Land of the free, Home of the brave....
 

I wasn't sure whether to put this in General, Members, or Politics, so I'll just put it here. Please feel free to put in your opinions, but I'm not here to debate with you. This is a rough outline of a document I am going to try to email to as many politicians as possible. This is not a petition, just one man's opinions.

I am truly saddened by the degree at which our Government ( United States ) is seeking to control our lives as opposed to making guidlines for our safety. Here are just a few things that at the time don't "seem so bad" but when you accept and accept you almost forget where you started.

The FCC has put such a reign on communications that some humor broadcasts ( Bob and Tom to be one ) can no longer be aired because of "bad words." The June 23 ruling over internet sites containing what the goverment calls "pornography" means that the ratemy.com sites can no longer operate.

Corporate Eminent Domain.

Increased in the use of Identity Cards, and the amount of information you have to keep current. ( Driver's License, Guns, Passports, etc ) *note* Im not advocating gun use, but the right to choose is paramount to me.

"no fly" lists on the airlines, and certain clauses in the Patriot Act. I won't go into details, I'll just summarize by saying I grew up when America was "innocent until proven guilty"

That's all I can think of for now. Any ideas to support or destroy what I said are indeed welcome, but as I said, I'm not going to debate. I just want to "bounce this rough draft off the wall" before I actually write the final draft.

The first thing I thought of when I saw the title of that post and it's message was:
Megadeth - Hook in Mouth

I agree with what your saying and it's all very scary. This Independence Day I think spend time reading the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. Such brilliant documents.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...

My friend, you don't know what real oppression is.

Do you know how difficult it is, for example, to travel about in Russia? One must consult with the central authorities months in advance for clearance.

Here in the States, you can jump in your car and go wherever you wish, whenever you wish.
You have cheap, plentiful gasoline.
You can hop on a plane tonight and fly to anywhere on earth.
You've got free (FREE!) porn here on the TFP.
You can go to your corner liquor store and buy as much alcoholic refreshment as you wish to consume.
You can buy all the food you want at the grocery stores, which are filled to brimming.
You can assemble, and protest your government right outside your front door without fear of imprisonment or worse.
You can buy a real, live gun if you want. In fact, you can buy 100 guns if you wanted.
You can raise killer bees.
You can buy 100,000 Harvester ants for around $500 bucks.
You can buy stock in Google and become a millionaire in 5 years.
You can paint your house purple.
You can move to Utah and have 10 wives.
You can hunt Grizzly bears in Alaska, and fish for Blue Marlin in the Florida Keys.
You can nail 50 broads a week in Vegas and not get thrown in jail.
You can build your own rock mountain in your backyard.
You can download every one of your favorite songs - for free!
You can ride the tallest, fastest rollercoasters in the world in the States.
You can travel to New Orleans and experience the finest food you ever dreamed of.
You can hike the Grand Canyon or fly to Hawaii.
You can ski down some of the tallest mountains in the world here.
You can rollerblade around Manhattan at midnight.
You can learn to fly a plane.
You have Netflix.
You have over 100 National Parks to visit.

You don't have this in Mexico, or Brazil or Romania for that matter.

What is it precisely that you wish to do that you can't?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I have had an epiphany.
I understand now.

Tilted Politics is not about Politics.
It is all about...VENTING.

TILTED VENTING!!!

It took you this long to figure it out? :eek:

That's simply not true.

Mr Mephisto

I wish to not have my government intrude in every aspect of my life.
I wish to not have my government tell me I can't have sex with my wife doggystyle becasue it's a sin.
I wish to not have my government try and attempt to track my every move around my own country in the name of "national security" when the very same government that claims it wants so much to protect it's borders fails to do so by only focusing on airports with incompetent employees and ignoring other modes of transportation such as the train stations, bus stations, ports, and road systems.
I wish to not have my government play favortism with religion becasue I'm not christian.
I wish to not have my government igonre the fact that global warming is happening and will eventually kill us all.
I wish to not have my government be so closed minded about science and start exploring new ways to cure disease.
I wish to not have my governement be dependant on black gold until the end of time.

That's some for starters.

Seems to me these are not issues of freedom, they're issues of the type of lifestyle you'd prefer.

All these issues are debateable in terms of whether they are acceptable governmental behaviour or not. ('cept maybe for the doggystyle reference, which, let's face it, is disingenuous to say the very least)


If you feel the government ignores your wishes in regard to these issues you have plenty of 'freedom' to fight them on it. If you can't get the support you need to turf 'em out - well, who's fault is that ?

And remember, if these issues constitute 'freedoms' then as soon as your preferred party came to power, immediately the other 50% of the population will feel that their freedoms are being impinged on.

My thoughts exactly.

Just because we have freedom in the USA doesnt mean we can become complacent when it is being restricted unduly.

ALERT: VENT IN PROGRESS...

Yeah, I guess I'm a bit slow.Does this make the gist of the matter any clearer? I apologize in advance if it doesn't.

PASSPORTS AND VISAS IN RUSSIA

Carry them with you at all times. When you are out walking and you see some motley looking guys with black leather caps and jackets with dark gray uniforms, these are the police. They listen for English language being spoken and they will love it if they stop you and you are without your passport and visa. If you don't have your visa and passport, they will escort you to the nearest jail and try their best at expropriating whatever funds they think they can get out of you. Usually, the fine (bribe) is $50 and there won't be anything we can do for you to get you out of it. If the cops haul you in and you do have your visa and passport, call us immediately and we will rescue you. Your visas, if registered through us, will be in perfect order. Don't pay them anything if, once again, you have your visa and passport in your possession.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hardknock, you sound like a person grasping at straws. One can find fault with Mother Theresa if one so chose to. I also live in the US, and I don't feel that the government is over-intrusive. In all my years, I've never been lectured or reprimanded by my government for my various and sundry beaver-banging techniques. I'm not Christian - the government has never bugged me about it. I don't feel paranoid about being followed (especially since I stopped taking dope). Global warming doesn't overly concern me, overfishing doesn't overly concern me, de-forestation doesn't overly concern me, over-population doesn't overly concern me - except when I'm stuck in traffic. Then, it really bugs me. The US has the finest medical facilities on the planet; I guarantee you that Great Medical Minds are on the case trying to cure diseases. So, if I didn't read the news, I wouldn't even know the government existed at all. I obey the law, pay my taxes, and I never hear a word from them.

All I can say is that, to my mind, the US ranks way, way, WAY down the list of countries in the world that I would characterize as "Oppressive".

Or maybe you're just VENTING. In that case, carry on VENTING. Never mind.

Apology accepted.

This website doesn't actually say anything remotely near what you stated.

A visa is required in many, many countries in order for travel...this is not abnormal or restrictive.

Have you ever ventured outside the USA?

Let me ask you a question:
Have you ever researched any of the issues you just spoke about above?

Regarding a similar issue in the UK and the soon to be Biometric id cards.
People say, if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear.
What gets me is not the fact that I have nothing to feel guilty about and thus should not worry about carrying an enforced ID as they plan in the UK, but that fact that I should have to PROVE to anyone that I'm not guilty.
Last I checked, that was THEIR job.

I don't know about powerclown but I have researched them and the only one I worry about is over fishing.

heh. i love the "it's better here than in russia" style of argument.

Aim high!! :D

Yes the United States has it better than alot of the places in the world. You can cite 1 or 100 different things. While I do care about the state of the rest of the world, I am not comparing the United States to any other regime. I am comparing the United States to Itself, the Nation that so many people
believe(d) in and die(d) for. I don't go for the "it could be worse" argument. I KNOW it can be worse, that is the very reason why I am writing my Senators and Representatives to encourage change.

Just thought I would clarify.


-tenchi

Happy talk has enabled the new American domestic security nightmare to get this far, and it looks like there is no turning it back.................

Has it dawned on anyone that the Bush administration will not telegraph it's true agenda unitl it is too late? The signs are all written on the wall.

Have you ever heard of the Chuch Committee in the senate, in the '70's ?
It was convened to investigate and check the abuses of the Nixon administration during the Vietnam war. The CIA was used to spy on U.S. citizens in the U.S., who were opposed to Nixon and or to the war.

The outcome was legislation that was intended to insure that never again would U.S. spy agencies be permitted to abridge the rights of U.S. citizens at home. A wall was set up by law to protect us from our foreign spy agencies.

This protection is gone now. When the few "rights" that these thugs permit us to maintain as a distraction until they complete the consolidation of control of the entire state enforcement apparatus, are eliminated, we won't be discussing it in venues like this one !
Is the risk of letting these thugs, who have been right, less often than a broken clock, in matters of foreign, military, and domestic security, take full control of U.S. domestic security and intelligence gathering, a lesser danger, than opposing them, on the slim chance that we are wrong about their capabilities and their agenda, and we miss out on the benefits of trading our constituional rights for the security and safety that they claim will be enhanced by their criminal and deceptive consolidation of power?

I personally put it down to cognitive dissonance.

People will refuse to believe that what is happening could actually happen, and they will ignore it.

Every time I come home, I see it more and more...I just wish the people at home could see it too...

:(

That or perhaps they look at things from a different perspective.

This reminds me of Long Way Round: A documentary on Ewan McGregor and Charley Boorman riding motorcycles 20K miles from England back around to New York. Their adventures at various ex-Soviet borders were painful - the best was 12+hrs - and that with advance paperwork assisted by Russian state dept officials. Could have been ineptness on someone's part, could have been concern over allowing cameras through, who knows. I assume if these guys with months of prep and their connections can't make the process work smoothly then it's bound to be a pain in my common ass.

i tend to see this "different perspective" as devolving onto the pollyanna each and every time it involves conservative folk viewing the effects of a conservative administration.

this kind of dont worry be happy nonsense that you hear running through the commentary of any number of right pundits, from limbaugh to bill wattenberg (who is smarter and saner than most, but when it comes down to it, the same line is a significant part of his schtick).

you see it working in different registers:

on the environment, global warming in particular: o those people are all chicken little. dont worry be happy.

on the economy: everything works out for the best because god likes capitalism (how else to explain this invisible hand except through theology?): dont worry be happy.

on taxes: these are an evil innovation foisted on us by the irrational state. the irrational state is set up in opposition to nice, ever just "free markets" in which the virtuous--like yourself, like all conservatives--flourish because that is just and right--the redistribution of wealth punishes these virtuous elect few and gives it to bad poor people who are poor because they lack virtue. eliminate taxes to the greatest extent possible and the world will magically return to justice. and then you wont have to worry. everything will be hunky dory.

on the iraq war: the vague and internally contradictory rationales for everything to do with it floated by the bush administration are necessarily correct at every point. everything is fine. dont worry.

on the invasion of privacy justified by the patriot act, for example: well "terrorists" are everywhere and so are their fifth column supporters--surveillance in all its guises is fine--if you have nothing to hide, why would it worry you? what could a person of virtue like you, like all conservatives have to fear?
dont worry about it.

on the military: everyone likes a parade. everyone likes flags. everyone likes uniforms. everyone likes weapons. everyone likes what happens when weapons are used. everyone likes a macho foreign policy when a conservative administration promulgates it. the military appears to be about order. everything should be about order. i like order. order is good. i like things that help me like order more. i think there should be more order. that this image of the mlitary does not cross in any meaningful way with the actual experience of people within the military--particularly not with the experiences of many who are on the ground in iraq right now from what i have been able to gather---all this is quite irrelevant: it is an image, an image only, and one of an ideal society. top down. lots of uniformity. everyone knows their place. none of this democratic stuff. nice to think about.

so you see, everything is basically cool in rightwing land...any and all distortions to this basic coolness are introduced by Outsiders, those evil people who are not themselves conservatives.
but we on the Right know the Real Deal: all is well and it is made well by people like us, who are Real Americans. those who do not agree with us are a fifth column. evil foul bad whiny fifth column. they are the problem, not the system they talk about.

dont worry. everything's cool.

it is indeed a different perspective.

I'll assert a freedom that I feel is slowley diminishing.
The right to privacy.

I cannot recall anywhere in the founding documents of this country, nor any subsequent law where is states that I must provided any of the following to any governmental body without a judges order stating otherwise:

Fingerprints
Iris map
Bloodvessel map
DNA

And yet all have been suggested at some point as required not just on Visa's and Passports, but on the common drivers liscence in each state.
None are needed (or usefull) to identify one-self to a police officer when pulled over, so they therefor have no feild appilication as it where.

Or howabout the freedom to own my property without fear of it's confiscation? Activist city councils seem to be opposed to that freedom in Conn.

Or howabout the freedom to do to my body what I wish without government interference. Some states have even outlawed certain types of peircings for moral reasons.

I can keep going...

nothing to worry about in this development from this afternoon either--time inc. capitulating in the face of pressure to name confidential sources for news stories.

even though what is at issue is the question of who fed robert novak information that resulted in the outing of valerie palme---and i would love to see the bush administration and their lackey novack pay dearly for this particular dirty trick, the fact is that time has caved in and compromised a basic tenent of freedom of the press by turning over source material that was conveyed in confidence to a reporter.

that should reassure folk who find themselves becoming ciritcal of the dominant order through working for it and who decide to try to stop abuses by exposing them. sure, there is no problem with this spineless cave-in.

that it is pitched as an action that reflects the interests of time shareholders simply makes it all the more disgusting.

the ideology of capitalism overruns the notion of the free press.

and time is doing this to itself.
amazing stuff.

the erosion of the freedom of the press: dont worry, be happy. after all, the press in conservativeland is not free at all, but we like it that way.

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/30/po...rtner=homepage

Dude, I was just joking. A little humor, you know? A little break from the monotony?

You carry on with your concerns. Me - I've given up trying to change the world, but I encourage you to try if that is your wish. I have other things to think about right now, and was simply speaking in jest. Get it? power-CLOWN? Eh...nevermind.

You can have sex with your wife however you want to, provided that you do so in the privacy of your bedroom. You cannot have sex with your wife in any way in public, because we don't want to see it.

Don't worry, they can't. Now private companies, that's another matter.

I'm not christian, and the government has never never favored a christian over me because they were christian and I am not.

The Sun is also expanding, and eventually will incinerate Earth. The planet isn't going to be here forever. But it's probably not going to happen before next Tuesday, so relax.

That is not it's job. Personally, I'm kind of glad that the Government has said that drug companies cannot ambush me and rip out my internal organs in the name of "progress". After all, I'm still using them.

Feel free then to devote your life to making the perfect energy-producing mousetrap, and then sell it to the government. If you PERSONALLY don't want to be dependant on fossil fuels, you are free to not consume any of them. It's not like we're forcing you...

ah great, don't worry, be happy, now...

So, just to get things straight:
a) global warming is not happening
b) it is possible for some one to "choose" not to use fossil fuels without a viable alternative
c) The sun will not incinerate the earth before next Tuesday (phew!)
d) it is legal to have anal/non missionary position sex in the USA

well...I can see one of these conclusions that you have made is correct at least.

good one.

Oh, you were kidding...Oh I get it...I get jokes...

:hmm: :hmm:

We think it might be happening, but we're not really sure. It's like Phrenology....some people swear by it, but others think it's pseudoscientific crap.

Sure it is. You can always live in a cave and eat twigs and berries. Of course, if you want to live in an urban area with Starbucks on every corner, you're going to consume fossil fuels. You seem to want everything....the petrochemical driven lifestyle, without the petrochemicals. It doesn't work that way. That's like wanting to be vegan for social reasons, but refusing to give up steak.

Glad to relieve your mind of your fears on this one. ;)

Generally, yes.

*Already seeing that this is becoming less and less productive with every succesive post, Fourtyrulz attempts to breathe fresh air into a swampy sarcasm and hyperbole laden thread.*

I don't see how it's impossible to have a petrochemical lifestyle (whatever that really means) without petrochemicals. Car companies are proving us wrong everyday by releasing new hybrid vehicles designed with more fuel efficient parts.

This is hardly the only alternative to a fossil-fuel-free lifestyle. Sure petroleum products like plastics are irreplacable and have lead to amazing progress, but scientific advances in automobile technology leave us with no excuse for why we haven't also advanced as a consumer society.

Police use gun buybacks as an incentive for people to turn in their weapons and get guns off of the streets. If state governments could somehow work with car companies to sponsor car buybacks and trade-ins for people with older, inefficient models we would no doubt see a rise in the use of new hybrid technology. Right now over 10 states already give incentives for hybrid/fuel efficient car drivers: parking fee exemptions, tax deductions, rebates, credits, freeway lane usage, and exemption from emissions checks. If these incentives could be extended to more states with a larger number of incentives we would not be so dependent on petrochemicals.

Having to carry your visa with you is not the same as stating that "One must consult with the central authorities months in advance for clearance..

So, apology accepted.

Mr Mephisto

Gun buybacks? You're using GUN BUYBACKS as proof of your suggestion??? ROTFLMAO!!!

Gun buybacks are PR stunts, nothing more. Have you noticed how rarely they happen nowadays? There's a reason why. It's because gun buybacks do nothing to disarm criminals. I recall one up in Maryland (Baltimore, IIRC), where a guy ended up turning in something like 68 guns himself that he had just bought. He did it because he was able to turn a healthy profit on it.

Gun buybacks are a complete and total joke that do absolutely nothing to take guns away from criminals. I wish they happened more often, because I could use the cash. ;)

We're working to cut back on fossil fuel use. But nobody, and I mean NOBODY, thinks that we can "get away" from using fossil fuels entirely. And even the hybrids do use a lot of fossil fuels in the manufacturing process, et cetera.

The vehicle inspection system is already designed to render older cars too cost-inefficient to remain in service. And Americans LIKE driving big vehicles. You don't have the right to tell them that they can't, either.

They were used successfully in the past in both Australia and the UK after gun-toting crazies massacred innocents.

Mr Mephisto

Define 'successfully'.

Based on the RISE in violent crime in Austrialia and the UK after the very strict gun control laws were put into place, I think you will have a hard time showing anything resembling 'success'.

Starting to push up toward $2.50 a gallon, and half of that is tax for roads that we pay tolls on anyway. What you have scited is not an example of freedom, but an impediment. Were oil companies not so economically powerful, we might have some viable alternatives, and then they would all be cheap and plentiful.
Provided you have 10 times as much money as you would have needed if you had decided last year to fly today, and your name isn't similar to someone's who - reasonably or not - is on one of several secret terrortist watch lists, and, provided, you don't accidentally put a cigarette lighter or a tonenail cleaning knife in your carry on luggage, and of course, that you leave your drugs at home.
But not entirely legal porn, not after the recent decision about file sharing which seems to roll back all the precedents about photocopiers and VCRs.
If you're not in a dry county, and it's not Sunday, and it's not after 8:00 ion Connecticut, and you don't try to make it yourself. Basically, your mileage may very.
Unless you want Coke sweetened with sucrose instead of HFCS, or locally grown, but not photogenic produce.
Oh sure, but try to do it where there might be some sort of contextual linkage and you will be shunted off to a "Free Speech Zone", or try to argue something that there is a vested and monied interest in avoiding, and see how quick the heat comes down.
I missed the part where this was a good thing.
Again, this is a good thing because...? And you can raise killer bees, but not smoke killer Bs.
Fess up, you have an entymology fetish. Actually, I am curious as to why this would be a good example of freedom.
You can also buy stock in Enron and become destitute overnight.
But your homeowners' association will take you to court and probably win because, don't you know, purple houses lowere property values.
You can also assassinate anyone you are committed to killing, but not legally.
But you won't be able to go to ANWR without tripping over an oil well if the current gang of thugs gets its way, nor would you be able to even try to catch that marlin without paying the government for the privilege of registering, something you wouldn't have to do if you, say, wanted to buy a handgun. (I recommend just shooting marlin. You shouldn't need a liscence for that, and the NRA will back you up.).
You can only nail broads in Vegas if you live in the 1920's (like the current occupant of the Whitehouse). You can nail 50 hookers a week in Vegas, but, according to my research, it will cost you $25K a week to do it, and no one makes that kind of disposable money legally. No one.
Subject to local zoning ordinaces. Not bloody likely unless your backyard is in the boondocks.
Not so much any more, and not legally.
Nolo Contendere - but it'll cost you.
I pity your culinary imagination (though the food there is quite good.)
For now.
Oh sure, but eat an Oster from the Chesapeake (if you can find one) and you take your life in your hands.
If you spring for a bullet proof vest.
Evidently you don't even need to learn how to land.
But there is an antibiotic cream that will clear tht right up.
And harvest old growth timber from

Smoke a big fat joint on the national mall.
Be lead by the leader we need, not the one we evidently deserve.
Distill my own liquor for personal use without the ATF busting through my windows.
Not have to pay quadruple the global price for sugar or presciption drugs.
Travel without being a target.
Respect my government.
Retire on the money I have been paying to the government to support me when I retire.
Not run the risk of being killed because a DA lacks the imagination to find the right guy.
Pay the taxes I can afford and not have to subsidize motherfucking billionaires who pay diddlyshit and actually get money from the government.
Have a level playing field.
And, finally, on a lighter note, Shoot Evangelists. (Yes, I realize that they would shoot back. That's what is meant by a level playing field.)

suc·cess·ful
adj.
Having a favorable outcome: a successful heart transplant.
Having obtained something desired or intended: was successful in stopping the leak of oil.
Having achieved wealth or eminence: a successful architect.


The schemes were intended to remove handguns (primarily) from circulation. They succeeded in doing this.

If you honestly believe that reintroducing privately held handguns to the UK and Australia would reduce violent crime, then you are in the minority. Thankfully so, in my opinion. :)

But, by all means, continue with said opinion.


Mr Mephisto

I'm sorry that you are a believer of the myth that gun control lowers violent crime rates. I find no shame in being in a minority opinion when the majority doesn't have a clue what its talking about. The fact that you think removing 'guns' will lower crime is rather frightening. Last I checked guns didn't commit crimes. The success of such a program could only be measured in terms of preventing crime and as such they are failures.

This discussion has been on the boards before and I won't go into it again beyond this.

Actually, I'm a believer in the fact that gun control reduces the number of guns in circulation. That's a good thing in my opinion, and it was the goal, successfully achieved, of the buy-back programs in the UK and Australia.

Now whether reintroducing guns would reduce "violent crime" is another question. I don't believe it would. You do.

It frightens me more that you believe introducing more 'guns' into society is a good thing.

Heroin doesn't commit crime. Cocaine doesn't commit crime. Would you support their reintroduction into society?

Training to fly a plane, without knowing how to land it, is not a crime. That is, it is not a crime to concentrate on certain aspects of flight. But that doesn't mean it's a good idea.

In my mind, the success could be measured in the fact that there have been no similiar events such as to the Dunblane or Port Aurthur massacres. But then again, that's just me.

Oh... and the vast majority of the British and Australian people. Let's not forget about them, eh? :)

Yes it has. And not only here, but also in the 'public domain'.

If you want to support the right to privately held handguns and automatic weapons in the US, then fine. Go for it. But don't expect me to believe you when you imply (or state) that relaxing the gun controls in the UK or Australia (or even Ireland, if you want to talk about my own country) would reduce crime. The people there don't want them, so why are you arguing in its favour?

Mr Mephisto

Look up your state laws. Many states make certain sex acts illegal. Oral sex is illegal in many of them. Anal is right out in a lot of them. In several (Va for one if I recall correctly) sex in any position but missionary is illegal. So yes, the governments of the US can and does intrude into your bedroom where it has no business being.





Wanna bet? What religion is on the 10 commandments monuments outside hundreds of courtrooms? What religious book do you swear on when you're taking the stand in court? Note that our money says "in GOD we trust" not "in Allah" or "in Shiva." Who does the president always ask to bless the USA? This government is christian, it wants to endorse christianity, and any other religion can just take a hike. I have yet to see the 5 pillars of Islam on a monument outside a courtroom. . .





Ahh yes, the typical irresponsible "I'm the only one that matters" response. I'd prefer it if my grand children and their children didn't have to deal with the environmental destruction we're busy causing right now. Just because it won't happen next Tuesday doesn't mean you don't have the responsibility to prevent it.





Since when, outside of Monty Python's "Meaning of Life" has a drug company EVER tried to do that to an American citizen? You don't seriously equate medial research to being disemboweled do you?






Actually your party is forcing the issue. Carter tried to institute renewable energy solutions (solar, wind) back in the 70's. Reagan put a stop to that right quick when he took office. And now your party wants to push hydrogen powered cars, which are the biggest crock of crap to hit the automotive scene since turbocharged minivans. It takes more power to get the hydrogen than you get FROM the hydrogen, so that's not a good energy source. But they're pushing it because, surprise!, hydrogen comes from the methane found in oil wells. And it's easier and cheaper to get the methane than it is to get the oil, so the oil companies stand to profit even more than they already do. When you get right down to it, these hydrogen cars are nothing more than another sneaky trick being used to make rich people richer.


And I for one want a government that's less interested in that than they are in trying to make life better for EVERYONE, not just people with 7 figure incomes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpo...518791,00.html

Climate change IS occuring. Just because Rush Limbaugh and some conservatives with their hands in the oil-wealth pie can dig up a few scientists that contest this doesn't change the fact that global temperatures are rising at an abnormal rate. I went to university for Meteorology, I know that we are in a serious situation...besides, wouldn't it be better to err on the side of caution and the rest of the world rather than isolating ourselves further??



Ridiculous analogy. There are no viable options for someone to live in this society without petrochemicals. Our entire infrastructure is based upon it, from the fertiliser used to produce our foods to the fuel you put in your car to drive to that starbucks. I personally would prefer not to have a Starbucks on every corner, but that is for a different thread. There is no (logical) way of living completely without petrochemicals at this time...in my opinion we will all be forced to find a viable alternative when oil reaches 80 and the 100 dollars in the near future, but wouldnt it be nice if the US government were actually proactive for once??

The US government knows that a oil crisis is imminent...it is even running simulations of the disaster....
http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story....0GTu0nftKfssu8



Just because the US Government (and the conservatives) close their collective eyes and pretend that things are not happening does not mean that they will go away...they only get worse.

Old fairy tale
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

Not so much as proof but as a comparative example. I'm not sure if I understand your response, or has mocking someone's opinion become part of healthy political debate 'round here?

That's something we're going to have to work at and hopefully get over. If I really loved to buy gasoline and burn it in an iron barrel in my driveway, depending on burning regulations, I could...but it wouldn't be very responsible on my part.

This is also true. Americans have always this sort of attitude. That because we have a basic list of rights given to us by the Constitution we have the right to do whatever we want. But where do you draw the line between rights and responsibilities? This sort of thing has been discussed MANY times on the politics board. As humans we have a responsibility to protect our ecosystem and our resources, yet nothing in our constitution grants us the right to get no more than 13 miles/gallon.

Maybe we should kill them all. Just like every terrorist in the world that Bush seems to think we can catch.

The reality of the situation is that such charges are only brought if there are other mitigating factors, and it did NOT occur in private. Why is this? It's because SCOTUS basically said that as long as it's in the bedroom, it's not the government's business. If ANY state tried to prosecute somebody for consentual sex acts between adults that occurred in private, they run the very real risk of having their state law overturned.

The 10 commandments are vital to three of the world's largest religions, and YES, they are still valid under Islam. And when peopletake the stand in court, they are given the option of "affirming" instead of swearing. "God" is a non-specific deity. "Shiva" is a very specific deity.

So you feel a responsibility to manage your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-
great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-
great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-
grandchildren's lives? Did you ever consider that maybe they don't WANT your meddlesomeness? If that's the standard we're going to use, hey, the Sun's expansion is eventually going to destroy the Earth. WHY AREN'T YOU FIXING THAT??? ;)

Ever hear of the Tuskeegee experiment? Didn't think so...


"It's all those evil damned Corporations and the Bourgoise, keepin the Proletariat DOWN. BLOOD IN THE STREETS! Death To America!" Oops, sorry. I was channelling again. Like I said, if you don't like it, fine. You are free to build the better mousetrap. If your work has merit, society will financially reward you for it.

Oh, yeah, I forgot all about the concentration camps for the poor...How silly of me. :crazy: In terms of raw dollars spent, what has happened to the social welfare programs since Bush took office? Has spending decreased over what they were during the Clinton years?

Ustwo is corect. Gun control is yet another favorite American pastime of trying to alleviate the symptoms rather then preventing the disease.

There is less political risk in focusing on the short term and treating the symptom rather then the long term and fighting the cause. Thus our country has been burried in a quagmire of half-assed political decisions that always cost us more and solve absolutely nothing.

Ummm, WRONG. They were not gun buybacks, they were gun CONFISCATIONS. Are you advocating confiscation of guns in America?

Have you seen what has happened in England and Wales afterwards? Did the raw numbers OR rates of gun crime decrease? No matter how you look at it, gun crime in the UK has skyrocketed since the ban, Scopes be damned.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews...l&siteid=50143
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news/press/14919.shtml

this last one is fascinating, given that ALL handguns were confiscated by the Government in 1997, IIRC.

The Tuskegee experiment was perpetrated and approved by the United States government, not a private drug company. If anything, this should assert the point that governments don't always have their citizens best interests in mind when meddling with health care.

So, how long have we been keeping track of temperatures? Doesn't the Earth have a normal warming/cooling cycle? Isn't that what the ice ages were? You're looking at MAX a couple of hundred years of data, much of it suspect, and drawing grand conclusions which simply are not supported by all of the evidence. As for the rest of the world, they can kiss my...Democratic Party emblem.

Sure there is, I know people who do it. True, they live in caves deep in national forest land, and eat what they can find, but they consume almost no petrochemicals in any form. You say the government should be proactive. Where is the constitutional authority for them to do so?

The government warplays all kinds of bizarre scenarios. That's why they have a General Staff. Are you saying that ANY scenario that the Government warplays is actually going to happen?

Just because the Liberals scream and rend their garments doesn't mean that we're all going to die by next Tuesday unless we give them whatever they need for their latest cockamamie scheme.

The problem is that the cooling/warming cycle of the earth is not being followed...the earth is warming at a much higher rate than normal. If you studied this, you would understand the difference. I have. I do.

I dont think this needs any rebuttal. A statement like this only comes from someone who doesn't understand the rest of the world.

Right. I am not advocating a move to agrarian society, I am advocating a change in thought that supports sustainable energy rather than reliance on the middle east and other oil-bearing nations. 250 million people living in caves? I don't think there are enough to go around. :|


The US government has all the authority that they need to push thru energy reform. The fact of the matter is that there are too many people making too much money from the current situation for there to be any changes made.



No, but I would suggeest that you look at the predictions of M. King Hubbert, who predicted the US soverign oil peak in the 1970's.

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/

This makes me yawn. I am not a liberal or a democrat. I AM a concerned National of the US, a resident of the UK and a citizen of the world...and it is short-sighted views like this that need to be addressed by the industrial nations of the world, not jus the USA.

"Dont worry, be happy" Right?


...Right??

Wrong. I do understand the rest of the world, I just don't think that the rest of the world should be involved in OUR domestic policy. Our government was not elected to make the rest of the world happy, it was elected to take care of US.

If this is true, then you will have no problem citing the part of the US Constitution that is operable, right?

Why don't we look at the predictions of Nostradamus and base our policy on that then?

So you have a "world passport"?

We have a right to have what you term "short-sighted views". We have a right to base our own governmental policies on what is best for US. If you don't like it? Well, sorry about that... ;)

Yeah but see, when your domestic policies affects the rest of the world, then we have the right to bitch at you. Simple as that.

Attitudes like yours are what makes us looked upon as bullies or the wife beating husband...... and sadly what also makes us terrorist targets. IT IS NOT THE USA'S PLANET, it is every country's planet and if their agenda affects us, we slam them and expect them to change, the world community has the right to do so with us if we affect them in negative ways with our agendas that affect them in negative ways.

One of these days soon, we may need help from one of these countries you so laugh at and they will in turn laugh back at you.

May I need remind you that the poorer nations and the nations we aggitate towards hating us (with those "better and holier than thoy attitudes" so many these days seem to have in regard to foreign relations), are growing and are far younger and hungrier than us.

We may have nukes but that maybe all we have someday and eventually the nukes won't scare them.

If you think we are untouchable and that we are invincible that no country will ever take us down, ask Napolean, Rome, Stalin, Hitler at their height who would take them down.

Wars are won by who is the hungriest and has the least to lose.

And here I thought they were won by the "biggest and best battallions".

Other countries are able to tell the US to fuck off. Remember "Yankee go home"? So why don't we have the right to tell them to fuck off too? What's fair is fair, and if they can do it, we can do it too.

If they don't want our help, that's fine. They can remember that when the next Stalin or Hitler comes along. We'll see how much they enjoy the Communist Chinese system, and how thankful their families are when the government sends them the bill for the bullet.

And we have the right to tell you where exactly to get off. Case in point: the Presidential election of 2004.

And people were compensated. You're arguing pedantics.

And, as I said before, I am not adocating confiscation of guns in America. You guys can shoot the fuck out of each other and anything that moves for all I care.

What I AM advocating is that you stop trying to recommend the reintroduction of privately held firearms into the UK, Ireland and Australia (the three countries mentioned by myself) against the wishes of the vast majority of people.

Mr Mephisto

Where have I advocated that? If the people there are willing to live as slaves, what business is it of mine? It just means I will not move there (or intentionally visit there). And I understand that they are very NICE manacles....gold-plated, and lined with fake fur...

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Tell it to the Iraqis, mate. While you're at it, you may want to see what the Nicaraguans, Mexicans, Salvadorans, Iranians, Cubans, Chileans, and Phillipinos think about how well we have stayed out of their domestic policies.

And a fine job our government is doing taking care of us too. Global warming is a fine thing for now. So is gasoline nearly triple the price it was three years ago. Creating all those new terrorists has provided many an opportunity for a military career for promising young men and women. And, of course, paying quadruple the going global rates for prescription drugs and sugar makes me feel quite well cared for.

Because he was French. Duh!

Actually, the fact that peak oil continues to recede does not mean that we will not catch up at some point. I will grant easily that we have more than enough oil left to continue using it for a very long time, but it will get progressivly more expensive, and, let's face it, since we stay out of the domestic affairs of other sovreign nations, we'll never have any problems with it being under the land of people who would be very happy to see our economy in shambles.

You can't honestly say you don't see the glaring contradiction in that, can you? I mean, last I checked, the United States is still on the same planet as the rest of the world. I mean, other than in the White House.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

You can't have it both ways. Either the US needs to play "World Police", or we don't. If we DON'T, then whenever somebody foreign does something we don't think is kosher to us, expect us to bomb them. Why? Because it's the only way we'll have left to change their minds. America has tried to help damn near EVERYBODY on the planet at one point or another. You don't get the carrot without the stick. And frankly, the carrot is looking kinda wilted now...

I don't think that there's any hope for this guy. For some reason he think that he can have his cake and eat it too. Tell the world to fuck off if they don't agree to our policies and at te same time, beg them to produce more oil?!? I don't see the logic in that one.

This biggest and the best isn't necessarily going to cut it. Our "best" can't even defeat a bunch of suicide boming thugs. How do you think that this mindset wins wars?

But we have the right to invade others becasue, per your logic, someone said "death to america!" But you are right, they were elected to take care of us. Too bad that they don't.

It's obvious that no one is going to change your mind that the "war" policy is the best way to go. We'll just see where we end up becasue of it.

Great. So you're saying that the rest of the world has the right to complain, but you wont listen anyway? Brilliant strategy I must say.

America has tried to help some people on the planet when its own best interests were at heart.

Just like every other country in the world.

Is anyone helping the people of Zimbabwe? What about Darfur?

The US cannot and should not play "World Police" that is for an organisation like the UN. (Which is in dire need of reform to put some teeth back in its enforcement capabilities.)

Precisely, you can't have it both ways. If we want to be a global power for justice, which would be the only justification for the clusterfucks we have generated in the countries I cited, then we need to act in a global context. That would mean, at the very least, listening to and weighing the concerns of the global community. Kerry (who is a douchebag but for whom I voted anyway), mentioned a global test, to Karl Rove's unholy glee, but that is just what he was talking about: If we want to play world police, and apparently we have wanted to do so, then we need to attend to the fraud, embezzlement, and thievery as well as the murder, burglary, and domestic disturbances. Unfortunately, we seem to be dealing only with the latter, which are largely foreign in origin, rsther than the former, much of which (not all, but a goodly chunk) have their genesis closer to home.

So which planet are we on, my friend?

Incidentally, that was a nifty argument, but it works both ways.

Again ask Napolean, Hitler, Rome they all had the biggest and best battallions and they all lost. Ask the USSR in Afghanistan, ask the us in Korea and Vietnam.

Yeah but I don't see Iraqis or Australians, Brits or Germans interfering with our domestic policies, do you?


Ah, but we're having our troops buy their gear are we not? And right now to at least the vast majority of the world, we look to be the next Stalin and Hitler...... and with the "fuck everyone else in the world and fuck the Dems, fuck the gays, fuck the non-Christians, fuck everyone who questions Bush" attitudes I see here, I wonder if we aren't.

Let's step back a second and look at Moosenose's arguments, because they are a classic example of how the Republicans are whipping the hell out of the Democrats.

He says (paraphrasing all of these) "Other countries don't have the right to interfere with our domestic policy"

So we say "But we're interfereing with the domestic policy of all these countries"

And then he says "You can't have it both ways. Either we can be the world police or we can't."


Now if you look at that example Moosenose is neatly shifting the topic of the argument while appearing to keep arguing the same thing. At first the argument was about whether or not OTHER countries have the right to be annoyed with the US for crapping out the environment. He didn't think so which is fine.

But when we pointed out that we seem to think we have the right to tell those other countries how to run THEIR governments, he rebutted with something that had nothing whatsoever to do with the original topic. Complete shift in argument.


Now you might be asking why this is important, and it's here that I want to make it clear I'm not singling out Moosenose. See, this is a tactic used by just about every member of Bush's cabinet during press conferences, and it's one widely used by republicans in general, and frankly it's a brilliant one. You can continue to make it sound like you're arguing one point when in fact you're arguing something completely different. This makes it easy to dupe the public into thinking you think one way when in fact you think the opposite. If you came right out and said it (in this example, "I don't think anyone can tell us what to do, but we can certainly tell everyone else what to do because we're big and strong") people would object. But if you couch it in the right terms, people won't get it, and they'll support you.

It's this kind of debate that is why the Republican political machine is so successful: They're willing to do and say anything necessary to get elected, whether it's deceitful or not.

And it's this kind of debate that the public, and especially the democrats, need to be aware of if they want to have a prayer of ending the current dangerous political situaiton.

Very good read, Shakran. :thumbsup: Informative, educational and extremely truthful.

The question is how do we keep the people focussed while the other side tends to lead them down the rosier road, saying what the people want to hear but doing the opposite?

What on EARTH are you talking about?

You're actually babbling now...


Mr Mephisto

Ah, there's where you are wrong. We could defeat the suicide bombing thugs, we just lack the political will to do so. Ever read Tacitus? There's already a desert there...

Their weak points are the Madrassas or however you spell it. They are virtually suicide bomber incubators. Shut them down by whatever means are necessary, and a lot of the problem goes away.

"Death to America" has been the official Iranian State policy since the fall of the Shah. The level of rhetoric alone coming from them is casus belli, even if you completely ignore their internationally illegal attempts to produce nuclear weapons.

So we should invade Zimbabwe? OK, I'm game for that. Of course, as soon as we did, the people who now are saying "you should invade zimbabwe" will be out on the streets alleging absolutely anything they can dream up to smear the US military.

Anybody who would want to put ANY military power into the hands of the UN is either ignorant of very recent history or just a plain old fool. "Srebrenica" ring a bell? Anyone? Anyone?

Napoleon had big battalions, but they were unprepared for the climate. Hitler never had 1/10th of the manpower under arms that the Soviets did. At the start of Barbarossa, IIRC, the German side of the line was held by 1 million men, the offensive forces were around 1.5 million men (something like 2.5 million total on the eastern front and in support) and they were facing over 15 million russian men on the front line ALONE, not counting reinforcements in-theater. During the first 30 days of Barbarossa, the Germans killed or captured FAR more Soviet troops than the combined number of German and their allied troops in theater. When Rome fell, it most certainly did NOT have the biggest and best battalions. their military was a pale shadow of what it had been.

Well, the North Koreans endorsed Kerry, yes? What do you think the huge anti-american protests overseas were about? Hell, what do you think the various european and australian anti-gun groups are doing now?

Actually, no. There was talk of obtaining black berets from Communist China, but a federal law forbade it. They ended up being made in the USA, and just being phased in more slowly. BTW, I certainly have not said "fuck the gays" or "fuck the non-christians" or "fuck everyone who questions Bush". I don't think I've said "fuck everyone else in the world" or "fuck the Dems". And if the world choses to see us as the next Hitler and/or Stalin, hey, that's their right. They can enjoy becoming vassals or slaves of the Communist Chinese, just like the Tibetans. Find some nice Eastern Europeans to talk to, and offer them the choice of being an American ally or a Communist Chinese ally, and see what they say.

Ohh, yay. I feel special. And NO, NOT in a "short bus" sense. ;)

actually, I was leaning more towards their FOREIGN policy. I don't give a rat's ass about their DOMESTIC policy, unless it affects their FOREIGN policy and how it applies to us. If the goverment is domestically encouraging their people to chant "Death to America" while domestically providing shelter and funding for terrorists whose goal is to attack the US, THEN it's something that we should be concerned about. If, on the other hand, their domestic policy says "we will all drive on what the Americans say is the wrong side of the road", then it's none of our business.

Annoyed? Sure, they can be annoyed. If you're annoyed, you don't send people Christmas or Hannukah or Ramadan or Whatever cards. Being "annoyed" does NOT encompass threatening the US. That's no longer "being annoyed", that's "committing an act of war". Subtle distinction there.

We have a right to become highly pissed when they commit an act of war against us.

So, by singling out me specifically at least four times before this comment, you're NOT singling out me? Why am I reminded of an Orwell quote here?

Well, you can always just lie to them. Hey, it's worked before...

Mods: no disrespect is intended, I'm just trying to inject some humor into the situation. If I was trying to be disrespectful, I'd have given specific examples, all drawn from a single party, while ignoring examples from other parties.

The UN seems to have a track record that is overwhelmingly positive. What is more, the military monitoring and peace keeping missions that the world body chooses to fund and participate in seem to have less to do with geo-political and resource driven, self interest, than the places that the U.S.focuses on.
If the U.N. did not do it, it probably would not get done. It seems that as the integrity of the reputation of the U.S. deteriorates in the eyes of much of the rest of the world, the UN, in comparison, seems more welcome and influential.
Please consider the example that is being set by these two past presidents.
Their evolving friendship would not be possible if they could not put aside the disagreements, grievances, and rivalry that once separated them:

I think that would depend on if you talked to one of the few surviving Bosnian Muslim men from around Srebrenica, or one of the survivors of Rwanda, or survivors of the other various FUBARed UN "peacekeeping" missions or UN-allowed genocides or other UN related atrocities (remember the UN troops raping children a while back?), or talked to the "other side" in those conflicts.

BTW, has the UN issued a resolution telling member states to invade Zimbabwe to stop what is happening there yet?

Oh, and BTW....those UN figures you cite, with fatalities listed? Those are UN fatalities, NOT ALL fatalities, which often were several orders of magnitude higher. "yeah, we only lost X people" sounds a lot better than "yeah, we only lost X people, but 800,000 of the people we were there to protect got massacred, but hey, did we mention we only lost X people???"

Neither Napoleon nor Hilter had the biggest or best battallions at the end of the conflicts they were defeated in. The forces allied against each were far more numerous than either had. And both made several severe strategic miscalculations that allowed for their higher quality units to be wasted in inefficent ways.

Rome was destroyed because the military and gov't weren't up to the task of controlling the vast area it claimed at the end of the empire. In essence, it collapsed under it's own weight.

In Afghanistan, Korea, and Vietnam the "hungrier" side had support from outside, giving more weight behind their hunger. Also, the US kept N. Korean dictators from taking over S. Korea. And the same could have been done in Vietnam, had the military been allowed to use its full force.

So, no your examples don't support your claim.

1. Democrats do the same thing, just less effectively. They are just as willing to say whatever it takes to win. It's just that at this time people are less receptive to the line Dems are taking. Its also this kind of willful ignorance to their own side's flaws that makes many people not buy what Dems say. Also, it would be interesting to see why this political situation is "dangerous".

2. And I don't see why many people wouldn't buy "I don't think anyone can tell us what to do, but we can certainly tell everyone else what to do because we're big and strong". It's true. It's how things work. You just have to hope that the people who are "big and strong" aren't also totally looking out for their own self interest. And that's another thing that separates liberals/dems from conservatives/republicans: liberals are all to ready to condemn America as a source of evil in the world, whereas the others think that America is generally a good place. And this is another reason most people don't buy the liberal line-they don't believe that the place that allowed them the freedoms they have, and the relative prosperity they have is this great evil empire bent on destroying the world. For instance, look at many of the threads on this board, or posts in this thread even. If America were actually so anti-freedom, would these exist? Many places in the world currently have limited internet access in their countries, so it's entirely possible to do. Yet many liberals here would have you believe that we are living in a world line 1984, with Big Brother replaced with Karl Rove (at least now. Before people recognised that name, Cheney was the "puppetmaster". I wonder who the next "puppetmaster" will be in '08). The very fact that the OP feels comfortable with sending letters to politicians complaining about so-called lack of freedoms should be a clue that things aren't half as bad as what liberals want people to think.

That would make the problem even worse, and would give a solid foundation to the claim that Christian America is trying to destroy Islam. A madrasa is the Muslim equivalent of a Christian Academy, where you go for religious education. Forcefully shutting down what are fundamentally religious academies would be like a shotgun blast to the head of US relations with the Muslim world.

60,800 Iraqi civilians (number fresh from today's paper), did not commit an act of war against us. Come to think of it, NO Iraqi committed an act of war against us.

Moose, you aren't going to get very far disagreeing with everybody while at the same time jumping to radical conclusions of how the world should be run. This ain't the United States of Moosenoose. :rolleyes:

So the Iraqi military shooting AAA at US planes after the ceasefire was NOT an act of war?

The fact is, bombs never stopped dropping on Iraq after Desert Fox. Both Britain and the US continued to bomb suspecious targets in Iraq.

Leading up to the current conflict both the RAF and the US Airforce stepped up it's bombing campaign in an attempt to tease Saddam into war.

By "suspecious targets", you're referring to AAA guns and missile launchers that shot at them first, right? How DARE we bomb people who shot at us first!

The evidence indicates that the U.S. and UK were the instigators and aggressors

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...669640,00.html

And indeed we were destroying AAA sites all this time. AAA sites that were reportedly targeting our planes. However we were in Iraqi air space.

Under UN mandate.

That would be incorect.

There do seem to be multiple interpretations of the no fly zones.

GHB decided to put some teeth in resolution 688 which I can understand would be debated by members of the UN and international community that only like the UN to sound like it does something rather then actually do it, but I stand corrected that it was not a mandate. That was an error on my part.

ha ha ha ha ha ha hhhaaaaaaa. I hardly rate the non ability to own a gun as equaling slavery. I can't say I'm unhappy about you never visiting Australia.

I want to interject that there is more than an "us vs. them" in US politics, or at least there should be in any reasonable discussion. There is a Republican party that isn't supportive of the Neocons of the present administration. There is a Democratic party that is moderate (ala Clinton) that furthers fiscal responsibility and cuts welfare fraud. We, on the forum seem to have chosen the two extremes of our political parties when in fact a moderate middle is present for both parties.

Would it be too naive and pollyanna-like of me to ask that extreme positions take one small step toward the middle when posting to this forum?

You are asking people to water down their own opinions and pretend to be something they are not?

Why don't you just go ahead and kill it then since the children are being so bad. Or don't you have the balls? I'm sick of having to watch over my shoulder everytime I post on this board for fear of the all mighty "ban button." That's the only kind of power you have and you absolutely get off on it. This is why I won't give up cash for this site. I can pay money and be regulated and babysat like I'm a child somewhere else. I can even do it for free. And even no one else will say it for fear of being alienaited, I'm not the only one who thinks this way.

Go ahead and ban me, have a good jolly doing it, as I've been lurking for a while, but I've grown tired of the back and forth bickering and "moderation."

As Requested.....see you in Six Months.....Maybe

Then let's rephrase it. I'll be the government. I'd like to buy your house. I'll decide what to pay you for it. You won't be allowed to buy another.

Was your house confiscated, or not?



Let's analyze that statement, too.

What is being advocated is that defenseless people be allowed to protect their lives and property against the (well documented) increase in crime brought about by gun confiscations.

It is neither moral nor proper for the wishes of the majority to endanger the lives and property of the minority.

I think it would be more ideal to ask people to shift their opinion of others on this forum a small step towards the middle.

Agreed, and that had been my intention, though not stated clearly enough. Taking a small step in the shoe's of another, if you will.

;)

This is a topic for another debate, but with globalization I personally think it's rather a mistake to have such a big distinction between the two anymore. Our domestic policy of minimum wage effects Japanese businesses that build factories here, for instance. But that's for another thread.

I agree with you that if their government is harboring and funding terrorists who intend to attack our country, we should do something about it.

But I don't agree with you that Iraq fit that criteria. And even if it sorta did, there are plenty of other targets that fit it better. Saudi Arabia for one.

So while I agree that we need to stop those who would hurt us, I disagree with your idea that we are currently doing that.


Need I remind you that our whole conflict with Hussein started when our current president's dad got annoyed with Iraq for invading Kuwait?





Again, no argument there. But Iraq hadn't done that. And that crap about shooting at planes in the no fly zones is NOT an act of war against us. That's a retaliation to an act of war on our part. Look at it this way. If Russia started overflying Washington DC with MiGs and backfire bombers, don't you think we'd probably be inclined to shoot at them? We first invaded Iraq, decimated its military, then proceeded to fly our war machines over their soil. They had every right to retaliate, futile though the gesture might be.


A careful read of my post will tell you that I was making it clear that YOU are not the only one using this tactic, that you did not invent it, and in fact that you are merely parroting it. In other words, I'm deflecting most of the blame off of you and on to the leaders of your party.

I'm not sure this is the right topic to place this article, but it is a liberal summation of our current state of affairs. I would agree that if we blink we may miss something.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/070705Y.shtml

Interesting Times
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Thursday 07 July 2005

Many an ancient lord's last words have been, "You can't kill me because I've got magic aaargh."
-- Terry Pratchett

The British are getting ready to evacuate their military forces from Iraq and send them to Afghanistan. Anyone who thinks the Afghan war has been won and is over needs to think again. 54 American soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan in the last six months alone, compared to 52 in all of last year. While this number does not compare to the 1,748 US troops killed in Iraq, the two-fold increase in casualties over half a year is noteworthy. Taliban and al Qaeda fighters occupy caves, villages and mountain passes along the Pakistan border, and regional experts believe their presence will require an indefinite American military presence in that country.

Meanwhile, the war in Iraq burns on while Bush's biggest ally is preparing to haul stakes. US military forces are so stretched that Reservists who last saw action in Vietnam are being called back into service. Poverty within the Iraqi populace has become so severe that citizens are selling their kidneys on the black market for long dollars. It is a booming trade; some 5,000 Iraqis suffer from a variety of renal diseases caused by decades of sanction-created dirty water and lack of medicine, so kidneys are worth their weight in gold on the Iraqi street.

Alberto Gonzales looks to be the next Supreme Court Justice, a choice that will cause progressives to grind their teeth because he argued in favor of torture, and will cause the Evangelical Right to lose its collective mind because he is not "solid" on the issue of abortion. If Gonzales does in fact become the nominee, the stage will be set for a two-pronged assault on the White House from the Left and, more importantly, from the far Right.

Matthew Cooper is going to testify, and Judy Miller is going to jail. Cooper, the reporter from Time Magazine who received the leak regarding CIA agent Valerie Plame, was staring down the barrel of confinement until he folded and agreed to cooperate with Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation. This comes on the heels of the revelation that White House consigliore Karl Rove was one of Cooper's sources on this matter. Rove's attorney has claimed Karl did not "knowingly" expose Plame, but Cooper's testimony may rip that shroud down the middle.

Miller, a reporter for the New York Times, is being fitted for a prison jumper and will sit in a cell until she changes her mind about cooperating with Fitzgerald. Miller, it should be noted, is being touted as some kind of martyr for the First Amendment and the need for journalists to protect their sources. She is, to be blunt, a crappy poster-child for this all-important requirement, and this situation augers toward the creation of odd legal precedent. Miller is not merely protecting a source, but is protecting a criminal who violated national security in order to exact political revenge ordered by the White House. The lawyers involved are certainly going to earn their fees trying to thread this particular needle.

One thing is sure: Whoever leaked Plame's name is having a bad day. Be it Rove or Cheney confidant Lewis Libby or some other unknown actor, the fact that Cooper is singing to a Grand Jury raises the specter of charges coming down for perjury and obstruction of justice at a minimum, with treason lurking at the far side of things.

The fellow on the arm of Ms. Plame, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, smells the brimstone on the wind. Reached for comment regarding the imprisonment of Miller, Wilson stated, "The sentencing of Judith Miller to jail for refusing to disclose her sources is the direct result of the culture of unaccountability that infects the Bush White House from top to bottom. President Bush's refusal to enforce his own call for full cooperation with the Special Counsel has brought us to this point."

"Clearly," continued Wilson, "the conspiracy to cover up the web of lies that underpinned the invasion of Iraq is more important to the White House than coming clean on a serious breach of national security. Thus has Ms. Miller joined my wife, Valerie, and her twenty years of service to this nation as collateral damage in the smear campaign launched when I had the temerity to challenge the President on his assertion that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium yellowcake from Africa. The real victims of this cover-up, which may have turned criminal, are the Congress, the Constitution and, most tragically, the Americans and Iraqis who have paid the ultimate price for Bush's folly."

Indeed.

Maybe ten thousand times in the last few years, someone has stated with profound assurance that the Bush administration is in trouble, that the hammer is coming down, that some form of accountability is in the offing. Maybe ten thousand times, these predictions have turned out to be wrong. Nowadays, it takes a special kind of fool to think this White House can be easily cashiered for its gross violations, lies and flat-out crimes.

But it is getting awfully crowded around here. Bush's numbers are still cratering, the nation has stopped buying into the idea that he is some kind of Great Protector, the Brits are bugging out of the chaos in Iraq, Afghanistan is heating up, the Jesus Brigades on Bush's right flank are preparing to wig out unless they get some kind of Falwell clone onto the court, and one of the journalists used to destroy the career of a CIA operative who worked to rid the world of weapons of mass destruction is cooperating with a prosecutor.

And then there's this from Dan Froomkin, published by the Washington Post: "More than four in 10 Americans, according to a recent Zogby poll, say that if President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment ... The impeachment question was part of a Zogby International poll conducted early last week, and released on Thursday. It found that Bush's job approval ratings had slipped a point from the previous week, to 43 percent. But the jaw-dropper was that 42 percent said they would favor impeachment proceedings if it is found that the president misled the nation about his reasons for going to war with Iraq."

Don't blink this week. You might miss something.

Oh my. Couldn't happen to a nicer fellow. Coming on the heels of the whiff of the ghost of the possibility of Karl Rove in an orange jumpsuit, that may be the first morale booster for the left since before the media slaughtered Howard Dean and someone posted www. johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com.

Maybe, just maybe, next mid terms....

Well, like I said about Rove, I'm not going to heat the tar up yet, but it's definitely time to start stocking up on feathers.

I certainly must have blinked because this is the first I have read of the Brit's pulling out of Iraq to shore up Afghanistan. Has anyone else heard of this?

(If this is drifting too far off topic, please let me know).

Elphaba,

I posted these in my looooong post on pg.2 in the "attack in London" thread as
support for my theory that it was "time" for a domestic "terrorist" attack to restore the "resolve" of constituents increasingly unhappy with Bush and Blair's 'war"..............

That analogy is complete nonesense.

No. It is neither moral nor proper that the selfish interests of the minority go against the public will of the MAJORITY.

Or have you forgotten or abandoned the concept of democracy?


Mr Mephisto