A positive Steroid report from Fox News

[In Hulk]

The federal goverment they created was NOTHING like what it has become today. There were NO ecnonomic benefits from splitting with Britain. None. Im jut going to have to say you havent studied the revolution enough. You are being quite subjective.

it was created by rich white property owners but a surprising amount of them were against slavery. The lack of any amendments or laws regarding slavery (and hence leaving it completely open to attack in the future) is a direct result of these people in drafting the constitution. feel free to rebut but were getting a little off topic

I understand the adverse effects of the revoultionary war on the economy, but I didn't cite economy reasons as incentive for seperation with the crown. Power, and the ability to govern, legislate, and completely shape the face of a new nation would be more appropriate attractions ... I think we can agree though that any resulting beneficial circumstances were limited almost entirely to the upper class as a result of the laws set in place by, the upper class.

I agree though we're getting off topic.... Legalize anabolics

 

[In Hulk]

So what you are saying is you should have the ability to have your opinions, but I shouldn't be allowed to have mine? bravo, that sounds like true freedom of speech :clap2: which is the same liberal BS thrown around so frequently. Annie Lennox was saying in an interview how she thought this was supposed to be the land of free speech but couldnt believe how the dixie chicks were spoken about after they spoke out against the war. What fine hypocrisy that only your opinion is valid, and only it constitutes free speech.

Where did I say you shouldn't be allowed to have your two cents? I asked why are people so hostile to criticisms of a government body?... How do you misinterpret that as "you shouldn't be allowed to disagree with me"?... I just don't understand why when people criticize US policy that they're immediately encouraged to "get out". I would think more people be open to discussion, change starts with talk!

 

[In Hulk]

IN HULK - You're showing yourself as a Troll, son, and it's annoying.
You may have some education but your facts are not all correct and you're perpetuating an argument about a country in a thread about a news article regarding steroid use.
Weasel

Oh, please, I beg you, tell me which of my facts are incorrect, son.

I'm perpetuating an argument about a government(quite a difference)which regulates controlled substances. Does it not? I think a bit of its' history and its' habits are of at least some relevance to the topic.

 

[I am Weasel]

Oh, please, I beg you, tell me which of my facts are incorrect, son.

I'm perpetuating an argument about a government(quite a difference)which regulates controlled substances. Does it not? I think a bit of its' history and its' habits are of at least some relevance to the topic.

We did not 'create' the Taliban. The US did support the Mujahideen during the Carter and Reagan eras. Taliban means 'Students' and they are religious zealots, running off a rather warped interpretation of the Koran and forcing their will upon the masses. The Mujahideen are "One's who struggle", seen as freedom fighters against the former Marxist govenment and the Russians. Our support of the Mujahideen is a case of 'my enemy's enemy is my friend'. Some of the Mujahideen went on to do nasty things, most of them are interested in having a role in their country's developement of a free society.
We created neither the 'Students' nor the Mujahideen.

The next lesson is 'Troll'

Trolls can be existing members of a community that rarely post and often contribute no useful information to the thread, but instead make argumentative posts in an attempt to discredit another person, concentrating almost exclusively on facts irrelevant to the point of the conversation, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others. The key element under attack by a troll is known only to the troll.
A troll's main goal is usually to arouse anger and frustration among the message board's other participants, and will write whatever it takes to achieve this end. One popular trolling strategy is the practice of Winning by Losing. While the victim is trying to put forward solid and convincing facts to prove his position, the troll's only goal is to infuriate its prey. The troll takes (what it knows to be) a badly flawed, wholly illogical argument, and then vigorously defends it while mocking and insulting its prey. The troll looks like a complete fool, but this is all part of the plan. The victim becomes noticeably angry by trying to repeatedly explain the flaws of the troll's argument. Provoking this anger was the troll's one and only goal from the very beginning. (Wikipedia, 2007)

Weasel

P.S. You cannot use 'son' on someone who's old enuff to be your daddy...

 

[fatsuperman]

The Fate of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence


read all of it!

then call the founding fathers a bunch of white guys wanting their property!

These were ballsy people that gave everything

 

[In Hulk]

We did not 'create' the Taliban. The US did support the Mujahideen during the Carter and Reagan eras. Taliban means 'Students' and they are religious zealots, running off a rather warped interpretation of the Koran and forcing their will upon the masses. The Mujahideen are "One's who struggle", seen as freedom fighters against the former Marxist govenment and the Russians. Our support of the Mujahideen is a case of 'my enemy's enemy is my friend'. Some of the Mujahideen went on to do nasty things, most of them are interested in having a role in their country's developement of a free society.
We created neither the 'Students' nor the Mujahideen.

Funding and supplying military training to a group of men which gains control over the country seems to be creating the problem... You can't blame Frankenstein for creating the monster?

The next lesson is 'Troll'

Trolls can be existing members of a community that rarely post and often contribute no useful information to the thread, but instead make argumentative posts in an attempt to discredit another person, concentrating almost exclusively on facts irrelevant to the point of the conversation, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others. The key element under attack by a troll is known only to the troll.
A troll's main goal is usually to arouse anger and frustration among the message board's other participants, and will write whatever it takes to achieve this end. One popular trolling strategy is the practice of Winning by Losing. While the victim is trying to put forward solid and convincing facts to prove his position, the troll's only goal is to infuriate its prey. The troll takes (what it knows to be) a badly flawed, wholly illogical argument, and then vigorously defends it while mocking and insulting its prey. The troll looks like a complete fool, but this is all part of the plan. The victim becomes noticeably angry by trying to repeatedly explain the flaws of the troll's argument. Provoking this anger was the troll's one and only goal from the very beginning. (Wikipedia, 2007)

Weasel

P.S. You cannot use 'son' on someone who's old enuff to be your daddy...

I did go a bit off topic, but I was just throwing my two cents in on the founding fathers since other people were commenting on the history of the United States. Other people can mention the founding fathers but since mine deviates from the "norm" it's considered trolling? Don't I have more posts than you? Weren't you the first one to mock and insult? God you're annoying, gramps.

 

[whitedevil74]

This is a bit off topic, but I can't stand the respect everyone throws at the founding fathers.

They were after more money, more power, and the right to govern. They had no respect for "the people", nor their right to rebel and protest. This is evidenced by the numerous rebellions, protests, and demonstrations against the government after the revolutionary war and the legislation the government quickly passed to quiet the people.

I quite agree with this, the "founding fathers" were incredibly intelligent, but also rather elitist in their worldview. Remember we live in a Republic, which in practice functions more like a democratic oligarchy than a pure democracy. People tend to forget that we elect people to represent us, but outside of ballot initiatives and referendums, there is little direct democracy in the US. The Winner take all system (whoever gets the most votes gets 100% of the power) is much less democratic than a parlimentary system. I am not saying one is better than the other, but one is more democratic than the other.
The founders of this country were not interested in what the "average" person thought as demonstrated by very restrictive voting laws which pretty much limited the voting population to an educated, wealthy, elite, who picked leaders from amongst their own class. However, it was still a huge leap forward from a monarchy.
People really need to read more and watch less television.

 

[whitedevil74]

So what you are saying is you should have the ability to have your opinions, but I shouldn't be allowed to have mine? bravo, that sounds like true freedom of speech :clap2: which is the same liberal BS thrown around so frequently. Annie Lennox was saying in an interview how she thought this was supposed to be the land of free speech but couldnt believe how the dixie chicks were spoken about after they spoke out against the war. What fine hypocrisy that only your opinion is valid, and only it constitutes free speech.

What exactly is liberal BS. I tend to think these types of generalizations do not really address the issue at hand but just are a method to denigrate an opponent without addressing the arguments. I am neither liberal nor conservative as I feel that these are artificial terms created by a media that wants to overly simplify everything and lump us all into our little factions so they can market to us more effectively. I agree both sides should be free to debate an issue and I have no problem that the Dixie Chicks were criticized for speaking their mind, even though I happen to agree with them. Free speech means that you can say what is your mind, but does it does not carry a corresponding right that people have to agree with you or are not free to criticize the hell out of you for exercising your rights. That is the beauty of free speech.

 

[EasyEJL]

Where did I say you shouldn't be allowed to have your two cents? I asked why are people so hostile to criticisms of a government body?... How do you misinterpret that as "you shouldn't be allowed to disagree with me"?... I just don't understand why when people criticize US policy that they're immediately encouraged to "get out". I would think more people be open to discussion, change starts with talk!

I also dont understand why you would want to live in a country so misgoverned. If I find a protein powder I like better, I don't continue using my old one. If I find a car I like better, I don't continue using my old car. If I feel I no longer living living in the house I am in or neighborhood, I move. I'm not sure why you have a problem with me suggesting that you put your money where your mouth is, and go elsewhere if its so horrible here.


You may feel there needs to be change, however I do not. There are plenty of times I feel criticism of the government makes sense, for instance when trying to expand a health program designed to help children in poverty to include families making over $70,000 a year. Thats worthy of criticism. The war in Iraq was voted for by congress, under assumptions about WMDs that most of the rest of the world agreed with, even if they did not feel it was worthy of invasion. Whining about it now doesn't help, and withdrawing now would end up with things worse. Hindsight is 20/20, but we have to move forward in a direction that is positive, and bailing out won't accomplish that.

Whitedevil, you are right, the labeling of liberal vs conservative is significantly artificial, but in the case of arguing that somehow criticism of what they said is someone trying to suppress their freedom of speech it almost solely comes from democrats. I can't recall any republicans crying that their right to free speech was being impinged upon by someone criticising them for voting against something, or for making a statement they believed in.

In general when I say liberal BS I mean the belief system that is pervading our society - that people are owed something, the government should take care of you instead of you taking yourself - the culture of entitlement. You should be free to do what you want, how you want, and not be held responsible or accountable.

 

[In Hulk]

I also dont understand why you would want to live in a country so misgoverned. If I find a protein powder I like better, I don't continue using my old one. If I find a car I like better, I don't continue using my old car. If I feel I no longer living living in the house I am in or neighborhood, I move. I'm not sure why you have a problem with me suggesting that you put your money where your mouth is, and go elsewhere if its so horrible here.

It's not something feasible for me at the moment. My financial situation restricts my ability to take my exit, as does the fact that obtaining citizenship in another country isn't exactly the easiest and quickest thing to achieve.

You may feel there needs to be change, however I do not. There are plenty of times I feel criticism of the government makes sense, for instance when trying to expand a health program designed to help children in poverty to include families making over $70,000 a year. Thats worthy of criticism. The war in Iraq was voted for by congress, under assumptions about WMDs that most of the rest of the world agreed with, even if they did not feel it was worthy of invasion. Whining about it now doesn't help, and withdrawing now would end up with things worse. Hindsight is 20/20, but we have to move forward in a direction that is positive, and bailing out won't accomplish that.

You don't think there needs to be change??? Are you serious??? You find the amount of lobbyists in DC shaping legislation ok? Or throwing 90 BILLION dollars every few months at an illegal war to be acceptable?

You don't think the government should be willing to help its citizens financially yet you think stuffing obscenely insane amounts of money into the war machine to be fine and dandy? Let me see if I have this right- you criticize government when it wants to supply health care for children, but you support 90 billion dollars for bombs.

...

This is why Bush Republicans have no grip on reality or morals. The end. There's no arguing that kind of perverse stupidity.

 

[EasyEJL]

It's not something feasible for me at the moment. My financial situation restricts my ability to take my exit, as does the fact that obtaining citizenship in another country isn't exactly the easiest and quickest thing to achieve.


You don't think there needs to be change??? Are you serious??? You find the amount of lobbyists in DC shaping legislation ok? Or throwing 90 BILLION dollars every few months at an illegal war to be acceptable?

You don't think the government should be willing to help its citizens financially yet you think stuffing obscenely insane amounts of money into the war machine to be fine and dandy? Let me see if I have this right- you criticize government when it wants to supply health care for children, but you support 90 billion dollars for bombs.

...

This is why Bush Republicans have no grip on reality or morals. The end. There's no arguing that kind of perverse stupidity.

Agian, how comical, your opinions are the only right ones. Playing checkers not chess. You want to support free government provided health care for children whose parents would rather spend money on cable tv, beer, cigarettes, mcdonalds and rims than on their own childrens health. And you don't want to provide security to future generations to make sure there aren't constant terrorist attacks by a religious group who has sworn to wipe all people who do not believe in their religion off the face of the planet. Thats why democrats have no grip on reality, and will continue playing checkers and tic tac toe while republicans play chess. Theres no arguing against that sort of short sighted stupidity.

 

[whitedevil74]

Well what it comes down to is whether you support government sponsored welfare for giant defense contractors or for children. Our defense spending is absolutely insane, our spending on ineffective social programs is absolutely insane. This is what I hate about conservatives and liberals equally, they both want to tax me and waste my money, just on different programs. If terrorist blew up those bridges in Minnesota our government would spend 100's of billions of dollars protecting bridges and bombing another country. But since they just collapsed due to age no one is willing to spend a dime on fixing the problem of a collapsing infrastructure. I am a pragmatist pure and simple, ideology leads to intellectual laziness and blindness to the truth, just like any dogma discourages the individual to think for themselves.

Also, I look at criticizing the government like I would criticize a family member, sometimes I have an obligation to do so. If my brother has a terrible drinking problem and is screwing up his life, I have every right, in fact I have an obligation to voice my concern and my criticism. I do this out of love because I want to see him reach his full potential and because I can not stand to see him hurting himself. I view my criticism of the government in the same way, I voice my criticism because I love my country and want to see it be as good as it can be. Silence and support does not equal love and patriotism, it is quite the opposite in my opinion. I care enough to speak out, I love this country and want it to be the best in every aspect.

 

[EasyEJL]

If terrorist blew up those bridges in Minnesota our government would spend 100's of billions of dollars protecting bridges and bombing another country. But since they just collapsed due to age no one is willing to spend a dime on fixing the problem of a collapsing infrastructure. I am a pragmatist pure and simple, ideology leads to intellectual laziness and blindness to the truth, just like any dogma discourages the individual to think for themselves.

part of the issue here is the same as with the lousiana levees, and the katrina response. The bridges are a local concern, not a national one. So if the city/county/state knows of the condition, and refuses to fix it (as was the case here) its not the federal government's job to step in and do something. They had 2 years knowing that the bridge was in basically unsafe condition, and weren't even working on the repair plans. In the case of an attack by an outside entity, it is the federal government's responsibility.

 

[whitedevil74]

Agian, how comical, your opinions are the only right ones. Playing checkers not chess. You want to support free government provided health care for children whose parents would rather spend money on cable tv, beer, cigarettes, mcdonalds and rims than on their own childrens health. And you don't want to provide security to future generations to make sure there aren't constant terrorist attacks by a religious group who has sworn to wipe all people who do not believe in their religion off the face of the planet. Thats why democrats have no grip on reality, and will continue playing checkers and tic tac toe while republicans play chess. Theres no arguing against that sort of short sighted stupidity.

I agree that islamofacism is one of the greatest threats to modern society, muslim extremist scare the hell out of me as it runs contrary to everything I believe in. However, this is a battle of ideas and I am concerned that all this war has managed to accomplish is to recruit more people to the cause of fanaticism and lends credence to the fundamentalist arguments that the US wants to control the middle east and to wipe out Islam. I agree with the goals, but I question the means the Bush administration us using to accomplish them. DO I have the answer, I wish I did, but what we are doing is not working and I sincerely believe is dramatically increasing the hatred of the United States through out the muslim world. I say we spend as much money as necessary to reduce our dependence on middle eastern oil and let them kill each other until no one is left. That region of the world is not worth the freakin trouble, I would rather walk to work than give another dollar of my money to Saudi Arabian oil princes that sponsor terrorism in the world.

 

[whitedevil74]

part of the issue here is the same as with the lousiana levees, and the katrina response. The bridges are a local concern, not a national one. So if the city/county/state knows of the condition, and refuses to fix it (as was the case here) its not the federal government's job to step in and do something. They had 2 years knowing that the bridge was in basically unsafe condition, and weren't even working on the repair plans. In the case of an attack by an outside entity, it is the federal government's responsibility.

Whether they are a state or federal concern is not the issue, that is ideology again getting in the way of what needs to be done. Our system of roads and bridges was designed to expedite commerce and to aid in civil defense in case of evacuations and troop mobilzations. The issue is these things need fixing and no one is fixing them, I am not saying the feds need to come in take over local roads, but instead of building 100 million dollar bridges to an island that 10 people live on (thanks Ted Stevens) lets fix the bridges we have that are essential to commerce. We need to keep this economy running smoothly and our roads are essential to that purpose.

 

[EasyEJL]

I can agree with that, but in some ways it is as bad as the issue of global warming - are we then just putting off dealing with wahabism (I think thats right) for our children or grandchildren or theirs? it would have been better had we not gone into Iraq, but we can't unroll that decision made by congress. I too have no good answer as to how to go forwards in a more positive sense, but I can't see withdrawal as it. Reducing dependence on oil makes sense as well, I am a fan of building new nuclear plants as well as using biodiesel based hybrids as they seem to be the most sensible compromise (particularly with the diesel just running a generator, no drivetrain connection). GM was originally working on those, and somehow we went back to all electric, or gas powered with direct drivetrain connections as well. That will never work out so cleanly, too many moving parts.

 

[whitedevil74]

Well guys it has been fun debating with you but I have to run, man this thread got derailed, but nothing like a good debate to get the mind going in the morning. I love discussing ideas with people I disagree with as it gives me the opportunity to question what I believe and to test my ideas against others. Just as the body needs exercise so does the mind.
Enjoy the day everyone. Now this is what "free speech" is supposed to be, a debate of ideas.

 

[In Hulk]

Agian, how comical, your opinions are the only right ones. Playing checkers not chess. You want to support free government provided health care for children whose parents would rather spend money on cable tv, beer, cigarettes, mcdonalds and rims than on their own childrens health. And you don't want to provide security to future generations to make sure there aren't constant terrorist attacks by a religious group who has sworn to wipe all people who do not believe in their religion off the face of the planet. Thats why democrats have no grip on reality, and will continue playing checkers and tic tac toe while republicans play chess. Theres no arguing against that sort of short sighted stupidity.

It's as simple as this, if I had to choose between bombing and invading foreign nations or providing health care for children, the obvious choice here is the health care.

If you really believe the war in Iraq is doing anything other than reinforcing the negative American image and greatly increasing anti-American sentiment in the ME, then you should rethink your position. Invading a country in the middle east under false pretenses(Niger uranium anyone?) only balloons the problem.

The threat of terrorism is greatly exaggerated and ridiculously small. You have a better chance of winning the lottery or being struck by lightning than being killed by a terrorist. 9-11 killed 3,000 people... The first 10 minutes of invading Iraq probably left a number quadruple that... No one's ****ing with the US or its military so stop acting like it's a huge threat. You can now exit pretend land and enter reality.

 

[EasyEJL]

It's as simple as this, if I had to choose between bombing and invading foreign nations or providing health care for children, the obvious choice here is the health care.

If you really believe the war in Iraq is doing anything other than reinforcing the negative American image and greatly increasing anti-American sentiment in the ME, then you should rethink your position. Invading a country in the middle east under false pretenses(Niger uranium anyone?) only balloons the problem.

The threat of terrorism is greatly exaggerated and ridiculously small. You have a better chance of winning the lottery or being struck by lightning than being killed by a terrorist. 9-11 killed 3,000 people... The first 10 minutes of invading Iraq probably left a number quadruple that... No one's ****ing with the US or its military so stop acting like it's a huge threat. You can now exit pretend land and enter reality.

Again the audacity, your opinion is the only one that is right, and anyone who believes different has mental issues and should rethink their opinion. What a way to express the belief in freedom of speech, to tell me that I am in pretend land.

As far as invading under false pretenses, perhaps you should look at what of your fine democrat congress voted for it. As its congress that decides whether to go to war, not the president. Also again a tidbit you are ignoring, the rest of the world agreed with the intelligence as far as WMDs and the possibility of worse, just some disagreed with invading. It may be inconvenient for you to believe this since it no longer allows you to blame Bush, so odds are you will ignore this as well.

In the us with lets say 300 million people resident, we had in the last 6 years over 3000 die from terrorism. That equates to a 1 in 100,000 chance, much higher than the odds of the lottery or a lightning stroke. So instead of throwing out ficticious numbers to make yourself feel good about your position, how about looking at the truth. And i'd rather have 500,000 of them die on their soil than have another 500 of us die here. Easy math for me.

So present a solution instead of whining about the past and the bad republicans. What can we do about it today to move forwards? Woulda coulda shoulda does no one any good. Total withdrawal in a short time frame makes no sense, and announcing to the enemy what date you will be leaving is even more assinine. I can't beleive how democrats could even think that. Perfect opportunity for the terrorists to stop current attacks and instead prepare for larger complete attacks after we leave.

 

[In Hulk]

Again the audacity, your opinion is the only one that is right, and anyone who believes different has mental issues and should rethink their opinion. What a way to express the belief in freedom of speech, to tell me that I am in pretend land.

Again, how am I imposing on your free speech or suggesting you shouldn't have your say? I'm just arguing that your opinion is asinine. That does not equate into me saying you shouldn't have your say. Stop putting words in my mouth, please.

As far as invading under false pretenses, perhaps you should look at what of your fine democrat congress voted for it. As its congress that decides whether to go to war, not the president. Also again a tidbit you are ignoring, the rest of the world agreed with the intelligence as far as WMDs and the possibility of worse, just some disagreed with invading. It may be inconvenient for you to believe this since it no longer allows you to blame Bush, so odds are you will ignore this as well.

And the congress is just as incompetent and inept as the President, point being? Trust me, I despise congress just as much, if not more than I do Bush. Especially now that democrats have taken control and not done a damn thing. They're both worthless as all hell.

As for the "rest of the world" agreeing, Hans Blix said Iraq had no WMDs. You know, weapons inspector at the time who inspected Iraq for 3 months Hans Blix.... But that didn't matter, we knew better!

In the us with lets say 300 million people resident, we had in the last 6 years over 3000 die from terrorism. That equates to a 1 in 100,000 chance, much higher than the odds of the lottery or a lightning stroke. So instead of throwing out ficticious numbers to make yourself feel good about your position, how about looking at the truth. And i'd rather have 500,000 of them die on their soil than have another 500 of us die here. Easy math for me.

Of coure your numbers are skewed when you're only factoring in the last 6 years of America's 200+ year existance... Of course you'd rather have 500,000 of "them" die on their soil. Who exactly would be "them" though? Muslims? Residents of the middle east? Conservatives don't really differentiate between Muslim and terrorist anymore.

So present a solution instead of whining about the past and the bad republicans. What can we do about it today to move forwards? Woulda coulda shoulda does no one any good. Total withdrawal in a short time frame makes no sense, and announcing to the enemy what date you will be leaving is even more assinine. I can't beleive how democrats could even think that. Perfect opportunity for the terrorists to stop current attacks and instead prepare for larger complete attacks after we leave.

Withdraw from the middle east, immediately, now, yesterday. Military operations and all installations. Get out. They don't want us there. They don't want us on their holy land. Get, out.... You do know the root cause of this all, don't you?

 

[EasyEJL]

You do know the root cause of this all, don't you?

Sure, wussies like you, who would rather stick your head in the sand, and pretend nothing will hurt them that way. Its funny that the people with the girly attitudes about muslim extremists are the same ones who are up in arms about global warming. Its funny the expense some are willing to go thru in the name of stopping a theoretical future event, but aren't willing to go thru costs to try and stop a group that has dedicated itself to killing all who are not in their religion. Wake up, pull your head out, watch the video Obsession. Any group who has such little respect for human life that they are teaching 3 year olds to shout "death to the jews because they come in the night to suck out your blood and eat your heart' while waving an AK-47 do not belong on this earth.

 

[In Hulk]

Sure, wussies like you, who would rather stick your head in the sand, and pretend nothing will hurt them that way. Its funny that the people with the girly attitudes about muslim extremists are the same ones who are up in arms about global warming. Its funny the expense some are willing to go thru in the name of stopping a theoretical future event, but aren't willing to go thru costs to try and stop a group that has dedicated itself to killing all who are not in their religion. Wake up, pull your head out, watch the video Obsession. Any group who has such little respect for human life that they are teaching 3 year olds to shout "death to the jews because they come in the night to suck out your blood and eat your heart' while waving an AK-47 do not belong on this earth.

I don't believe in global warming, the earth goes through normal temperature fluctuations. Any effect mankind is having on the earth's conditions is minescule at best and pales in comparison to the damage mother nature does to itself all by her lonesome. It's cute that you make assumptions like that though.

And Israelis aren't exactly innocent when they fire on unarmed protestors and bomb civilian neighborhoods. The ME is a huge **** storm and we have no business interjecting. The threat of terrorism is painfully small. More people die from car accidents, aspirin, alcohol, or cigarettes. Terrorism is a threat, but one that should take a backseat to real problems facing our nation.

Oh, and military action doesn't stump terrorism. Police work and LE does.

 

[EasyEJL]

No, the israelis aren't innocent then, but they would prefer to kill an infection by burning it out, and if some healthy cells die in the process so be it. Rather than let it fester indefinitely, and grow larger and larger. It is not a positive thing when civilians die, however the terrorists don't attack military installations, they get on buses, or go to malls, or nightclubs, or restaurants. As with many things, although you don't want to do it, if they hide a rocket launcher inside a nursery, how many of your people should die before you take out that nursery?

At least we agree on global warming. theres not enough proof that either man has caused it (other than localized by application of asphalt which retains more temp than grass) or that its actually happening Data for 100 years shows a little increase, statistically insignificant tho in climactic change.

And lets move this discussion to the chat area, we've completely derailed the thread now

 

[AM07]

If global warming is bringing 75 degree days in October, then I say speed up the process of warming because I'm loving it!

 

[dsade]

Just going to throw this out there:

National Defense serves my interest by protecting my property and life from foreign invaders. What do I gain by being forced at the equivalence of gunpoint to pay for everyone else's kids childcare?

 

[EasyEJL]

Just going to throw this out there:

National Defense serves my interest by protecting my property and life from foreign invaders. What do I gain by being forced at the equivalence of gunpoint to pay for everyone else's kids childcare?

a warm fuzzy feeling deep inside. sort of like rasberry ketones only with rainbows + kittens. So that way you don't feel so bad that you fooled around on your wife, then lied about it

 

[In Hulk]

Just going to throw this out there:

National Defense serves my interest by protecting my property and life from foreign invaders. What do I gain by being forced at the equivalence of gunpoint to pay for everyone else's kids childcare?

Key word there being 'defense'. Striking first at sovereign nations doesn't do much for the safety of America, quite the opposite...

The cost of the Iraq war, which has absolutely nothing to do with the safety of Americans as Iraq posed NO threat to the United States, has passed ONE TRILLION DOLLARS. One, trillion, dollars. This amount is of course mind boggling and impossible to grasp, but it's fun to try.

What do you gain by being forced to pay for an unjust war which has done nothing for the safety of the United States, and in all probablity has endangered more American lives as a result of the devastation Iraq has faced? Bombs and invasion breeds contempt and hatred. What would you do if China invaded the US tomorrow to free you from the oppressive reigns of the US government?? Greet them with hugs? I don't think so.

I'm all for spending for national defense. I'm vehemently opposed however, to spending for wars which we begin... Again if I had to choose one or the other, I'd pick health care for kids.

 

[jomi822]

oil

 

[dsade]

Key word there being 'defense'. Striking first at sovereign nations doesn't do much for the safety of America, quite the opposite...

The cost of the Iraq war, which has absolutely nothing to do with the safety of Americans as Iraq posed NO threat to the United States, has passed ONE TRILLION DOLLARS. One, trillion, dollars. This amount is of course mind boggling and impossible to grasp, but it's fun to try.

What do you gain by being forced to pay for an unjust war which has done nothing for the safety of the United States, and in all probablity has endangered more American lives as a result of the devastation Iraq has faced? Bombs and invasion breeds contempt and hatred. What would you do if China invaded the US tomorrow to free you from the oppressive reigns of the US government?? Greet them with hugs? I don't think so.

I'm all for spending for national defense. I'm vehemently opposed however, to spending for wars which we begin... Again if I had to choose one or the other, I'd pick health care for kids.

I have no problems with this war being called a crime, set in motion by the deception of several guilty powerful people, and even MORE people with good intentions and bad information.

The question, at this point, is how to leave Iraq without creating a massive vacuum that will cause the whole region to explode. My support for the war (as all wars) is conditional upon the facts being true. They weren't.

As for Iran, once again the same situation. I believe they DO pose a direct threat to the US, and would support action being taken against them IF the information turns out to be true. I am at the point now of mostly supporting alternate fuel development subsidies.

The WAR OR HEALTHCARE argument is a false dichotomy.

 

[In Hulk]

The best idea, which has already been posed, is to divide Iraq into 3 different regions. Split them, set up governments, split resources among the 3, get out... There will be problems when we leave no matter how long we stay or how hard we attempt to squash the violence. We could be there 10 years or a 100 years, there will be problems when we exit, it's inevitable. It's better we make our exit sooner than later.

As for Iran, I see absolutely no reason to go to war with them. Even if they are developing nuclear weapons. What about other nations creating nuclear weapons? India? Pakistan? North Korea? Israel? Where's the military intervention for these countries? None of these nations have faced repercussions for developing or obtaining nukes.

I think it's the height of hypocrasy to tell a nation they can't develop one when we have the largest stock pile in the world and are the only nation to have ever used one not once, but TWICE.

 

[dsade]

The best idea, which has already been posed, is to divide Iraq into 3 different regions. Split them, set up governments, split resources among the 3, get out... There will be problems when we leave no matter how long we stay or how hard we attempt to squash the violence. We could be there 10 years or a 100 years, there will be problems when we exit, it's inevitable. It's better we make our exit sooner than later.

As for Iran, I see absolutely no reason to go to war with them. Even if they are developing nuclear weapons. What about other nations creating nuclear weapons? India? Pakistan? North Korea? Israel? Where's the military intervention for these countries? None of these nations have faced repercussions for developing or obtaining nukes.

I think it's the height of hypocrasy to tell a nation they can't develop one when we have the largest stock pile in the world and are the only nation to have ever used one not once, but TWICE.

Because there is no difference between the US, the most moral country ever to exist (by principle of its founding and philosophy, not the mess which it has become), and a country whose stated goal is the destruction of western civilization and the obscene power structure which leads to complete repression of women and scientific progress?

We hold a presence in Korea, and other than the fact that China is propping them up and rattling sabres to keep us out, we would have taken them out. India and Pakistan, we are still trying to negotiate with...but again, they are not completely hostile to us (factions in Pakistan are, but...)

Simply put...Iran has directly caused the deaths of MANY US citizens...but more importantly, we can take them out thus making the overall world more positive.

 

[AM07]

India just recently made a nuclear deal with the U.S. in the past year or so. India is very friendly with the U.S.

Whomever thinks Iran would actually have the balls to launch a nuclear strike against the U.S. is very naive.

And **** Iraq, we should just leave and let the place to fall to ****. It's not our responsibility to babysit that country. Our foreign policy is in place for one reason, MONEY.

I'm fiscally conservative, but I'll most likely be voting for a Democrat in 2008 because I truly believe the costs of the Iraq War will be more costly for me in the future than a few tax raises the Dems will put in place for four years.

 

[jomi822]

India just recently made a nuclear deal with the U.S. in the past year or so. India is very friendly with the U.S.

Whomever thinks Iran would actually have the balls to launch a nuclear strike against the U.S. is very naive.

And **** Iraq, we should just leave and let the place to fall to ****. It's not our responsibility to babysit that country. Our foreign policy is in place for one reason, MONEY.

I'm fiscally conservative, but I'll most likely be voting for a Democrat in 2008 because I truly believe the costs of the Iraq War will be more costly for me in the future than a few tax raises the Dems will put in place for four years.

or you could get both...ron paul wants to eliminate the IRS AND pull out of iraq, along with reducing government control in general and renewing a constitution based government instead of the sham democracy we have today.

edit: and hes also for decriminalization of drugs

 

[In Hulk]

I sit pretty far left of the aisle, but Ron Paul is the ****ing man. He will get my vote if Hillary gets the ticket, I hate Hillary. Doesn't really matter since my state will go to the democrats.

 

[In Hulk]

Because there is no difference between the US, the most moral country ever to exist (by principle of its founding and philosophy, not the mess which it has become), and a country whose stated goal is the destruction of western civilization and the obscene power structure which leads to complete repression of women and scientific progress?

We hold a presence in Korea, and other than the fact that China is propping them up and rattling sabres to keep us out, we would have taken them out. India and Pakistan, we are still trying to negotiate with...but again, they are not completely hostile to us (factions in Pakistan are, but...)

Simply put...Iran has directly caused the deaths of MANY US citizens...but more importantly, we can take them out thus making the overall world more positive.

I have yet to see Iran state that its' goal is the destruction of western civilization.But one should understand Iran's hostility to the United States considering the US backed 53 coupt. Obviously anti-US sentiment can foster in a nation under the rule of a foreign placed government catering to the US and UK.

The whole point of the nuclear non proliferation treaty was to eradicate nuclear weapons and to halt nuclear programs around the globe, regardless of whether or not they are hostile to the United States.

And what proof is there that Iran's causing the deaths of US citizens? You really think invading Iran is going to do anything other than create more anti american feeling in the ME and more violent extremists???? Setting the stage for WW3 is not only a bad idea, it's an extremely terribly ill conceived ****ing dog **** awful idea.

Stop pretending a proposed war with Iran is about anything other than controlling resources.

 

[AM07]

I sit pretty far left of the aisle, but Ron Paul is the ****ing man. He will get my vote if Hillary gets the ticket, I hate Hillary. Doesn't really matter since my state will go to the democrats.

What's so bad about Hillary? I keep hearing people bash her. I would guess her policies aren't too different from her husband's, or are they?

And yes, Ron Paul is THE man. But the biased ****ing media always plays him out to be a douchebag and FOX News basically thinks Giuliani is God's gift to mankind.

The media usually always determines who will be President because it's practically tons of free advertising for the candidate.

 

[AM07]

Also, if Iran is so bad, why not also go after the Saudis? 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were from SAUDI ARABIA.

OIL and MONEY is the reason we don't go after the Saudis.

But let's beat up on Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with terrorism until we stepped in.

 

[jomi822]

Now is not the time to invade iran....we simply dont have the money for ****ing starters. we would probably have ot re-instate the draft as well. I believe that iran due to what i have researched on the subject (and i have heard the former Israeli ambassador to Iran speak in person).

America is spread too thin. Bush needs to leave. SOmeone else needs to get in and take us out of iraq. THEN we can worry about Iran. Not that it matters, Bush is going to orchestrate another attack on the states in order to act on a presidential directive he put out awhile back.

its gives him complete and total dictatorial power, no congress, no constitution involved. scary huh? mark my words

 

[neoborn]

See my signature for more input...

 

[AM07]

9/11 is the best thing that could have happened to the Bush administration. I know neocons won't believe this, but if you look back at what they have accomplished in foreign and domestic policy, it makes a lot of sense.

And all of the 9/11 conspiracy wackjobs need to shut the **** up as well.

 

[EasyEJL]

And 9/11 only happened because of the clinton legacy of ignoring the first WTC bombings, then ignoring the bombing of the embassies in Africa, and the bombing of the Cole. We didn't cause their hatred of us by being there and maintaining a presence, that is another fallacy.

 

[AM07]

We didn't cause their hatred of us by being there and maintaining a presence, that is another fallacy.

Then how did we cause their hatred??

 

[EasyEJL]

by having freedom, allowing our womens ankles + faces to be displayed in public, alchohol, etc.... Mostly not believing in their warped radical view of islam.

 

[In Hulk]

by having freedom

You can't be serious...

 

[AM07]

by having freedom, allowing our womens ankles + faces to be displayed in public, alchohol, etc.... Mostly not believing in their warped radical view of islam.

:toofunny: :toofunny:

I can't believe you buy into that bull**** lie. If it's true, why aren't they attacking all of Europe, South America, Australia, East Asia, etc.?

 

[EasyEJL]

they have vowed to, i'm sorry you find it hard to believe they have to pick one country first instead of spreading their efforts everywhere. Watch the movie Obsession.

 

[In Hulk]

They attack us because we have stolen resources through bullying tactics, we've occupied their land with bases and soldiers, and because of our close ties with Israel.

Our relationship with Israel is not at all beneficial to us whatsoever. We gain absolutely nothing by being such close allies. They get our money, weapons, aid, etc. We get pissed off Muslims. I don't understand why we continue unwavering support to a country which provides us nothing. It's a one sided relationship.

*waits to be called an anti-semite*

 

[AM07]

they have vowed to, i'm sorry you find it hard to believe they have to pick one country first instead of spreading their efforts everywhere. Watch the movie Obsession.

Then why did they pick the hardest country to attack, the one with the largest and most powerful military in the world?

Sounds like Obsession is just more neocon bull**** propaganda.

 

[whitedevil74]

You can't be serious...

Well he is right in the sense that they hate our interference in their region of the world and do not want us importing our brand of capitalism/mass media culture to their society. In that sense they do hate our freedom, but only because they worry, justifiably, that we have our eyes on their land. They do indeed hate us and everything we represent, but again, we have supported corrupt governments, overthrown governments, and supported their arch rivals, the Israelis. They do want to blow us off the face of the earth, but our current strategy is not making us any friends either so it is time we just ignored that area of the world. With all the money we have spent on this stupid war, we could have invested in alternative fuels/technology/infrastructure and limited our dependence on these psychopaths oil. Then with the left over money we could build a huge fence down on the border, staff INS with enough ground resources, and secure all of our ports. Eventually the hatred to the US will subside in the region once we remove our presence there. You can not win a war against a religion, this is not like the cold war where you are dealing with a rational enemy, these people are nuts and they scare the hell out of me. Our current strategy is misguided and is only accomplishing to make the situation worse.

 

[AM07]

whitedevil, remember, oil companies are mainly responsible for us not seeking alternative fuels. While it sounds all good and dandy that we should seek other sources of energy (which I support), oil ain't going nowhere until the world runs out of it.