Karma and Bush, and also the WTC

Pages

AuthorTopic: Karma and Bush, and also the WTC
Shock Trooper
Member # 4214
Profile #75
quote:
Originally written by 4.808 x 10^3:

I wouldn't say the pollution from present-day industries 'threatens life on a massive scale'. The tsunami a while back, now that threatens human life, but certainly not industrial pollution, on a massive scale anyway.
The tsunami, at least, does not threat humanity with extinction.

The greenhouse effect is horribly underestimated, I believe. If the temperature on Earth increases with only 10%, the oceans will vaporize themselves, since hydrogenium is a greenhouse gas as well. The Earth will become a planet comparable with Venus, and Earth's temperature will become approximately 1200 degrees Celsius or 1473 degrees Kelvin.

quote:
Originally written by 4.808 x 10^3:

Enough to permanently change the Earth's climate and kill people on a 'massive scale'?
Yes. The global warming has already famished millions of people.
Posts: 356 | Registered: Tuesday, April 6 2004 07:00
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #76
quote:
Originally written by 4.808 x 10^3:

We left Afghanistan because Iraq was becoming more of a priority with the threat of WMDs (which may or may not have existed; Saddam wouldn't tell people if he had them and certainly wouldn't leave them out in the open for everyone to see.
Which is why we had weapons inspectors in the country. Hans Blix. Remember Hans Blix? The weapons inspector your entire side of the fence mocked for declaring there was no sound reason to believe there to be WMDs in Iraq?
Who was right on that one, ben? Was it George Bush or Hans Blix?
quote:

You must understand that we still need to keep soldiers in Iraq because the country is still largely unstable. Since we've already gone in, took down Saddam's regime, and had elections, we may as well finish what we started and give the new democracy a strong foothold in stability as the insurgents are cleared out. You'll have to agree that Iraq is both a better place to live and less of a threat to other countries without someone like Saddam Hussein ruling.

There are other priorities. With the kind of money and manpower we pissed into Iraq, we could have stabilized and rebuilt the infrastructure of any two African countries which had less invested into hating us. But no: we had to pick a fight with a religious community which already sees us as an adversary.
quote:

Finally, I'd just like to say that Bush bases much of what he does on religion because that's what he believes is right. If you choose not to follow his religion (I'd encouage following it though), I can't really stop you and neither can he. But since he finds confort and leadership in God, he bases his Presidency on that. That's all I'll say there.

Okay, here's the problem: he can base whatever he likes in his personal life on whatever the hell he believes in. He believes abortion is wrong, he can carry his children to term. He believes homosexuality is wrong, he and Dick can remain chaste. But it becomes something else entirely when he decides, as a President, to focus on his religion. Just because he believes something is right doesn't mean I should be forced to abide by it.

How would you feel if Bush were a Muslim and he were forcing you to pray five times daily in the direction of Mecca, forego pork, and refuse to wear gold or silk? Maybe pushed laws penalizing your mother for not wearing a burqah? Would you still be so damn enthused about the subject of a fundamentalist President if he weren't your kind of fundamentalist?

ALSO!
I do not consider the first part of what Mind said credible - I've never heard of any such thing, personally, and doubt it is or even could be true - but look up the word 'desertification'. There are huge belts of farmland in areas which need farmland badly which can dry up and die based on an annual change of fractional degrees - global warming is killing millions of people, and Bush won't even acknowledge it as a valid scientific observation.

As has been pointed out, no credible ecologist says global warming isn't happening. A few (largely on the payroll of major companies, might I add) will tell you it's natural, but TM's lovely graph tends to disagree with that, along with all collected observational data (Antarctic pack ice, stuff like that). None are going to tell you it won't have a realistic impact, either.

People are going to die. Quality of life is going to decline. We have known this since the Reagan Administration, and George W. Bush is the first President since then to try and reverse our attempts to fight it. At the behest not of ecologists - people who go out and collect real data and apply them to the real world - but of think tanks.

The policies of Bush I and Clinton were to talk to ecologists and address the problem - looking at experimental and observational data to get results. Bush's policy is to consult 'think tanks', which are basically corporate-bankrolled organizations to produce logically sound 'theories' for a factually bankrupt cause. Essentially, they're professional excuse-makers.

I don't think this is a political issue. I can't even see it as one. Do you just enjoy being wrong? Because the facts are not on Bush's side on this one at all, and acting as if they are or even could be is disingenious.

[ Sunday, May 29, 2005 11:37: Message edited by: Custer XVI ]

--------------------
The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest.
Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
Shock Trooper
Member # 4214
Profile #77
quote:
Originally written by Custer XVI:

ALSO!
I do not consider the first part of what Mind said credible - I've never heard of any such thing, personally, and doubt it is or even could be true…

Of course, Lawrence M. Krauss, the author of "Lives of an atom", could be mistaken.
Posts: 356 | Registered: Tuesday, April 6 2004 07:00
Master
Member # 4614
Profile Homepage #78
quote:
Originally written by Custer XVI:

quote:
Originally written by 4.808 x 10^3:

We left Afghanistan because Iraq was becoming more of a priority with the threat of WMDs (which may or may not have existed; Saddam wouldn't tell people if he had them and certainly wouldn't leave them out in the open for everyone to see.
Which is why we had weapons inspectors in the country. Hans Blix. Remember Hans Blix? The weapons inspector your entire side of the fence mocked for declaring there was no sound reason to believe there to be WMDs in Iraq?
Who was right on that one, ben? Was it George Bush or Hans Blix?


Okay, let's say there were no WMDs in Iraq. Let's say we left Saddam Hussein and his terrorists alone. Let's say we were still combing the mountains of Afghanistan in search of Osama Bin Laden. Does that mean that Saddam would never have generated enough power and technology to build WMDs?


quote:

You must understand that we still need to keep soldiers in Iraq because the country is still largely unstable. Since we've already gone in, took down Saddam's regime, and had elections, we may as well finish what we started and give the new democracy a strong foothold in stability as the insurgents are cleared out. You'll have to agree that Iraq is both a better place to live and less of a threat to other countries without someone like Saddam Hussein ruling.

There are other priorities. With the kind of money and manpower we pissed into Iraq, we could have stabilized and rebuilt the infrastructure of any two African countries which had less invested into hating us. But no: we had to pick a fight with a religious community which already sees us as an adversary.


Those two African countries are were not near as much as a threat as far at terrorists go.

quote:

Finally, I'd just like to say that Bush bases much of what he does on religion because that's what he believes is right. If you choose not to follow his religion (I'd encouage following it though), I can't really stop you and neither can he. But since he finds confort and leadership in God, he bases his Presidency on that. That's all I'll say there.

Okay, here's the problem: he can base whatever he likes in his personal life on whatever the hell he believes in. He believes abortion is wrong, he can carry his children to term. He believes homosexuality is wrong, he and Dick can remain chaste. But it becomes something else entirely when he decides, as a President, to focus on his religion. Just because he believes something is right doesn't mean I should be forced to abide by it.

How would you feel if Bush were a Muslim and he were forcing you to pray five times daily in the direction of Mecca, forego pork, and refuse to wear gold or silk? Maybe pushed laws penalizing your mother for not wearing a burqah? Would you still be so damn enthused about the subject of a fundamentalist President if he weren't your kind of fundamentalist?


Of course, if Bush were a Muslim, I wouldn't be supporting him as I am now, and my family'd probably be living in Canada.

However, Bush does not force you to pray to God before every meal or anything either, does he? I just said that he bases his Presidency on religion because that what he believes is right. You may choose not to support his religion or anything he believes, but he is the President, elected by a majority of American voters, and griping about this sort of thing is not going to help.

ALSO!
I do not consider the first part of what Mind said credible - I've never heard of any such thing, personally, and doubt it is or even could be true - but look up the word 'desertification'. There are huge belts of farmland in areas which need farmland badly which can dry up and die based on an annual change of fractional degrees - global warming is killing millions of people, and Bush won't even acknowledge it as a valid scientific observation.

As has been pointed out, no credible ecologist says global warming isn't happening. A few (largely on the payroll of major companies, might I add) will tell you it's natural, but TM's lovely graph tends to disagree with that, along with all collected observational data (Antarctic pack ice, stuff like that). None are going to tell you it won't have a realistic impact, either.

People are going to die. Quality of life is going to decline. We have known this since the Reagan Administration, and George W. Bush is the first President since then to try and reverse our attempts to fight it. At the behest not of ecologists - people who go out and collect real data and apply them to the real world - but of think tanks.


What do you suggest we do then? America as it is needs electrical power, needs food, and needs gasoline, and currently, we cannot meet those needs without polluting, heating up the Earth, and killing people, if that's the way you want to think about it. If there's another, more efficient way to provide the energy we need, tell me right now.

As the population of our Earth nears capacity, people are going to die, and there's no denying. It's just a natural cycle.

The policies of Bush I and Clinton were to talk to ecologists and address the problem - looking at experimental and observational data to get results. Bush's policy is to consult 'think tanks', which are basically corporate-bankrolled organizations to produce logically sound 'theories' for a factually bankrupt cause. Essentially, they're professional excuse-makers.

I don't think this is a political issue. I can't even see it as one. Do you just enjoy being wrong? Because the facts are not on Bush's side on this one at all, and acting as if they are or even could be is disingenious.


I'm not going to deny global warming. But for now, it's inevitable.



--------------------
-ben4808

For those who love to spam:
CSM Forums
RIFQ
Posts: 3360 | Registered: Friday, June 25 2004 07:00
BANNED
Member # 4
Profile Homepage #79
"Okay, let's say there were no WMDs in Iraq. Let's say we left Saddam Hussein and his terrorists alone. Let's say we were still combing the mountains of Afghanistan in search of Osama Bin Laden. Does that mean that Saddam would never have generated enough power and technology to build WMDs?"

He had that capacity, as evidenced by his chemical trucks and actions of Chemical Ali. He didn't use that capacity, as evidenced by the pervasive lack of WMDs. He actually followed the commands of the world when asked- unlike a certain American president who shall remain nameless to protect the guilty.

"Those two African countries are were not near as much as a threat as far at terrorists go."

How Christian of you- "Screw the other guys unless it benefits me in some way." I suppose the Africans will have to ravage some of your white women before you even think of looking in their direction, hunh? Or what if they have a hidden supply of underground deuterium?

The point is that, nationality be damned, the same amount of money dumped in Iraq could have actively saved millions upon millions lives in a far more effective way than your war without the intense machievellian side-effects.

"Of course, if Bush were a Muslim, I wouldn't be supporting him as I am now, and my family'd probably be living in Canada."

I was thinking you'd sepukku instead, but the Canadians will politically outnumber you, so I suppose the nonsense would be diluted either way.

"However, Bush does not force you to pray to God before every meal or anything either, does he? I just said that he bases his Presidency on religion because that what he believes is right. You may choose not to support his religion or anything he believes, but he is the President, elected by a majority of American voters, and griping about this sort of thing is not going to help."

That is a theocracy. What does "freedom" mean? It means, "the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action." I wonder what anonymous tenet will be violated by pushing religious values onto a person's life? If you can find a justification for some of the religiously-based nonsense your impotent avatar preaches on a regular basis, I'd like to know. PS- Bible verses do not count.

If you force religious tenets on people, son, you violate the constitutional ammendment of freedom of religion because those people not of your religion are now coerced to follow its ways. Apparently, you don't understand this concept until it comes time to pray in public schools (which I honestly don't care about) or put your religious teachings in your courthouses (which is disgustingly imperialist).

"What do you suggest we do then? America as it is needs electrical power, needs food, and needs gasoline, and currently, we cannot meet those needs without polluting, heating up the Earth, and killing people, if that's the way you want to think about it. If there's another, more efficient way to provide the energy we need, tell me right now."

Nuclear.

(Although admittedly, I did not tell you this right now. I told you this a goddamned page ago, but you seemed to have developed dyslexia in the interrum.)

"As the population of our Earth nears capacity, people are going to die, and there's no denying. It's just a natural cycle."

Good attitude. I'm not sure how it justifies active murder, though.

"I'm not going to deny global warming. But for now, it's inevitable."

Especially when there's no source of power whose only real wastes are steam and materials less radioactive than coal.

oh wai

EDIT:

As a forewarning, I actually want you to directly address the points I make whilst not repeating yourself or disregarding what I have said in other places.

[ Monday, May 30, 2005 09:46: Message edited by: Dervish Malachai ]

--------------------
人 た ち を 燃 え る た め に 俺 は か れ ら に 火 を 上 げ る か ら 死 ん だ
Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Agent
Member # 2210
Profile #80
Giving a political figure the mantle of religion is divisive and goes against the fundamental separation of church and state in the United States. There are a few recent examples of what happens when this is done.

The first is the Southern Baptist preacher who drove out non-Republican members of his congregation.

http://www.christiancentury.org/news_article.html?articleid=287

Further by taking extreme views and pushing political agendas it alienates the goal of bringing new members into the fold. Billy Graham has taken a fairly strong stance against excessive political involvement.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2005-05-15-graham-cover_x.htm

Bush has polarized every facet of American life into black and white. He has polarized the world into those for and against him. He has built few alliances and the alliances have all been to take offensive actions against others. The congress is divided, the country is divided, the world is divided into those for and against us. He is great at attacking and conquering, but bad at building and uniting.

--------------------
Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh.

Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight.
Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #81
Most of Western Europe has the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction. We don't invade Western Europe. The potential to commit a crime is not itself a crime.

Iraq was not a terrorist threat at all. Please recall that Saddam's Iraq was for all its faults the startling exception to the rule: it wasn't a theocracy. Saddam Hussein was many things, few of them good, but interested in terrorist actions against us was never one of them.

—Alorael, who has no idea why he forgot to append this signature. He's quite embarrassed about it no matter what excuses he can come up with.

[ Monday, May 30, 2005 18:19: Message edited by: Dysmnesia ]
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Warrior
Member # 4590
Profile #82
quote:
He had that capacity, as evidenced by his chemical trucks and actions of Chemical Ali. He didn't use that capacity, as evidenced by the pervasive lack of WMDs. He actually followed the commands of the world when asked- unlike a certain American president who shall remain nameless to protect the guilty.
What crack are you smoking?!?! www.un.org, search for how many times saddam kicked out inspectors, or refused to let them inspect some places. He NEVER let them go where they wanted and do what they wanted. I've done research on this, search the UN records like I have.

quote:

That is a theocracy. What does "freedom" mean? It means, "the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action." I wonder what anonymous tenet will be violated by pushing religious values onto a person's life?

I am an atheist, I have never EVER felt any kind of religious pressure of any kind by the government at all. People are allowed to have their beliefs, if Bush, or anyone else in the gov't wants to say "God bless you," "God bless America," or "God damn it," he can. There is no law that has ever been written that prevents any leader from doing that. Any leader in this country can base his decisions and ideology on whatever they want, they can base their policies on their own ideas, the Bible, the Koran, Mein Kapmf, the Necronomicon, or the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, it doesn't matter. That's the whole point of our ENTIRE SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT!!! What they can't do is force us to believe, act, or think, the same things as him, or coerce us to believe, act, or think the same way. If you don't like the way he does things, don't vote for him! That's how a democracy works!!!

quote:
Most of Western Europe has the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction. We don't invade Western Europe. The potential to commit a crime is not itself a crime.
First, international law says no one can make any new nuclear weapons. Not that any country listens to international law. It's just there to justify what some countrys like to do.

Second, Western Eurpoe isn't gassing its own people!! There's a big difference there! The second they do start doing that, I hope someone goes over and blows their country back to the stone age, too! And yes--it is against international law to kill your own people!!!!

Edit:
And GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT KILLING PEOPLE!!!!! look at global satellite maps!! Things look much greener than they did 20 years ago! Forests have actually been flourishing and expanding! Why? Global increase in tempratures? Oops, there goes that theory! And again, I'll say, again: there's no poof for increasing tempratures being caused by people; 3rd world countries pollute way more than us!!!

[ Monday, May 30, 2005 13:37: Message edited by: cfgauss ]

--------------------
I often quote myself. It adds spice to my conversation.
- George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 103 | Registered: Sunday, June 20 2004 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #83
Screaming does not make your point very well.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Agent
Member # 2210
Profile #84
Yes, I have seen examples of religion encroaching on government with greater and greater regularity. More and more cases are being forced on us which should not be taken up. To take up the question of "in god we trust" in the pledge of allegiance for example is a political decision. If the Supreme Court was not pressured by religious groups this would not be on the agenda.

To question the validity of having the ten commandments in front of a courthouse is also an encroachment on our religious freedom, the "ten commandments" are as much part of our history as our religion. Once again we are having pieces of our heritage used to spur religious arguments for christianity usually by atheists or right wing christians. Our heritage should not be coopted by evangelicals.

Why is the government funding religious charities. Is it the governments duty to hand out the Koran or the Bible at the soup kitchen. I do not want my taxes to go to support some of the religious charities which I do not agree with.

Why should we give public money to parochial schools as part of school choice? These are religious institutions. It is not the business of government to pay for Catholic, Jewish, or Muslim schools. This is a clear violation of separation of church and state.

I am offended when someone claims a certain politician is supported by god. I doubt most politicians are good with god. Why should we give tax exemption to people who are using the pulpit not to preach, but to campaign for candidates.

I was reading the paper the other day. There are prayer rooms where you can go and pray if you work in various large corporations. Am I supposed to go and pray on my knees in the corporate office.

There is a lot of rhetoric. Am I supposed to become a religious crusader because we are fighting with the muslims. I think not. I have no tolerance for theocracy muslim or otherwise.

The deforestation statement is also false-- for example in Brasil they cannot stop the deforestation of the Amazon.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050523/sc_nm/environment_brazil_amazon_dc_1

In a similar manner, the UN is pretty much useless at stopping deforestation.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050528/sc_afp/unforestsagriculture_050528003839

In the U.S., there is very little that will stop loggers unless the logging is done on private land.

It looks more and more likely that the only countries that will have large forests will be the countries which manage forests as a commercial resource-- Japan, Finland, the Scandinavian countires, Canada, and the large commercial forestry lands in the United States etc.

[ Monday, May 30, 2005 15:24: Message edited by: I'll Steal Your Toast ]

--------------------
Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh.

Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight.
Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #85
My guess is that espousing any heartfelt opinion on this thread will meet with heartfelt dogma. It still does seem to be a good vehicle for karma updates, although I fail to see the purpose. No matter what is said here, the subject will not hear it or change due to it. All that will happen is people will forget their common bond (Spiderweb games FYI) and concentrate instead on the many issues that divide.

But it does make for some interesting reading, and reveals far more about the correspondents than any profile page.

Smoked Salmon - who has noticed that Aloreal forgot a signature line on this page.
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Guardian
Member # 2476
Profile #86
For clarification: Iran is responsible for the Halabja gassing, not Saddam Hussein.
I'm citing from an article, you can find many more on this subject.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/SUR407A.html:

...The CIA officer Stephen C. Pelletiere was the agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. As professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, he says he was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf.

In addition, he says he headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States, and the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

Pelletiere went public with his information on no less a platform than The New York Times in an article on January 31 last year titled 'A War Crime or an Act of War?' The article which challenged the case for war quoted U.S. President George W. Bush as saying: ”The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured.”

Pelletiere says the United States Defence Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report following the Halabja gassing, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need- to-know basis. ”That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas,” he wrote in The New York Times.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja, he said. ”The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent -- that is, a cyanide-based gas -- which Iran was known to use. ”The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.”

Pelletiere writes that these facts have ”long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned.”

Pelletiere wrote that Saddam Hussein has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. ”But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them.” ...

--------------------
Polaris
Posts: 1828 | Registered: Saturday, January 11 2003 08:00
Master
Member # 4614
Profile Homepage #87
Oof, yikes, ALO YOU FORGOT YOUR SIG! Thanks for pointing that out, SS.

-ben, who finds this interesting and a good excuse for the use of it himself one time, even though he regularly tells other poeple not to. The irony of it all. This was not total signature theft, though, because it's not at the end of the post. :P

Toast - You are not being forced to follow any religion at all. But we Christians want our religios freedom too.

quote:
Originally written by Dervish Malachai:

"Okay, let's say there were no WMDs in Iraq. Let's say we left Saddam Hussein and his terrorists alone. Let's say we were still combing the mountains of Afghanistan in search of Osama Bin Laden. Does that mean that Saddam would never have generated enough power and technology to build WMDs?"

He had that capacity, as evidenced by his chemical trucks and actions of Chemical Ali. He didn't use that capacity, as evidenced by the pervasive lack of WMDs. He actually followed the commands of the world when asked- unlike a certain American president who shall remain nameless to protect the guilty.


If he had that capacity, he would have used it, and he probably did. As cfgauss said, he consciously kept the UN weapons inspectors out of many areas. I wonder why that was.

"Those two African countries are were not near as much as a threat as far at terrorists go."

How Christian of you- "Screw the other guys unless it benefits me in some way." I suppose the Africans will have to ravage some of your white women before you even think of looking in their direction, hunh? Or what if they have a hidden supply of underground deuterium?

The point is that, nationality be damned, the same amount of money dumped in Iraq could have actively saved millions upon millions lives in a far more effective way than your war without the intense machievellian side-effects.


Let me say that oil was far from the reason we went into Iraq. It was to unseat Saddam Hussein and his gang of terrorists and actively save the lives of millions upon millions of people without having to do it on our home soil after more important buildings are destroyed.

"Of course, if Bush were a Muslim, I wouldn't be supporting him as I am now, and my family'd probably be living in Canada."

I was thinking you'd sepukku instead, but the Canadians will politically outnumber you, so I suppose the nonsense would be diluted either way.


All I'll say here is: sepukku? :confused:

"However, Bush does not force you to pray to God before every meal or anything either, does he? I just said that he bases his Presidency on religion because that what he believes is right. You may choose not to support his religion or anything he believes, but he is the President, elected by a majority of American voters, and griping about this sort of thing is not going to help."

That is a theocracy. What does "freedom" mean? It means, "the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action." I wonder what anonymous tenet will be violated by pushing religious values onto a person's life? If you can find a justification for some of the religiously-based nonsense your impotent avatar preaches on a regular basis, I'd like to know. PS- Bible verses do not count.

If you force religious tenets on people, son, you violate the constitutional ammendment of freedom of religion because those people not of your religion are now coerced to follow its ways. Apparently, you don't understand this concept until it comes time to pray in public schools (which I honestly don't care about) or put your religious teachings in your courthouses (which is disgustingly imperialist).


Are you being forced to follow any religion? No.

"What do you suggest we do then? America as it is needs electrical power, needs food, and needs gasoline, and currently, we cannot meet those needs without polluting, heating up the Earth, and killing people, if that's the way you want to think about it. If there's another, more efficient way to provide the energy we need, tell me right now."

Nuclear.

(Although admittedly, I did not tell you this right now. I told you this a goddamned page ago, but you seemed to have developed dyslexia in the interrum.)


I'm pretty sure that someone said a while back that atmospheric pollution of greenhouse gases is preferable to radioactive nuclear waste.

"As the population of our Earth nears capacity, people are going to die, and there's no denying. It's just a natural cycle."

Good attitude. I'm not sure how it justifies active murder, though.


Er, active murder? How do you get that from people dying because there isn't enough land to support the population? Not that we need to worry about it in our lifetimes anyway.

"I'm not going to deny global warming. But for now, it's inevitable."

Especially when there's no source of power whose only real wastes are steam and materials less radioactive than coal.


I never knew coal was radioactive.

oh wai

EDIT:

As a forewarning, I actually want you to directly address the points I make whilst not repeating yourself or disregarding what I have said in other places.


Okay, well there you go. Enjoy. Now you can have your fun reading what I said and formulating clever manipulations of them to contradict it all.



[ Monday, May 30, 2005 16:40: Message edited by: 4.808 x 10^3 ]

--------------------
-ben4808

For those who love to spam:
CSM Forums
RIFQ
Posts: 3360 | Registered: Friday, June 25 2004 07:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #88
quote:
Originally written by cfgauss:

I am an atheist, I have never EVER felt any kind of religious pressure of any kind by the government at all.
Then you've never had a court order you into an alcohol treatment program. Alcoholics Anonymous is a cult and there's no two ways about it.

quote:
There is no law that has ever been written that prevents any leader from doing that. Any leader in this country can base his decisions and ideology on whatever they want, they can base their policies on their own ideas, the Bible, the Koran, Mein Kapmf, the Necronomicon, or the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, it doesn't matter. That's the whole point of our ENTIRE SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT!!!
Once elected to public office, for public purposes you are no longer a person -- you are the holder of that office. Your job is to base policy on the consensus of your constituents, not your own opinions.

quote:
Second, Western Eurpoe isn't gassing its own people!! There's a big difference there! The second they do start doing that, I hope someone goes over and blows their country back to the stone age, too! And yes--it is against international law to kill your own people!!!!
I suppose that means the US has never used tear gas against rioters? Under international law, that's classified as a chemical weapon, and people have died from being exposed to it.

quote:
And again, I'll say, again: there's no poof for increasing tempratures being caused by people; 3rd world countries pollute way more than us!!!
So the citizens of third world countries don't count as "people"? How telling.

--------------------
My BoE Page
Bandwagons are fun!
Roots
Hunted!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Warrior
Member # 3698
Profile Homepage #89
Let me remind all of you republicans: IN 6 MONTHS to 20 YEARS, OUR OIL WILL RUN OUT! Guess what happens then. Every country in the world will pass us in the technological race. The US will be thrown into the dark ages because we wern't prepared for an oil shortage. That means that the US will sink to the bottom of the economics graph and the US will no linger be a super power. Instead, there will be the EU and Japan running the world instead of us! (*gasp*). Remember what happened in th '70s? Oil Shortage!

Also I do not support Bush's Christian crusade. Don't get me wrong, (I am an Athiest*) I just don't want Bush to express extreme religeous opinion while he is in office.

To sum it up: Good thing four years isn't for ever.

----------------------
* I respect all religons but follow none.

--------------------
Hi. Why is the universe so BIG? Why am I human? How come hot dogs come in packages of 10 and buns 8? This will all be solved in time young padawan. Your quest for the ultimate Aztec manuer is coming to a climax. May the force be with you!!!
······························································
This is where I want you to click! Rate me! Ha Ha
Check out my GF 1, 2 and 3 Helper!
Ceck out some cool Mac OS X Apps that were made by me here!
10101 Software - You can take my iMac when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the wireless mouse!
Posts: 179 | Registered: Tuesday, November 18 2003 08:00
Warrior
Member # 4590
Profile #90
quote:
Then you've never had a court order you into an alcohol treatment program. Alcoholics Anonymous is a cult and there's no two ways about it.
Lmao, I have never heard that before! Alcoholics need some kind of help, they're a danger to the public (that's a fact, not an oppinion). And unless you can find another program, AA is pretty much it. And AA is not a religious program, though that's not to say people in it aren't. If they are they are making you do religious things, that's a problem, though they can suggest them.

quote:
Once elected to public office, for public purposes you are no longer a person -- you are the holder of that office. Your job is to base policy on the consensus of your constituents, not your own opinions.
Not according to my political science books and teachers! They can spin around and randomly point to ideas if they want to. For certian, some political ideologies / theories say they should represent the public exactly, but it is definately not required that they do that!

quote:
I suppose that means the US has never used tear gas against rioters? Under international law, that's classified as a chemical weapon, and people have died from being exposed to it.
Yes, but a) they only are supposed to do that when they become a danger to other people, and b) the point of tear gas is not to kill people! Big difference there!! In fact, that's the opposite of the point of it! Now, if they were using mustard gas or cyanide on them, that would be a problem!

quote:
So the citizens of third world countries don't count as "people"? How telling.
You know that's not what my sentance was saying. A semicolon sepperates things in a list (or as a cool-looking substitute for a period), it does not mean I'm elaborating on a topic! To clarify:
quote:
And again, I'll say, again: there's no poof for increasing tempratures being caused by people--and as an entirely sepperate thing I was saying, but will say again, which is on the same topic--3rd world countries pollute way more than us!!!
-----
(Edit: To seperate from other posts, because quotes don't seem to like spaces between them)

quote:
Let me remind all of you republicans: IN 6 MONTHS to 20 YEARS, OUR OIL WILL RUN OUT! Guess what happens then. Every country in the world will pass us in the technological race. The US will be thrown into the dark ages because we wern't prepared for an oil shortage. That means that the US will sink to the bottom of the economics graph and the US will no linger be a super power.
Errrr.... first of all, no one here has said "everything else but oil is evil, and anyone who supports other power should be executed, and have their property given to the oil companies." If you would read the rest of the thread, you'd see several of us support things like nuclear power, and in another thread, you can even see that I said compressed-air powered cars are a "cool idea."

Second of all, we have much more than 20 years' worth of oil, according to the geologists.

Third of all, if everyone runs out of oil, the USA still kicks everyone else's ass, because we not only have the biggest economy, we have one of the most robust. The countries who will really be in trouble are the small ones who would be no longer able to import the food they need, and don't produce enough for themselves.

quote:
Instead, there will be the EU and Japan running the world instead of us! (*gasp*). Remember what happened in th '70s? Oil Shortage!
Errr... the rest of the world was running on magical-care-bare-powered cars? Fusion powered cars? Fuel cell powered cars? I don't think so. They all rely on oil exactly as much as we do.

[ Monday, May 30, 2005 18:29: Message edited by: cfgauss ]

--------------------
I often quote myself. It adds spice to my conversation.
- George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 103 | Registered: Sunday, June 20 2004 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #91
[quote]Originally posted by Ben:If he had that capacity, he would have used it, and he probably did. As cfgauss said, he consciously kept the UN weapons inspectors out of many areas. I wonder why that was.

Because he was compulsively secretive? "Probably" isn't good enough to start a war. And you seem to have missed ef's post.

quote:
Let me say that oil was far from the reason we went into Iraq. It was to unseat Saddam Hussein and his gang of terrorists and actively save the lives of millions upon millions of people without having to do it on our home soil after more important buildings are destroyed.
We went to war for unclear purposes that have been retroactively redeclared several times. I will reiterate, however, that Saddam Hussein was not the terrorist threat to us that you seem to believe. He was a threat to his own people, but we haven't let that drag us into war elsewhere.

Sepukku: Ritual suicide by disembowelment.

quote:
I'm pretty sure that someone said a while back that atmospheric pollution of greenhouse gases is preferable to radioactive nuclear waste.
I can claim that sepukku is preferable to stubbing one's toe, but that doesn't make me an expert or correct.

quote:
Er, active murder? How do you get that from people dying because there isn't enough land to support the population? Not that we need to worry about it in our lifetimes anyway.
We do have to worry in our lifetime. I'm not sure I agree with TM that it's active murder, but we're certainly guilty of gross negligence. Trying to fix the world too late is a bad policy.

quote:
I never knew coal was radioactive.
It isn't, but the processes of a coal power plant release more radiation into the environs than a nuclear power plant's processes.

—Alorael, who has had fun reading what you said and forming clever manipulations of them to contradict them all.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Warrior
Member # 4590
Profile #92
quote:
We went to war for unclear purposes that have been retroactively redeclared several times. I will reiterate, however, that Saddam Hussein was not the terrorist threat to us that you seem to believe. He was a threat to his own people, but we haven't let that drag us into war elsewhere.

Uhhh.... No, actually, it was pretty clear... You'd know this is you actually would read reports by the administration. But no, those are just part of the Evil Conspiricy, isn't it?

Let me put this another way,
-You get pulled over by the cops for something
-The cop looks into your vw van, at your beard, and then into your bloodshot, hippie eyes.
-The cop asks if you will give him permission to search your vehicle for drugs
-You, with your infinite knowledge of the law, know he can't search you without probable cause, so you tell him no, he can't search your van, maannn. (Or, you say, "sure, you can search it... uhh, just don't look in the glove box... or under the seat...")
-He tells you to step out of your vehicle, because, oops, you've just given him probable cause.

Now, let's look at what happened in Iraq.
-The UN walks up to Saddam's country and asks to search it.
-No, you can't search it!
-We'll be nice and ley you off with a warning this time.
(later)
-Ok, now we need to search your country, under the laws you, personally, agreed to.
-No, this is all part of the Western conspiricy against my people!
-Ok, but we'll be back later.
(repeat for a few years)
-Ok, we need to search your country.
-No, you have no right to be here! This is my country!
-You agreed to allow yourselves to be searched...
-No, this is all part of the Western conspiricy against me!!!
-Our friend Clinton here has a few cruise missiles pointed at you....
(some stuff gets blown up)
-Ok, let us search your country
-Alright, as long as you don't search in these places (hands them a map with every building in Iraq circled)
-No, we have to search everywhere...
-CONSPIRICY!!!
(more stuff gets blown up)
and this goes on for a few more years...
-Hey, we need to search your country or our friend Bush here is gonna kick your ass.

And then you know what happened. Under the laws Saddam personally agreed to, under international law, according to what the UN said (!!!), the invasion of Iraq was legal, justified, and a number of years later than it should have been. Nothing was done before hand because, well, the UN is not known for action. They ask nicely. Individual countries have to do most of the dity work themselves.

quote:
It isn't, but the processes of a coal power plant release more radiation into the environs than a nuclear power plant's processes.
What?!? I have never heard this before. There is nothing radioactive in anything they use that I am aware of. Cite a source here.

[ Monday, May 30, 2005 19:22: Message edited by: cfgauss ]

--------------------
I often quote myself. It adds spice to my conversation.
- George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 103 | Registered: Sunday, June 20 2004 07:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #93
quote:
Originally written by cfgauss:

Lmao, I have never heard that before! Alcoholics need some kind of help, they're a danger to the public (that's a fact, not an oppinion). And unless you can find another program, AA is pretty much it. And AA is not a religious program, though that's not to say people in it aren't. If they are they are making you do religious things, that's a problem, though they can suggest them.
Not me personally -- I've never been in AA -- but I've known people who have. Really, I'm not sure how you can say an organisation that includes "acceptance of a higher power" as a central tenet isn't a religious organisation.

If another alcohol diversion program doesn't exist, the government should create one (which is exactly what many countries do). It shouldn't throw its lot in with unregulated and unaccountable private organisations.

quote:
Not according to my political science books and teachers! They can spin around and randomly point to ideas if they want to. For certian, some political ideologies / theories say they should represent the public exactly, but it is definately not required that they do that!
Well, yes. Governments can do whatever they like. Some of the things they do are even legal. But if we're going to get into the issue of what a political system ought to be and do, there's no avoiding ideology.

quote:
Yes, but a) they only are supposed to do that when they become a danger to other people, and b) the point of tear gas is not to kill people! Big difference there!! In fact, that's the opposite of the point of it! Now, if they were using mustard gas or cyanide on them, that would be a problem!
Mustard gas isn't designed to kill people either. Only a fairly small fraction of people exposed to most chemical weapons under most circumstances die. Mustard gas and tear gas are both designed to disable and demoralise people -- the fact that one tends to have a higher rate of long-term harmful effects is merely a quantitative matter, not a qualitative one.

quote:
quote:
So the citizens of third world countries don't count as "people"? How telling.
You know that's not what my sentance was saying.
Taken at face value, it wasn't, but if you really believed your own first argument, there was no reason to make your second. Observe:

quote:
And again, I'll say, again: there's no poof for increasing tempratures being caused by people--and as an entirely sepperate thing I was saying, but will say again, which is on the same topic--3rd world countries pollute way more than us!!!
If pollution isn't causing the world any severe harm, the issue of whether first-world or third-world countries pollute more is irrelevant, and you would have had no reason to mention it.

quote:
quote:
Instead, there will be the EU and Japan running the world instead of us! (*gasp*). Remember what happened in th '70s? Oil Shortage!
Errr... the rest of the world was running on magical-care-bare-powered cars? Fusion powered cars? Fuel cell powered cars? I don't think so. They all rely on oil exactly as much as we do.
Bicycles. There are plenty of places in developed nations where most people don't own cars and don't need them. Most of those places are outside the US.

[ Monday, May 30, 2005 19:24: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
My BoE Page
Bandwagons are fun!
Roots
Hunted!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
BANNED
Member # 4
Profile Homepage #94
"What crack are you smoking?!?!"

You're right. I don't know why I waste my time posting here. Time to take another drag...

"search for how many times saddam kicked out inspectors, or refused to let them inspect some places. He NEVER let them go where they wanted and do what they wanted. I've done research on this, search the UN records like I have."

And what of it if someone wanted to search for WMDs in the Pentagon, and also demanded entry into a slew of places? Even Bush admits that there were no weapons there. Why you feel compelled to argue that Saddam did not comply with the UN command to disarm on the basis that he didn't let nose-pokers go everywhere is beyond me. But I suppose we poked explosive noses all over, so phooey with that...

"I am an atheist, I have never EVER felt any kind of religious pressure of any kind by the government at all. People are allowed to have their beliefs, if Bush, or anyone else in the gov't wants to say "God bless you," "God bless America," or "God damn it," he can. There is no law that has ever been written that prevents any leader from doing that."

If this were only about saying things, I guarantee you, the problem would be far more trivial. It's more about Bush using exclusively religious bases for multiple pieces of administration that are curbs to our freedom. Oppression Theology (opposite to Liberation Theology) is still oppression.

Oh, I'm not saying that he's being oppressive about religion, he's being oppressive with religion.

(PS- Thank you for reminding me that atheists can be fundamentalists too.)

"Any leader in this country can base his decisions and ideology on whatever they want, they can base their policies on their own ideas, the Bible, the Koran, Mein Kapmf, the Necronomicon, or the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, it doesn't matter. That's the whole point of our ENTIRE SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT!!! What they can't do is force us to believe, act, or think, the same things as him, or coerce us to believe, act, or think the same way. If you don't like the way he does things, don't vote for him! That's how a democracy works!!!"

So essentially, I don't have to be praying, but at 6 AM, Noon, 6 PM, et cetera, I had better kneel to Mecca for five minutes as per government mandate? Saying "the thoughts are free" can justify virtually anything up to and including concentration camps. (PS- Have we forgotten about the Nazi Rule from the book of fallacies, people?) So yeah- don't believe in a god. But our government will avowedly espouse its principles, make confining legislation based on its commandments, and force that religion in everything except for name on you.

Oh yeah- and just out of curiosity, what makes democracy inherently good? (Not that we live in one, but nevertheless.)

"Not that any country listens to international law."

Ow. Hand me the gauze, I'm suffering from accute irony.

...

Ben, I am not going to repeat myself, but I will do you the favor of telling you when I have already responded to the exact same statements you have made previously so you can go back and read them for (apparently) the first time.

"If he had that capacity, he would have used it, and he probably did. As cfgauss said, he consciously kept the UN weapons inspectors out of many areas. I wonder why that was."

He kept them out because not every nation wants inspectors peering into its secrets which could very well compromise its security, especially considering that Iraq knew we were going to be entering a war.

But furthermore, he had the capacity- making crude but effective chemical weapons ain't difficult. (Heck, I could make mustard gas if I wanted to- I wouldn't even have to enter a science and surplus store!)

"Let me say that oil was far from the reason we went into Iraq."

This is absolutely correct. Bush needed the boost of being a war president to win in '04.

PS- Interesting fact. Did you know that Saddam had always vowed to make Iraq the enforcer of OPEC mandates, and that he invaded Kuwait after it essentially reneged a treaty it signed into? I wonder what the significance of invading the enforcer of OPEC would be.

"It was to unseat Saddam Hussein and his gang of terrorists and actively save the lives of millions upon millions of people without having to do it on our home soil after more important buildings are destroyed."

Are you stupid or something? The WTC attack only barely killed 3,000 people. The Iraqi war has cost easily over 20,000 in Iraqi civilians.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
(And note that they link to the news outlets that cover all of the deaths- although many of them are Al-Jezeera, and I suppose they just make corpses from their imagination, so phooey with that.)

Are you telling me that an American life is worth over 6 Iraqi ones? Hmm. For some reason, "imperialism" is wrestling within my mind.

"All I'll say here is: sepukku?"

You are woefully undereducated.

"Are you being forced to follow any religion? No."

I bet you feel REAL comfortable saying that, what with you being in the majority forcing its way on the rest of us. Ah well, church attendance won't be mandatory until 2010 at least, so phooey with that.

"I'm pretty sure that someone said a while back that atmospheric pollution of greenhouse gases is preferable to radioactive nuclear waste."

That someone was you (which is almost a 100% guarantee that it's wrong), and I already responded against that thoroughly to boot.

"Er, active murder? How do you get that from people dying because there isn't enough land to support the population? Not that we need to worry about it in our lifetimes anyway."

Do you even read your own posts? You were proposing active murder to meet energy needs.

"I never knew coal was radioactive."

You never knew a lot of things. That's why I'm here.

"Okay, well there you go. Enjoy. Now you can have your fun reading what I said and formulating clever manipulations of them to contradict it all."

That's like saying that evolution is a clever manipulation of the creation story.

...

oh wai

--------------------
人 た ち を 燃 え る た め に 俺 は か れ ら に 火 を 上 げ る か ら 死 ん だ
Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Warrior
Member # 4590
Profile #95
quote:
If another alcohol diversion program doesn't exist, the government should create one (which is exactly what many countries do). It shouldn't throw its lot in with unregulated and unaccountable private organisations.
That's absolutely right, they should, and if people would stop wasting their time arguing against vague, unspecified, religious issues, and focus on specific issues like this, it would happen!

quote:
Well, yes. Governments can do whatever they like. Some of the things they do are even legal. But if we're going to get into the issue of what a political system ought to be and do, there's no avoiding ideology.
Yes, but I mean to say that there is absolutely nothing in the laws that says anything about the particular ideology someone has to use. It's perfectly legal for a politician to reach his decisions thought process he wants, Bible, random guessing, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, it doesn't matter.

quote:
the fact that one tends to have a higher rate of long-term harmful effects is merely a quantitative matter, not a qualitative one.
It's also not the point. The point is, again, the intent. Police don't intend to kill rioters.

quote:
If pollution isn't causing the world any severe harm, the issue of whether first-world or third-world countries pollute more is irrelevant, and you would have had no reason to mention it.
Because, again, people keep talking like the US is personally, single handedly going to pollute the world to death. And even though I believe there's not enough polluting going on to do that, I'm going to continue to refute people's arguments with that!

quote:
Bicycles. There are plenty of places in developed nations where most people don't own cars and don't need them. Most of those places are outside the US.
First of all, seriously, that just makes me laugh. For one, it's not like we don't know that bicycles are in the US, or are suffering from some kind of bicycle drought. Second, if all the oil in the world *did* suddelny run out one day, your first thought isn't gonna be "****, how will I get to work?!" And I laugh to think of giant trucks of grain being pulled by hundreds of people on bikes :) . Not that this matters anyway, because by the time we run out, we'll be more than prepared. Like I said, there's a reason literally every university is working on alternatives to gas-powered cars.

--------------------
I often quote myself. It adds spice to my conversation.
- George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 103 | Registered: Sunday, June 20 2004 07:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #96
quote:
Yes, but I mean to say that there is absolutely nothing in the laws that says anything about the particular ideology someone has to use. It's perfectly legal for a politician to reach his decisions thought process he wants, Bible, random guessing, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, it doesn't matter.
And this doesn't seem like a weakness in the law to you?

quote:
quote:
the fact that one tends to have a higher rate of long-term harmful effects is merely a quantitative matter, not a qualitative one.
It's also not the point. The point is, again, the intent. Police don't intend to kill rioters.
Official police policy is against killing rioters. I wouldn't be so sure about the police themselves. In any case, whoever dies is just as dead whether they were killed intentionally or not.

quote:
First of all, seriously, that just makes me laugh. For one, it's not like we don't know that bicycles are in the US, or are suffering from some kind of bicycle drought.
On the other hand, when half your population is too fat to ride one...

quote:
And I laugh to think of giant trucks of grain being pulled by hundreds of people on bikes :) .
Trains can run on electricity, which can be generated by non-fossil-fuel means. The US may be overly reliant on trucks for shipping, but that doesn't mean every country is.

[ Monday, May 30, 2005 19:50: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
My BoE Page
Bandwagons are fun!
Roots
Hunted!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #97
This is absolutely hilarious to me. I may be way off base here, but my suspicion is that cfgauss is a conservative. Lacking the energy to read back through all the posts, I'll run with that hypothesis. One of my most fundamental understandings of conservatism is that there should be LESS government involvement in the lives of ordinary people.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If another alcohol diversion program doesn't exist, the government should create one (which is exactly what many countries do). It shouldn't throw its lot in with unregulated and unaccountable private organisations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's absolutely right, they should, and if people would stop wasting their time arguing against vague, unspecified, religious issues, and focus on specific issues like this, it would happen!

And I agree totally. We should have another completely effective and foolproof government agency devoted solely to the treatment of alcoholism. In fact, I think all diseases should have there own special government agency that provides prompt and effective treatment. That is a fantastic idea, so well thought out and easily implemented.

:D
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Warrior
Member # 4590
Profile #98
quote:
And what of it if someone wanted to search for WMDs in the Pentagon, and also demanded entry into a slew of places? Even Bush admits that there were no weapons there. Why you feel compelled to argue that Saddam did not comply with the UN command to disarm on the basis that he didn't let nose-pokers go everywhere is beyond me. But I suppose we poked explosive noses all over, so phooey with that...
International law, that Saddam personally agreed to said he was required to let them search! What's so hard to underestand about this? And YES, if the UN comes over here and says something like "we have evidance you're developing biological weapons" then, YES, we have to let them search, and if they don't, YES, it would be a breach of international law, and YES they can attack us for it!

quote:
So essentially, I don't have to be praying, but at 6 AM, Noon, 6 PM, et cetera, I had better kneel to Mecca for five minutes as per government mandate? Saying "the thoughts are free" can justify virtually anything up to and including concentration camps. (PS- Have we forgotten about the Nazi Rule from the book of fallacies, people?) So yeah- don't believe in a god. But our government will avowedly espouse its principles, make confining legislation based on its commandments, and force that religion in everything except for name on you.
Again, what the hell? Did you read what I said? Let me say it again: they can BASE their decisions on whatever ideology they want, they can't FORCE you to follow one. You can complain all you want about him believing in God, and basing decisions on religious thoughts, but that is not illegal! Find me one law that says it is! He cannot say "you have to believe the same thing I do," he can't institute "national pray to Jesus day" and he hasn't done anything like that! He can base decisions and policies on Star Trek if he wants to, as long as he doesn't require all Americans to watch it at 9:00 every night!

quote:
Oh yeah- and just out of curiosity, what makes democracy inherently good? (Not that we live in one, but nevertheless.)
Democracys are not inherently good, that question doesn't make sense. Any democracy can be made bad, by definition of a democracy!

quote:
Are you stupid or something? The WTC attack only barely killed 3,000 people. The Iraqi war has cost easily over 20,000 in Iraqi civilians.
WFT? "Barely killed?!" You try telling that to someone who lost a loved one and see if you are still physically cabable of making an argument against it after that!

quote:
Are you telling me that an American life is worth over 6 Iraqi ones? Hmm. For some reason, "imperialism" is wrestling within my mind.
That doesn't mean anything!!!!!!!! That's totally insane!! That's like saying that in World War 2, there were 61 million casualties, but not nearly that many were killed by Germans! That is INSANE!! You want to try to get moral on us? What matters here is that every weak in Iraq, they uncover another mass grave with hundreds of men, women, and CHILDREN, who were tied up and shot in the head!! Yes, call me crazy, but I don't have a problem with some army guys being killed to save CHILDREN FROM BEING SHOT IN THE HEAD!!! In fact, of all the things a soldier could die from, I think the best is to stop children from being killed! If I had to die, but a few hundred children wouldn't have their parents executed in front of them and tossed into a hole full of bodies before being shot and thrown in themselves, I would feel pretty damned good about it being me dying!!
(*special note, sometimes, they ran out of bullets, so they would tie people together, shoot one, and then throw them all in. The logic behind this in many ways escapes me. They also took notes from other mass murders like the Nazis and tried to do things like save ammo by trying to have the bullet go through more than one person, as well as other things...)

--------------------
I often quote myself. It adds spice to my conversation.
- George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 103 | Registered: Sunday, June 20 2004 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #99
If Saddam was actually defying U.N. inspections so badly that a war was necessary, why was it not deemed possible to get a U.N. resolution to that effect? France, Germany, and the other European countries were part of the inspections process as well, and few of them agreed with U.S. policy.

It should be noted, incidentally, that you're using the Blair argument, not the Bush argument. Blair has consistently cited 1441 and violations in the weapons inspections as justification for the war; Bush has rarely done so.

EDIT: Also, no matter how bad a regime is, "regime change" is not a legitimate reason for a war under U.S. or international law. We fought the Nazis because they started invading other countries, not because they were killing Jews. I'm not saying that's morally right; I'm saying that's the law.

[ Monday, May 30, 2005 20:15: Message edited by: Thurylandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00

Pages