:doh:



Posted by Granite1010:
I don't see how incinerating civilians does much more than confirm what the rest of the world and many of your countrymen think: that our leaders happen to be nuts. It worked on Japan... :thumb:

Art Deco
January 30th, 2005, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by Gerald

Why not? If Stalin had been taken out in 1945, the Cold War would never have started. No Korea, no Vietnam, no arms race, no space race, and the US would've held dominion over the whole globe. I like your unfettered logic...:think:



Posted by Gerald:
Don't tell me that you have a problem with stabbing an ally in the back after he's served his purpose. If the positions were reversed, you know Stalin would've done it to us... Quite frankly Scarlet, I just don't give a damn...