On the forth comming war & the "liberal" media

Jarinor, a very good point about the Saudis. But still, its no big secret that they are number one terrorism funders in today's world, as well as the main source of spreading the extremist Wahhabi version of Islam (which most sane Sunni Muslims consider a herecy).
Shadygrove,

Not quite. Ethnically Druze are Arabs, but neither them nor Arabs themselves see them as part of the Arab nation. The Druze have their own religion, which had developed out of Islam a few centuries ago, and after being frequently massacred by the "true Muslims" they became a very secluded population group. They never give away much about their beliefs, but I've been told that they believe, for example, that their Messiah will be born from a man, which is why many Druze elders wear trousers with a large pocket between their legs (to hold the baby if they happen to be the ones giving birth).

As far as I know its not true. I doubt that the Saudi Royal family would fund Bin Laden, who has overthrowing the existing Saudi regime as one of his declared main goals. They do fund other terrorist groups though, like Arab Liberation Front, and pay up to 25 thousand dollars to each
family of a suicide bomber in Palestine.
Oh and a question to you, out of pure curiosity. Just how "liberal" would you expect the American press to be?

 

The press didn't go after Clinton "tooth & nail"!! They defended him! The press said nothing about Clinton's lack of punishment against terrorism while he was in office. He didn't do jack. But, meanwhile, after Sept. 11, once all the liberal press that you say doesn't exist smelled the political advantages, they immediately began, and I quote, a "witch hunt" in the Bush administration and the CIA. Not saying a word, however, that due to Clinton's giving up Osama 3 times (3 TIMES) when he was offered to us by the Sudanese, Osama was a free man. And, I really don't understand what you mean by the above quote, anyway.

As a matter of fact, I have heard of them. And read them. And then I promptly used them for something better, like wiping my ass. "Mother Jones" is one that attacked the CIA for doing nothing to avoid Sept. 11. Puh-leeze. They wrote an article with a title that went something like, "Is it time to get rid of the CIA?" They, like all the other liberals smelled political gains to be garnished by sowing seeds of doubt about the current presidency. Remember the title by I think the New York Times or either the Washington Post that said, "Bush Knew!!" Remember that? Now, you never saw anything like that when Clinton the fag lost lives in the embassy bombings and the U.S.S. Cole bombing. There were no "Clinton Knew" or "Clinton Did Nothing" articles. As far as Democrats being the solution? HAH! Democrats have done enough damage to the foundations of this nation.

 

~steps back in, whilst trying to avoid chewing on his feet this time~

Ok, back to part of my other post. I don't mean to rehash, but this has always confused me.

Republicans vs. Democrats. Liberal vs. Conservative.

Having been a man of peculiar political stance, I've always wondered a bit about this.

What is the difference? As I said, during the Civil War, the Democrats supported slavery, and all but started the war. The Republicans fought to abolish slavery. Yet in the 20-30s Democrats led the way for social reform. They fought for labor rights, social security, instituted conservation programs, and essentially saved the country from complete economic collapse. Of course, part of this, at least in the mid-late 30s, was due to the war effort. In the past, war has proven to be an effective economy booster. In the Civil Rights era, again, the Democrats opposed integration. Southern Democrats anyway. If my memory serves it was a Democratic president who finally helped rid the country of segregation. (Now I'm a little fuzzy on this, I wasn't sure if it was under Kennedy, Johnson, or Nixon that segregation was repealed. I'm inclined to say Kennedy, but I'm not 100%) I also realize that the Supreme Court has more to do with these things than a president. Aside from abolishing slavery, there's very few good things that came from Republicans that comes to mind. Feel free to enlighten me. I've only recently developed an interest in politics, as I'm sure shows. In my lifetime, I've seen very few good things come out of a Democrat either.

Again, I repeat myself. Both parties are corrupt. I find it difficult to support ANY politician. However, to find a politician who I agree with wholeheartedly would require that I get into politics myself. And I probably wouldn't last a second in the ring.

Similarly, liberal vs, conservative. What's the difference?

I'm a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment. I agree with the NRA's slogan "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."
Does that make me a Republican? Or a Conservative?

However, while supporting the 2nd Amendment. I personally don't own any guns. I don't really like them. I much prefer swords or bows. Guns, in my opinion, make it too easy to take someone else's life. Because, really, what's a weapon for? Maiming or killing. You can say, they're for collecting, or target shooting, and it would be true. But weapons are designed with one purpose in mind. To take life. Yet it is all in the application. Take away the guns and we'll go back to clubs and spears. That is called human nature. And why I don't really like guns? There's no style, no real discipline in using them. (Unless you're talking trained snipers.) My take on guns is this: If you're going to kill someone, face them. Look them in the eyes. Be sure that's what you want to do. With a gun, you can shoot someone through a wall, or a door, or from a mile away. Anyone, from a small child to a trained soldier can shoot someone. With a sword, you have to face them, you have to work at killing or injuring them. It is rather difficult to accidentally kill someone with a sword, even a bow. That's not to say accidents don't or couldn't happen, because that's simply not true. There is no denying that guns don't kill people, people kill people. Guns can just make it too easy.

I'd also have to say that my time in the SCA has likely biased me against guns a bit....something of an aside, a little antecdote (sp?)
There used to be a weapon smith in the SCA, who made the finest handmade blades I've ever seen. I was chatting with him one time on this very subject. He said to me "You know, I have guns. I have cabinets full of guns. From 19th century firearms, to AK47s. Never once have any of them gotten up off the shelf and gone out and killed anyone." I've been laughing over that statement for years.

Ok, now that I've digressed...back to something of my point. So does that make me conservative? republican? I'm pretty sure supporting the 2nd Amendment disqualifies me from Liberal...But I'm not sure.

I am also a strong supporter of a woman's right to choose. I don't think abortion should be used in lieu of birth control, but I wholeheartedly agree with the Pro-choice mantra "Keep your Laws off my body."

So does that make me liberal?

I strongly support welfare and social security. However, I feel both systems need some overhauling. Welfare shouldn't be used as a crutch. As a friend of mine put it, "Welfare should be a hand up, not a hand out."
One shouldn't abuse the system "well if I squeeze out another kid, it just means a bigger welfare check." Welfare should be something like this: A check for a certain amount of time, perhaps during pregnancy and maybe the first two years of the child's life. However, during this time, there should be a job training program, with a childcare program offered. Fail to take the job training, or if you're allready qualified for something, failing to take advantage of the childcare means disqualification. Supplemental income from welfare isn't a bad thing either. However, it should be applied strictly to rent/housing. Food stamps can make up the difference for groceries. Now there's lots of holes in this theory, because I'm not a program creator/coordinator type person. This is just off the top of my head. And I believe this is how the welfare system is supposed to work.
A big problem I found with welfare, was how they figured cost of living. I do know it's real easy to make too much money to qualify for these programs. I was in debt up to my ears...not even credit card debt, mind you, I owed more than $1000 to the electric company, nearly $1000 to the phone company(several months of bills), was four months behind in my rent. I lived in the middle of nowhere, couldn't pay my auto insurance, couldn't put gas in my car, there is NO public transportation in the area. I made about $600 a month on disability, my wife at the time made about $7 an hour, and could only get part time employment Yet I made too much money to qualify for either housing assistance, or food stamps. And at one point, I was told to sell my car. Ok, fine. How are we supposed to get to work, provided there was work to be found? There's definately something wrong there...

So where does that place me on the liberal/conservative scale?

Ok well this has turned out to be a LONG post, I probably have more to say, but I'll spare you now. If it's too far off topic, I'll be happy to delete it and place it in it's own thread.

 

TairNean, you are dead on as far as the history part goes. Democrats used to stand for the little man. Democrats were the ones who got us outta the Depression. My great grandfather, who has recently passed on, was a staunch democrat all of his days. My grandfather is a staunch republican, as are my father and I. Democrats used to have it right, IMO. But, somewhere along the line, they went kinda.....off the deep end. What with the political correctness, supporting a criminals rights more strongly than that of the victim, sacrificing the rights of sooooo many for the rights of just one, or a few. They are all about "Well, if John Smith wants to be a stupid jack-ass, it's his right to be. And if that offends you, well, you can't do anything about it, because he has a right to be a stupid jack-ass." They are all about frivilous lawsuits too. Didja hear about the latest one? The campaign against McDonalds? They (the lawyers) were gonna sue McDonald's because "McD's food is causing our children to be obese." How stupid is that? They were trying to ride the same gravy train that they rode with the tobacco industry. (Which was never about wrong-doing. It was about the money. The entire time. They said, "Tobacco companies didn't let our victims know that smoking caused cancer." So now, they wanted to sue McD's for not telling parents that eating thier product might make their kids fat. Come on. The liberal on Crossfire (Not James Carville) adamently defended this.

And see, that's where their smart. They don't care if your kid is a fat-ass. They couldn't give 2 shits. They know, that if they play their cards right, they're talking about millions of dollars. They don't even care if it goes to court. Hell, if McD's wanted to settle outta court in order to save it's name, that's still a chuuunk of money. Same deal that happened with Big Tobacco.

They have just gone off the deepend in the last 30-40 years. They encourage bad-mouthing their own country, for God's sake. They will defend to the death, and encourage, and hell, even spread it all over their evening news that college girl who, upon hearing the national anthem, and seeing the flag, she would turn her back. They put her all up on the news. Now, granted it is her right to disgrace her country and flag if she wants. But, they made this girl famous. All for political gains.

Now, not all Democrats are bad, neither are all Republicans good. But, on the vast majority, I hold with the views of the Republicans. Decreasing taxes being one of them.

I also don't buy as much into the whole "conspiracy theory" Big Brother thing. I think there are crooked politicians, but I have a little more faith in our gov. than most people here it seems.

End rant.

 

I don't think they are funding osama bin laden, but their way of treating their people creates a lot of terrorists that would like to strike at those they deem guilty of being so mistreated, under the risk of sounding like an socialist (wich i em)i will just say that if america tried to push the saud familiy to be a little nicer to their people there would not have been an 11 of september. From that point of view it is a good thing to invade iraq since it will maybe lead to democrasy and a much more stabile middle east. But the us could try to take more direct steps against the sauds.

 

Me too. I think that “Tom Sawyer� and “Yyz� are classics.

I agree with the first part, not with your second. To call Peal Harbor a preemptive attack is only a bit less silly than calling it a counter attack. But at the time Pearl Harbor’s forces were more than twice their regular number: the war was already building up. US and Japan were having strong diplomatic tension since the thirties, with military menaces from both sides; basically it was about commercial treaties. Japan’s attacks on Asia (very bloody shedding) were affecting US’ economic interests. The world was already at war; it was only a matter of time before US entered in it.

Not quite accurate. The same penalties that an Israeli suffers from not serving a Palestinian suffer (he can’t get a loan etc). Also, most who try to enlist are rejected (for obvious reasons). There are also some different laws regarding Palestinians even when they own Israeli citizenship; for instance (in Jerusalem, at least) they can own land, but they can’t buy any or build on it. Long-term strategy for getting an “all Jewish Jerusalem (“one and undivided�).
Public school and Hospitals are different for Jews and Palestinians. Those not for Jews receive less than 5% of the total budget.
These are the ones that live inside the pre-67 borders, not the whole of Israeli controlled lands.
Palestinians in the occupied territories are not given Israeli citizenship. They are considered citizens of other countries. Since these countries have no connection to these lands they don’t recognize their population as theirs (how could they?). So these people live in a civil limbo, having no country, and no rights (the same way black people lived in South Africa).They are given colored identification cards (there are three different colors) that define their rights and freedom of movement.

So, since camps are not tents they are not ghettos? I don’t get it. They are crappy cities, with poor structure and resources; its population is stuck there only allowed to leave with permission. How the fact that they are not tents makes them not being ghettos?
It is easy to figure that an isolated (and sieged) city can’t manage to support its population, so it ends dependant of Israel. Most Palestinians can only get money throw jobs in Israel, but they are not allowed to search for jobs (since they cannot leave the camp); they have to stay put in miserable conditions waiting for a employment recruiter goes there searching for people. Again, the same way South Africans lived.
About Jenin being a hoax, I really doubt that. Many independent organizations (Human Rights Watch etc) that go there verify massacres (including one done on 9/11). The UN inspection that claimed that no evidence was found worked on very peculiar conditions. First they were only allowed to visit places determined by the Israel government. Secondly, they were only allowed to interview people determined by the Israel government. Lastly, they were sent to investigate a massacre that had 'supposedly' happened moths before. Israel’s demand that the final report’s editing should be made by their government was dropped. How can relevant data be collected in these conditions?

Settlements have government help, in funding and military logistic. Since Sharon took seat their numbers increased drastically. I must confess that I have never heard anyone saying that they were decreasing, not even the Israel government (can you point me were you saw this, so I can check?).

 

I have heard that sharon actually have removed some of the settelments, but i'm not certain he must be so smart to realise that if he built more settelments that would only lead to more conflict.
I have an cousin that have studied that conflict (from the crusades til today) and he says the only sollution would be to create a palestinian state, the problem is that there is few in sharons party wich wants this, but i prefer sharon insted of that other guy from the same party can't remember his name.

 

Ok people, it's time to wake up.

Freedom is about to become a thing of the past.

The Dixie Chicks have been censored. For what? For having an opinion that goes against the administration.

The pope has been declared a traitor.

The US is fast becoming a totalitarian state.

We are no longer allowed to have an opinion.

Where's the liberal media? Why, it's been censored of course.

bush is making a mockery of everything this country stands for. Constitution? Bill of Rights? We don't need no stinking Constitution.

But remember, hussein is the maniac. He's the consumate evil.

Apparently people aren't going to see that until the spooks show up at the door to haul them off to an interment camp. Oh, it hasn't happened yet..(that we know of) But give it time.

Maybe the "war on terror" will pre-empt the 2004 election....

bush MUST be stopped. Before the country is completely destroyed. What will stop a man who stole or arranged his election in the first place? An assassin's bullet, maybe, but who knows?

The Dixie Chicks are embarrased to say bush is from Texas, well I'm embarrased to say bush is an American. Because he's not. He's not a patriot, he's not a good guy. He's a corrupt, power hungry megalomaniac who hides greed and bigotry behind the guise of freedom, patriotism, and a 'war on terror'

CIA definition of terrorist: One who uses violence or the threat of violence to force their wishes on others.

Funny, the US is using violence or the threat of violence to force their wishes on the rest of the world.

Yes, I'm angry. Angry that some scumbag politician is throwing their military weight around, and saying it's in the name of freedom. Saying it's in my name. I'm angry that someone who has an opinion gets labeled a traitor. I'm angry that the US is becoming what it's stood against for nearly 250 years.

So am I a traitor? FUCK NO! I love my country. I love my home. I love that piece of paper that at one time made this a great country to live in. But I will NOT be silent while Freedom gets tread upon by the very government that's supposed to be upholding it!

george w. bush represents a clear and present danger to the United States, and it's citizens. And the rest of the world.

 

No, freedom is about to be defended.

Oh, hell no. So, it's ok for the Dicky Chicks to excercise their right to free speech, but it's not right for the people who disagree with them to excercise theirs?

You know what, this is where liberalism gets kooky. They defend the nutcases. Rights for one over rights of so many.

If George W. Bush was to get up on a stage with a guitar and start singing "Your Cheatin' Heaaart" he would be told to go back to politickin. Leave the singin' to the singers. Well, the same applies here. Just because someone is famous, suddenly that gives them vast political knowledge. It's bullshit. Leave the politickin' to the politicians and the singin' to the singers.

You guys are all about freedom of speech. Fine. Let the Dicky Chicks say what they want. I defend to the death their right to have freedom of speech. But, shut-up whenever people respond negatively to comments made by the Chicks. After all, they're just excercising their right. Isn't that what you libs are all about?

Until you show me where, I'll consider that utter rubbish. The pope was, however, getting political when and where it's not his job, and he got grief for it. Same as the Dicky Chicks.

Yeah, and all the nay-sayers are quickly lining up to back America too.

You, who are against people trashing and banning the Dicky Chicks, are saying we are no longer allowed to have an opinion, and you're blaming that on the administration? This is complete b-s. You don't want people who disagree with the Dicky Chicks to have an opinion, and then you cry because, "we are no longer allowed to have an opinion?"

I still think it's hilarious that you think there is no liberal media, or that, it's being censored. Especially when 95% of the media is liberal. Besides, I've already said that the liberals won't dare say a negative word right now. That would cause people to sway from the liberal cause. They're laying low. You gotta sneak liberalism in, bit by bit, chiseling away at the Constitution and Bill of Rights bit by bit. Not by taking a radical stand.

Bush is making a mockery? Ok. Bush, the defender of the free is a mockery, Clinton the lying, cigar-vaginal-probing adulterer stood for "what this country stands for."

We haven't forgotten.

After all, it's ok to have an opinion different from the evil empire of an administration that we elected, but it's not ok to have an opinion that agrees with it. Right? That's what you're saying so far. All I've heard from you so far is that, pretty much, I'm wrong and stupid and dumb and jingoistic because I immediately threw my Dixie Chicks cd's in the garbage upon hearing Natalie "Loudmouth" Maines' traitorous comments.

Clinton, however, was a model president for resorting to the world's peacemaker, spelled - m o n e y, instead of action against terroristic threats during his administration.

 

It's ok to disagree with something someone says. It's ok to voice an opinion of it. It is not , however, ok to censor those opinions. If people want to be blind, narrow-minded sheep. Well that's their perogative. But when I see that I could be labeled a traitor because my opinion differs from the majority, then I see things like the patriot act put into effect, I see that I could end up sitting in a detention center for having an opinion.

Whose freedom is about to be defended? Yeah, you know, I saw an Iraqi army on the ridge just the other day. Terrorists? Terrorism is a fact. The more oppressive the situation, the more likely terrorism is to happen. As long as there is social injustice, there will be terrorism. You know, the British Monarchy labeled George Washington's army as terrorists, traitors, and deviants too.

I'm not a clinton supporter either. Don't assume. He did, in fact make a mockery of the presidency. Not because he got a blowjob in the oval office, but because he got caught dead to rights, then lied about it. Show me a politician that doesn't lie. There was such a cry over that, and it's just plain ridiculous. What male wouldn't want to play a little hanky-panky on that nice big desk? And what most people are forgetting, it's NOBODY'S DAMN BUSINESS who's fucking who, where and when. It's between the parties involved. And adultery, as so many things, is a matter of opinion. Some people enjoy it, some people swap and share partners. And it's none of anyone else's concern. Not my cup of tea, but to each their own. Some day, people may realize that sex is a natural part of life. Not that judeo-christian bullshit that's been instilled from birth to condition us that sex is dirty. But again, I digress.

Who elected bush? Not me. Not the election. The Supreme Court, staffed by people put on the bench by dubya's father.

As far as the pope goes. Well It's only something I heard. I'm presently looking for proof of the comment. The fact that it wouldn't surprize me, was enough to raise my hackles.

And again. How is bush defending freedom? By censoring people's opinions? By pushing for a faith-based charities bill? By asking for more personal power? By instituting a secret court, that serves secret warrants to people who *might* be immersing themselves in deviant literature? Look up the patriot act. Under this act, someone *SUSPECTED* of terrorism can be held indefinately, without counsel. I've never heard something SO remeniscent of the KGB and the McCarthy era.

All I've seen is a response to my more inflammatory remarks, defending bush. I've seen no argument to convince me otherwise. I have, however, seen lots of proof that the patriotic propaganda is taking hold quite well. Blinders and all.

Liberals chiseling away at the Constitution. That's a good one. Defending Civil Rights and liberties, oh yes, that's chipping away the Constitution. The Homeland Security Act, the Patriot Act. THAT is what's destroying the Constitution.

 

Right, we are about to kill hundreds, if not thousands of Iraqui to defend their right to live under a government of our choice.

Y'know, settling their own elections used to be a states right. Remember the tenth admendment? That was the first one we lost. Taken by the first Republican president. Caused a bit of unpleasantness in your part of the country a while back, didn't it? Or you one of those who cares about no other admendments than the second.

Damn straight, what this country stands for is gettin' some.

If it is any consolation, Clinton will go to his grave thinking "Jack Kennedy got Marylin Monroe."

Uh..., we didn't elect him. 5 Republicans in black elected him. The scary thing is he has a 5 - 4 majority for any question of party or ideology over law or constution.

 

The President of the United States was elected by the Electoral College and the people of America, not by the Supreme Court. If you believe this, then you are ignorant.

The deciding factor in the election was who won in Florida, picking up its electoral votes. The person with the most popular votes(from the people of Florida) would win the states electoral votes. Bush won the most votes, and the state. It was very close however. After multiple recounts, Bush still won. Months later, the media conducted its own recount to ensure that the first ones were fair. Again, Bush won.

The supreme court was called in because those who sought recounts tried to violate Florida law by holding more and more and more. The Supreme Court upheld Florida law, like it should have.

Bush is the legimate president of the American people. The American people elected him. He is not the first president to win the election without a popular majority, because the system is not organized that way.

The electoral college is designed to ensure that the sometimes uneducated masses don't elect a Hitler, to make votes count in all states and ensure that candidates spend time campaigning everywhere, not just in high density areas, and also to ensure that a solely regional candidate cannot win. These reasons, and others make the Presidency more representative of America as a whole.

Regardless of your political beliefs or opinion of Bush, Bush was elected under the laws of our great nation, by the constitution we hold dear, adn under Florida law, which cannot be ignored because of political games.

 

Who exactly censored the Dixie Chicks?

What are you talking about? You are so upset because people have different views than you! Who's labeled who a traitor? I have a right to dislike the Dixie Chicks because they were the ones that were being narrow-minded sheep, just jumping on the bandwagon, because in the location they were at, they were voicing the popular view. You are accusing everybody who disagrees with you of being blind, narrow-minded sheep. Do you not hear the irony in what you are saying?

So we should leave Saddam alone, leave Kim Jong Il alone, leave Arafat alone, give them land so they'll shut-up, so there would be no more terrorism. It doesn't work that way. Ever heard of the phrase "paper-tiger" or "give them an inch, they'll take a mile"?

How the hell can you compare the Revolutionary Army to Osama bin Laden and Saddam? George Washington didn't murder his own people, brain-wash them, cut out their tounges, develop horrific weapons and use them on his own people.

I think Clothos answered this perfectly. Oh, and about the part about Dubya's father putting people on the bench, I want you to go and research and see just how many people are on the bench from Dubya's father, then compare it to the one's still on there from Jimmy Carter, Nixon, and Clinton. Clinton, if I remember correctly had the vast majority at something in the neighborhood of 35-45% of the seats. Oh, while you're at it, look into something called, "liberals stalling Bush's selections for the bench." They have held up the vast majority of Bush's selections for the most idiotic reasons. No, rather for the reason of preserving liberalism in the High Court.

So you're admitting to believing sensationalistic views, regardless of their bias and/or reliability?

Who's views have been censored?

You know, it's a sad fact, but the top 90% of names on the FBI's watch list are Mohammad, Ahmed, etc.

But, that's racial profiling. We need to include more white-haired grannies named Alice, while they're cooking an apple pie. Let's bust in swat. "Hold up granny! Whatcha got in that pie pan? Search her!!" It's not racial profiling, it's investigating the people with suspicious activities. The people who are racist are the people who accuse others of being racist, as they are only trying to use the tried and true political race-card.

Fine, no-one's trying to change your views. It's your right to have them.

However, don't accuse me of having blinders. Ever consider that maybe the blinders are on you? You are the one that's pointing the fingers and screaming "Jingoism/sheep/blinded/swayed by vast right-wing conspiracy!" Why can't I defend Bush?

Hate crimes legislation. If that's not a load of liberal bull-shit, I don't know what is. Get this.

A white man in Mississippi is convicted of beating a black man to near death. BUT, because this qualifies as a "hate-crime" he gets penalized more than he would were he to have beaten another white man.

I'm not finished.

A black man in New York strode into a bar, shot three white men, wounded another. What did the police commisioner have to say about it? "It was a bizarre occurence." Not a hate crime, a bizarre occurence. The black man went to jail, but didn't get near the coverage, penalty and public shorn that the white man who beat up the black in Miss.

Liberalistic b-s. Nitpicking the Bill of Rights and Constitution, then completely flipping it around backwards.

 

Patriot act?
:thinkof:

 

The Patriot Act was passed by Congress, and was debated and formulated by Congress. The president can only advise and give ideas, not write legislation. People should get a better understanding of the system before they blame everything on Bush, he's a president, but not the whole government.

 

Funny that the only dictators the us wants to remove is those that goes against them, a regime can be as bad as idi amins regime just as long it supports the us. If saddam had continued to attack iran noone would have cared at all, not the us in any case, they would have been glad and would probably support saddam.

Ever heard the phrase "violence brew violence"?


If the peace line had been followed in the middle east there might have been peace there now, but no! Sharon had to visit a islamic holy ground something that lead to protests wich lead to retalitation wich lead to suicide killers ect ect. Just take a look at how it is in israel today.
Arafat was the person that took iniative to the oslo treaty wich almost lead to peace.
Yeah sure arafat is a killer, kill him and leave Sharon alone he is nice, he wants peace.
Fact is the palestinians will not leave palenstine nor will the israelians so they just have to learn to live together, the israelians must give away some land for this to happen. The only chance there is for an peacefull solution in the middle east is a new palestinian state

What does it matter for the dead, the mutilated, the orphans and the homeless vether the insane destruction is done in the name of dictatorship or in the holy name of democracy?


AND who/what is dixie chicks?

 

Point well taken. However, I see bush asking for more personal power as an attempt to circumvent the rest of the government.

Not exactly. While that was worded poorly, I'm admitting only to being a cynic. Thus far I've found nothing to back up the statement, and with that, I've nothing to go on but my cynicism. But that doesn't bake the bread.

I certainly can't argue that. Hate crimes legislation, affirmative action are nothing more than a fancy way of saying 'reverse discrimination'.

It's no worse to beat a person within an inch of their life because of their ethnic background, than it is to beat someone over $20, or a bottle of booze.

Here's where the debate always heats up. First and foremost, I did NOT compare the Revolutionary Army to bin laden or hussein.

If I had, I would've said, "The Revolutionary Army was no better than hussein, or bin laden."

Second of all. No the Revolutionary Army didn't cut people's tongues out, etc, etc. That we know of. We humans often forget that history is subjective; written by the winners. Especially in the days prior to internets, and TV networks. That's not to say I think the Rev. Army did those things. I'd hate to think so, because it would really suck a lot to find out that some of my greatest heroes were monsters.

What I *did* say is that the BRITISH MONARCHY labeled the Rev. Army as traitors, deviants, and possibly terrorists. Those considered terrorists are often little more than revolutionaries. The subjective history thing again. If a so-called terrorist group, pulls off a rebellion, logic dictates their story will be written with them as the heroes. Regardless of how they went about winning that rebellion. The more unpleasant things would likely be swept under the carpet. If Washington's Army hadn't won the Revolutionary War, how would their story be told today? Well it would likely be told portraying Washington as a maniacal dissident whose pastime was raping, pillaging, plundering, and killing babies.

Much like the IRA is portrayed in the media today. Now, before everyone flips out on me about this, hear me out. I'm not a supporter of ANY terrorist group. The whole Irish Revolution thing lost me when it became a holy war, instead of a fight for Liberty. However, I knew a few Irish immigrants, people of peace who left Ireland for a new start in America, to escape the horror and violence. Folks who were born and raised during those times, and let me tell you, the actions of the British soldiers were just as appalling as the actions of the IRA, bin laden, and hussein. And these are not stories that came from just one person. They came from several different people, of differing backgrounds.

And if liberals are/were stalling a bush's Supreme Court selections, in the interest of getting more liberal support on the bench, good. There needs to be a diverse range of views on the bench. It's the only way to ensure a fair shake. Checks and balances. Too much liberalism, and we will have mandatory meditation hours, people burning down the white house, and getting away with it under the guise of Freedom of Expression. And even more true criminals walking the streets. Laws that make defending yourself illegal. Too much conservatism, and we'll have things like death penalties for burning flags, no social security, idiot hunters hunting deer with armour-piercing bullets. The removal of a woman's right to choose, birth control made illegal, and mandatory bible schools. Checks and balances.

On a parting note, I'll leave you with this quote. From a man who very much epitomized what America is supposed to be about. Freedom to live without big government breathing down our necks.


"As nightfall does not come all at once, niether does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of the change in the air--however slight--lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness"
--Hon. William O. Douglas, Associate Justice, United States Supreme Court

 

Well, I must say, that that was certainly non-liberal of you to say. Good to see that you haven't gone "kooky" like a lot of the peace-sign waving, braided ponytail wearing, joint-smoking, tax-the-shit-outta the working man liberals.

Ok. I did take your quote a little outta context. But, the British Monarchy was not exactly on the up and up. There was oppression, religious persecution, ghastly public executions... yada yada yada. I hardly think that the U.S. naming "terrorists" is similar to the British monarchy calling Washington and his men terrorists.

See, Hussein calls the U.S. the "Great Satan". We call him an "Axis of Evil". Osama bin Laden calls us infidels. Australia calls us "cowboys." Everyone calls the French "cowards" or "thankless bastards"

See my point? You can't really accurately compare any name calling done by any regime, country, or monarchy.

You haven't researched yet how many liberal-appointed judges there are on the bench, have you? I'll try to find some info for you. I think that you are correct in that there should be a diverse range (I certainly don't think that the entire bench should be made up of conservatives, by no means) But, when I find the information for you, I think you'll see what I mean about Bush's appointees being stalled. And oftentimes, they are stalled for rediculous reasons. (Actually, the only reason they are stalled, is that liberals were trying to preserve their last hold in the democratic system.)

Good quote. I agree with it. I also want freedom without "big gov." I will say, that if you call yourself a liberal, I believe you are about as "middle of the road" a liberal as I have met. And, in reality, I think that everything you hear/read/see/discuss/argue actually is more middle of the road than it appears.

 

Or the name of god. I couldn't agree more.

The Dixie Chicks are a country/western/folkish band from the US.

Exactly my point. All those labels are subjective. Given by a government or regime, wanting to sway opinion one way or the other.

And is the US on the up and up? We'd like to think so. Anyone with faith should hope so. Anyone with a conscience should wonder so. A cynic like me has to ask so.

I haven't really researched who appointed who, because in actuality, it doesn't really matter. Bench on the Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment. Whoever appoints a Justice can rapidly find themselves with a viewpoint the exact opposite of what they were aiming for. The Warren Court was a prime example of this.

What I do know is that I differ quite radically from most of Rhenquist's views. (sp?) (He is still on the bench, right? I am guilty of not keeping up with the Courts, and I really should.) Scalia, I'm fond of, but not 100% on board with him either. Those are the only recent Justices I've really had enough exposure to form an opinion on. I think the Court needs another Bill Douglas, a shame that won't happen. The Great Dissenter, but damn if the man didn't have some good reasons for them.

I did say that I had trouble classifying my political stance. Perhaps I simply have a different definition of liberal. To me, liberal means 'one who stands for liberty. Liberty of the one, of the many. One sentient being has just as many rights as the next sentient being. No more, no less. Everyone should be subjected to the same laws, whether cops, soldiers or politicians. Injustice starts with one person. Then another, and another, until snowballs out of control, and we find ourselves locked up and bowing down to tyranny. I think censorship in any form is wrong. Enforcing any one person or group's way of thinking is wrong. People should be free to live their lives, so long as they don't endanger others.

Guess I won't let you see any pictures of me..:wink:

No one wants high taxes. Even fewer want taxes for shit they never see. I would have no problem paying high taxes for something like..free health care, sensible social programs, better education,(to help quell the problem of 'hate crimes') programs to help keep kids off the street and away from gang-bangin', and programs to rehabilitate criminals instead of locking them away to nurture their hatred of society. What I don't like paying taxes for are $700 hammers, limo rides, jacuzzis and nice fat pensions for politicians, land scams, lowest bidder contracts, and bigger bombs, that offer up twice the death and destruction.

 

Norway has high taxes, we also are the second or the best country to live in according to the UN(damned canada). free health care, free schools, the same schools for evryone. Ahh socialdemokracy.

Sorry, could not help myself

That is imposibole for the us to achive since the us is much larger, and has an much larger public.
We to have many stupid politicians and we are waaay to american in the way we live, although a prime minister that claimed that the norwegian people is the finest in the world would have been joked at until he died.

I'm a socialdemocrat or in other words a socialist. I belive that the only way to get the world to work is through removing differences economcly between peoples so that wars and terrorism disepears.