Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The New Responsible Political Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Funny you site such a leftwing site as that --- you know, since you're not left-wing and all.
    I like how he posted 9/11 conspiracy crap, and then expects us to not believe that perhaps - PERHAPS - he's not a bit of a liberal.

    The PLO viewed the Oslo Accords as a "hudna" and fully intended to wipe out Israel once they could. Hezbollah, no doubt, views the current ceasefire identically.
    You know they do.

    Hizbollah: Countdown has begun to end of Zionist entity

    Credit: Ynetnews. And MikeSC.

    As I said elsewhere, the news coverage of this conflict has been sickening, as many media outlets have been presenting ISRAEL as the nation that is likeliest to break the ceasefire, even though they're rolling out tanks and military from Lebanon even now, while in the last couple days (since the ceasefire was announced), Hezbollah has not ceased AT ALL to stop firing rockets at Israeli cities.
    "I don't find myself in the same luxury as you. You grew up in freedom, and you can spit on freedom, because you don't know what it is not to have freedom." ---Ayaan Hirsi Ali

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Der Mike
      One can make safe assumptions based on what you write, to be perfectly honest.
      If one paid closer attention, one would also read that I vote mostly Independent but do tend to favor Democrats over Republicans. What I actually SAID was that my politics lean left.
      My asking not to be labelled that way was because he was not using the term to be descriptive:
      Liberal Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
      Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
      Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
      Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

      According to the definition, I am liberal.

      Conservative
      Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
      Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
      Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.
      Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
      Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.

      The label 'Liberal' has become a way to draw a deformed caricature of a person instead of actually describing their beliefs. If more people knew the actual definition of liberal and conservative, they would likely be more willing to admit to being liberal. So, though I am liberal by definition, I am not by the altered meaning that he was implying.

      The "controversy", as I pointed out, is based on non-existant beliefs and a lack of education.

      Thus, it's not a "controversy". It's a "lack of knowledge".
      Lack of knowledge? Okay, you are seriously coming off as condescending now. In fact, most of your responses have been extremely condescending. Demanding evidence and not providing any of your own. I have cited websites and definitions. You have criticised every single one of them. I have even agreed with you on some issues where I thought you made some sense. You are an extremely intelligent person, but it comes of as more rhetoric than true knowledge. You are a skilled debater and my hats off to you. But this is circular. It doesn't appear that the aim of this conversation is to share ideas, it more seems like you are aiming to just dethread my entire belief system, which by the way has taken me many years to develop and is based on the fact that I read, watch and listen to things that happen around me. Not just what pundits tell me. Where are you gaining your insights from?
      Where did you get your law degree? Is Starbound correct? Are you indeed a lawyer?

      And why do you remember Clinton's blowjob?
      Because Rush will not ley anyone forget it. Every time anything comes up on the posting boards that shows a mis-step by Bush in Iraq, economy, public opinion, etc. , the posters get on and you see posts like this: "Clinton Got a Blow Job" ... I say who cares? His lie was awful ... but we are dealing with what BUSH is doing to day not what Clinton did while in office. But it's in those people that I see the ignorance and lack of knowledge, and unwillingness to see that the President is even capable of a single mistake that you are speaking of.
      Because Reno refused to investigate the MASSIVE violations of the law in his 1996 campaign, where he took tons of money from the Chinese.

      When most of the major players in a scandal run to China for protection --- which DID happen there --- you have a problem.
      So, now Janet Reno is the mastermind behind it? One person? So, why has there been no public outcry on this? I'm all for frying people for breaking the law, yes, even Clinton ... but I guess proof is the issue?
      Except Ken Lay had more to do with Clinton than Bush. And Abramoff was neck-deep with Democrats --- including Sen. Reid who refuses to give back any of the money he took from Jack's clients, saying it's a "Republican problem" --- just to clarify. And you didn't mention Jefferson. Odd.
      Now this is not true. "Kenny Boy" Lay, a nickname given to him by George W. Bush, was the largest donor to the Bush campaign.
      Furthermore, evidence clearly shows a close relationship between the two:
      Ken Lay, former chairman of bankrupt energy giant Enron Corp, often sought President George W Bush's support for business projects and legislation when Bush was governor of Texas, according to correspondence released on Friday.

      The documents, which include a number of notes and letters released by state archivists, show a close personal relationship between the two men as well as an alliance built on common political and business interests.

      "I wish to thank you for your efforts to find a middle ground on the debate regarding electricity industry restructuring in Texas," Lay wrote to Bush in a June 5, 1997 letter on Enron stationary.

      "Of course we would have liked to have accomplished more, but realistically, the issue would not have moved nearly as far as it did without your involvement, and for that Enron is deeply grateful."

      Enron and Lay Were Strong Supporters of Bush and Republicans. Kenneth Lay, Enron's CEO, was a Bush Pioneer in 2000, raising at least $100,000 for the Bush Presidential campaign. Enron gave $1,114,490 to the RNC, $300,000 to the Bush inaugural, and $113,800 directly to Bush's presidential campaign from Enron employees. Lay was also a co-chairman of an April 2000 RNC gala tribute to Bush, meaning that he raised or contributed at least $250,000 for that event. At the time, Enron was Bush's largest career patron. Furthermore, as the Financial Times reported, "Perhaps the greatest example of Mr. Lay's cache was an affectionate nickname from President Bush - 'Kenny Boy' - which reflected his close ties to the White House as both a donor and adviser." (San Diego Union-Tribune, 2/11/01; Atlanta Journal- Constitution, 4/27/00; Financial Times, 7/8/04; Center for Responsive Politics, http://www.crp.org; Political Money Line, http://www.tray.com)

      Ken Lay DID have plenty to do with Clinton. His scandal broke too early in Bush's career for the two to Capitalize on their friendship. But Lay was to have a position in Bush's cabinet. Clinton never offrered any such thing.

      And if Democrats are indicted due to dealings with Abramoff, I have no problem with it. I say clean house and get all of the criminals out of there.
      Except he wasn't on his way to vote. He said that because they cannot be pulled over in that situation. It was, in layman's terms, a blatant abuse of power to get out of legal trouble.
      Which, is even worse. But I don't know why you think I would condone his behavior on any level. You write to me as if you believe I think what he did was okay.
      You know, what people say Bush did without, you know, any proof.
      Gee well, y'know. There is only all of the photographic evidence, news reports, video footage, news articles of his daily actions ... I guess if you are looking for courtroom evidence I'd have to get out the old file cabinet and produce it for you. This method of asking to produce proof in an online forum is getting tiring and is just a diversionary tactic. Go through these threads and demand proof from every one else who makes a claim as well. My claims are based off of years of watching the President and not agreeing with choices and decisions he makes. Like most of what you espouse, it's opinion based on the information I have seen for years. I have a feeling I could pull up a hundred articles that talk about Bush's drunk driving and you would still say that there's no proof. If you go down that slippery slope, you can't prove anything. Short of requesting the actual arrest documents (Which yuo say would be off the record by now). Perhaps you can do that if you truly are that interested ... but I don't have the time nor the inclination to.
      "If I could be a bird, I'd be a Flying Purple People Eater because then people would sing about me and I could fly down and eat them because I hate that song. " - Jack Handey

      Comment


      • #78
        continued

        But don't let anybody label you negatively, right?
        I addressed that earlier. AND I was making an observation, merely my opinion, to which I am fully entitled, in a forum where opinions are the order of the day, based off of the statements that you had made in your posts. See, if you call me a liberal, chances are that you know the actual meaning of the word. I would not be insulted.
        Except that those who disagree with you want to go back to a feudal system.
        Outside of THAT, no, you don't see in black and white.
        Yeah ... uh huh ... sure. Now you are just purposely baiting me. But, I have the feeling you have been baiting me all along. Still, I would say that I have at least found a few things to agree with you upon ... therefore your 'black and white' comment is null. You on the other hand, have not found any common ground with me and have been deliberately condescending in your replies. I must say though, that I find your method of beating me to death with a nerf bat rather amusing. I mean, if you read back, you have clearly had the upper hand in this debate and I keep coming back. You have to be laughing to yourself by now. As I said, you are a skilled debater ... but I'm a skeptic and because of that, I will always question. I may be way off base sometimes, but at least I don't lay down and just take it. If it means anything to you, I have learned quite a bit from our discourse. I know I'm not always right. I am human ... but then again ... so are you.
        Funny you site such a leftwing site as that --- you know, since you're not left-wing and all.
        I said I wasn't left-wing? No, I said I wasn't Liberal according to the slanderous term implied. Anyhow, I'm no wing, I'm the whole bird.
        And they said that 350 were convicted IN HISTORY. Not how many were convicted. And how many of them were falsely believed to be innocent by the leftist intellegentsia, such as Sacco and Vanzetti?
        You and I must have read different sites. the copy and paste I did clearly says "This century".
        Yes, the Dems don't "slander" the right at all. It's always the right slandering the left. If you want to play the "you don't know my politics" game, don't make your politics obvious.
        I didn't say that the dems didn't slander the Reps. If I did, please provide proof. I was saying that the dems have not found an effective way to counter it. They always try to 'play it nice' which is a mistake with such and active and determined opponent. Running people like Kerry and Hillary Clinton doesn't help either.

        Yes. Absolutely no evidence, whatsoever, exists that it happened.

        They've never found one person to corrorborate that one person's story. No "script" has ever been found of the call. Nothing at all.

        So, until some evidence is presented --- no, it is not believed anymore than I believe Clinton ran drugs out of an Arkansas airport.
        -=Mike
        Apparently, you haven't seen the video footage of McCain during the debate, telling Bush that he should be ashamed of himself. I guess someone hired actors that looked like them and they simply made it all up so you could stand there and tell me that it isn't so.

        Dole agrees. Bush used dirty tricks against McCain

        McCain to Bush: "You should be ashamed"

        Video. "You should be ashamed"
        "If I could be a bird, I'd be a Flying Purple People Eater because then people would sing about me and I could fly down and eat them because I hate that song. " - Jack Handey

        Comment


        • #79
          Reality Check

          Originally posted by Der Mike
          Or, in this case, has studied any type of history whatsoever.

          In a stunning turn of events, Babylon 5 is not, you know, the real world.

          We know --- for a fact --- that Hezbollah and Lebanon have blatantly invented atrocities out of nothing. They use dead bodies as photo op props.

          How do we know? Because WE HAVE VIDEO OF THEM DOING IT.

          Notice, we don't have Israel doing it.

          One side views death as a tragedy; the other views it as a marketing opportunity.

          It's a blatant reference to Nazis. The people we're dealing with are significantly worse than Hitler. And people want to negotiate with a group who have a long history of entering peace agreements until they have regrouped enough to break them. It's a common practice (the "hudna") and has been a common practice for centuries in Islam.

          The PLO viewed the Oslo Accords as a "hudna" and fully intended to wipe out Israel once they could. Hezbollah, no doubt, views the current ceasefire identically.
          -=Mike
          I guess I should have expected this kind of condescension from an elitist such as yourself, but for your information I am well aware that Babylon 5 is not the real world. I made that reference because this site is a spinoff of a Babylon 5 site. and I found it a convenient reference. However, one of the reasons I do feel the series is relevant is that it served as an extremely facinating mirror of how decisions and feelings whether personal or national can be interpreted, misintrpreted, misguided, misused...etc., etc.

          By the way if one cared to dig through reams of file footage, once would find numerous reports of the abusive treatment that Israel inflicted upon the Palestinians, as well. I have seen reports that told of the Palestinians being walled off and denied education, business opportunity and even general freedoms. These were restricted by various methods that included sanctions, curfews and constant policing which stymied growth options considerably. Had this been done to the Israelies we would never have heard the end of it. Sometimes when we fight very hard to escape oppression, we become just exactly what we are running from.

          I'm not against Israel, but I get sick and tired of anyone who "dares" to even challenge a single thing Israel does being called an anti-semite. Truthfully though, that is just the way people are these days. They don't want to discuss anything, their only goal is to stifle any descent...so I guess you're right, George Bush is the perfect president for these times.

          Further, you seem to require others to provide a written statement of proof of everything they say. Of course, you know that would take forever, but I notice you don't include much of that yourself. Why, because much of what we learn and know is an accumulation of knowledge, experience and instinct. You would have us believe that only one of these things is important, but I strongly disagree. It's a great intellectual arguement, but it really doesn't work that way in that real world you were shoving down my throat earlier.

          Of course, you'll love this, because it is another Hollywood reference, but it is a good illustration of what I'm trying to say. In the movie Patton, after Patton defeats Romel he says "Romel, I read your book you Bastard!" Now this does prove that knowledge is a necessary component of winning, but it also shows that Patton had to have the ability to accumulate bits and pieces of knowledge and information and then have the "instinct" to figure out how his opponent might use them. I know, in a sense you could call that knowlege too, but it goes beyond that it goes to a "sense" of things that transcends mere fact finding. Therefore to dismiss someone's peronal belief systems based on presentation of facts, that may have in all reality been erradicated or at the least suppressed is short sighted. Of course, it's convenient if all you want to do is talk over someone else and try to make them look small so that you can "shock and awe" others into following your lead. Many discount "experience as a teacher", also, but that is a big mistake, because no one person can have had the individual experences of each and every person that they talk to. Resultingly, there will always be something that you didn't see or were unaware of. It's the old "walk a mile in their shoes" thing, but nobody wants to do that anymore either. It's too easy to stand at the top of the mountain and look down at the those who had neither the health, preparation or ability to make the climb. For all our rhetoric, this is why I believe that America is no longer a Christian Nation. Christ would have cared for those at the base of the mountain.

          If I made any "blatant" reference to "Nazis" it is because of the attitude of the "hard-core Christian right as of late. Recently, ""Charlie Rose" interviewed a fascinating Jewish author. Unfortunately, I don't remember his name, but he said one thing that I found extremely relevant to the situation today. he said tht the "new" Christianity being espoused today (especially in the United States) was really nothing like the original concepts espoused in earlier christianity. His statement was "This new Christianity with Jesus Christ as CEO" was nothing like the original Judeo/Christianity". (This is paraphrasing slightly but close enough to the original statement to keep the content in tact.) I agree completely. The churches I see today are nothing like the churches I grew up in. Today's Christians act more like Darwinians, survival of the fittest etc. etc! When these holier than though Christ-mongers proclaim their righteousness for all the world to hear and then break every tenant that bound the faith...it is extremely depressing. By the way, I consider myself a Christian. I was brought up in the Catholic Faith but have attended many other churches and read many other opinions, but I can only tell you that I agree with the the Jewish guy.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by starbound
            By the way if one cared to dig through reams of file footage, once would find numerous reports of the abusive treatment that Israel inflicted upon the Palestinians, as well. I have seen reports that told of the Palestinians being walled off and denied education, business opportunity and even general freedoms. These were restricted by various methods that included sanctions, curfews and constant policing which stymied growth options considerably. Had this been done to the Israelies we would never have heard the end of it. Sometimes when we fight very hard to escape oppression, we become just exactly what we are running from.
            Here's a webpage full of refutions to all of that drivel you just spewed. It's the SECOND time I've had to post a link to that particular website here, because apparently some of you have a hard time relinquishing the propaganda against Israel.

            Here's an interesting tidbit you might find enlightening. As recent as 2003, a New York Times article reported that Palestinians prefer the government of ISRAEL rather than that of other Arab nations, including their own:

            Despite all their criticism, when asked what governments they admire most, more than 80 percent of Palestinians consistently choose Israel because they can see up close the thriving democracy in Israel, and the rights the Arab citizens enjoy there. By contrast, Palstinians place Arab regimes far down the list, and their own Palestinian Authority at the bottom with only 20 percent saying they admire the corrupt Arafat regime in 2003

            Credit: James Bennet, ôLetter from the Middle East; Arab Showplace? Could It Be the West Bank?ö New York Times, (April 2, 2003).

            You're right, goddamn those Israelis for being SO oppressive towards Arabs.

            You want to right about knowledge and how it's a good thing, please read through that website I linked. It dispells a lot of myths about Israel that are casually tossed about every single freakin' day, by the media most of all.

            They don't want to discuss anything, their only goal is to stifle any descent...so I guess you're right, George Bush is the perfect president for these times.
            See, now I find this comment amusing. Because that's what a lot of liberals say. That Republicans are always trying to "stifle" dissent or free speech. Except they're incapable of noticing their own hypocrisy.

            Because so many on the left these days are tolerant of free speech only when it favors them. They love free speech.....until it's someone speaking out against them and their views. Love it, unless it's someone mocking them. Or it's coming form a conservative. Or a Christian. Or a "red-stater". If it's free speech coming from someone who drinks their kool-aid, it's cool; if it's from someone who disagrees with them, than they'll do what they can to stifle that speech as well. They just do it in different ways. Like calling someone a nazi, or a fascist, or a bigot, etc. Or, as with the case of people like Ann Coulter, they'll just yell and scream like children during her public speeches in order to shout her down.

            If you want to say that Republicans or conservatives stifle speech, you have to own up and realize that the other side does it no less often.

            It's like the old saying goes: People scream 'evil!' like a motherfucker - until it's their own.

            Then it's cool.

            If I made any "blatant" reference to "Nazis" it is because of the attitude of the "hard-core Christian right as of late.
            What was all this?

            Yeah, modern-day Christians are JUST like the Nazis.

            You know......a lot of Christians can be annoying. They're more passionate about silly shit, like gay marriage, than I think any human being should be. And they can be right prudes a lot of the time.

            But there's one particular religious ideology that's made it their mission lately to annihilate Jews, and fly planes into buildings, or BLOW UP planes in mid-flight, or lob rockets into Israeli cities......and it isn't the Jesus freaks.
            "I don't find myself in the same luxury as you. You grew up in freedom, and you can spit on freedom, because you don't know what it is not to have freedom." ---Ayaan Hirsi Ali

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Shadow-Sentient
              If one paid closer attention, one would also read that I vote mostly Independent but do tend to favor Democrats over Republicans. What I actually SAID was that my politics lean left.
              Hey, I have some Libertarian leanings.

              I'm still a conservative and don't have a problem saying as much.
              My asking not to be labelled that way was because he was not using the term to be descriptive:
              Liberal Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
              Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
              Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
              And that definition --- classical liberalism --- is actually embodied in American conservatism...
              Lack of knowledge? Okay, you are seriously coming off as condescending now. In fact, most of your responses have been extremely condescending.
              Trying to enlighten you. If you take that as condescension, I cannot help you. I assumed you'd want erroneous beliefs or outright false assumptions of yours to be corrected.
              Demanding evidence and not providing any of your own. I have cited websites and definitions. You have criticised every single one of them.
              With little difficulty too, I might add.
              I have even agreed with you on some issues where I thought you made some sense. You are an extremely intelligent person, but it comes of as more rhetoric than true knowledge. You are a skilled debater and my hats off to you. But this is circular. It doesn't appear that the aim of this conversation is to share ideas, it more seems like you are aiming to just dethread my entire belief system, which by the way has taken me many years to develop and is based on the fact that I read, watch and listen to things that happen around me.
              But if it is based on fallacies and errors --- what good is your belief system?
              Not just what pundits tell me. Where are you gaining your insights from? Where did you get your law degree? Is Starbound correct? Are you indeed a lawyer?
              Nope. Not a lawyer.
              Because Rush will not ley anyone forget it. Every time anything comes up on the posting boards that shows a mis-step by Bush in Iraq, economy, public opinion, etc. , the posters get on and you see posts like this: "Clinton Got a Blow Job"
              And I suppose one single instance of him ACTUALLY doing that is soon forthcoming...

              What you wrote here is a CARICATURE of Rush. It's not REALITY.
              ... I say who cares? His lie was awful ... but we are dealing with what BUSH is doing to day not what Clinton did while in office. But it's in those people that I see the ignorance and lack of knowledge, and unwillingness to see that the President is even capable of a single mistake that you are speaking of.
              Funny, because Vyce can pretty easily go down my list of problems with Bush. I've listed them quite frequently.
              So, now Janet Reno is the mastermind behind it? One person?
              Well, since she had the power to name investigators and did not so she could keep a job she was woefully inadequate to hold...yeah.
              So, why has there been no public outcry on this?
              Because the press --- which, according to some, is in the backpocket of Republicans --- decided it wasn't worth mentioning too much.

              Do some research and it's REALLY hard to miss the significant problems.

              Just as an example (and a quite well known one): Al Gore had a fund-raiser at a Buddhist Temple. The Buddhists, of course, had taken a vow of poverty, which makes the whole thing seem like a bit of a money laundering scheme.
              I'm all for frying people for breaking the law, yes, even Clinton ... but I guess proof is the issue?
              When the targets flee to China for protection --- kinda hard to investigate.

              But really awfully suspicious, no?
              Now this is not true. "Kenny Boy" Lay, a nickname given to him by George W. Bush, was the largest donor to the Bush campaign.
              The name was actually given to him by his wife and Bush overheard it a while back.

              Source: Ken Lay's wife in the excellent documentary "Smartest Guys in the Room" --- available on DVD.
              Furthermore, evidence clearly shows a close relationship between the two:
              Ken Lay, former chairman of bankrupt energy giant Enron Corp, often sought President George W Bush's support for business projects and legislation when Bush was governor of Texas, according to correspondence released on Friday.
              Which is, to be generous, immaterial as Bush didn't bail him out nor did he avoid prosecuting him.

              Clinton, on the other hand, HELPED Enron get some of its infamous projects, such as the plant in Dabhol, India.
              Ken Lay DID have plenty to do with Clinton. His scandal broke too early in Bush's career for the two to Capitalize on their friendship. But Lay was to have a position in Bush's cabinet. Clinton never offrered any such thing.
              Nor did Bush --- as, you know, Lay wasn't in his cabinet and all.

              BTW, as a heads up, Lay was close to Bush Sr FAR more than he was close to Bush Jr.

              Source: "Smartest Guys in the Room" --- available now on DVD.
              Which, is even worse. But I don't know why you think I would condone his behavior on any level. You write to me as if you believe I think what he did was okay.
              I cannot even fathom how you came away with that assumption, since I said he lied and abused his power to try and get out of trouble.
              Gee well, y'know. There is only all of the photographic evidence, news reports, video footage, news articles of his daily actions ... I guess if you are looking for courtroom evidence I'd have to get out the old file cabinet and produce it for you. This method of asking to produce proof in an online forum is getting tiring and is just a diversionary tactic. Go through these threads and demand proof from every one else who makes a claim as well. My claims are based off of years of watching the President and not agreeing with choices and decisions he makes. Like most of what you espouse, it's opinion based on the information I have seen for years. I have a feeling I could pull up a hundred articles that talk about Bush's drunk driving and you would still say that there's no proof. If you go down that slippery slope, you can't prove anything. Short of requesting the actual arrest documents (Which yuo say would be off the record by now). Perhaps you can do that if you truly are that interested ... but I don't have the time nor the inclination to.
              This is where providing said proof --- since I already said I don't buy it --- would be helpful.
              -=Mike

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Shadow-Sentient
                I addressed that earlier. AND I was making an observation, merely my opinion, to which I am fully entitled, in a forum where opinions are the order of the day, based off of the statements that you had made in your posts. See, if you call me a liberal, chances are that you know the actual meaning of the word. I would not be insulted.
                When I call you liberal, I am not remotely referring to the classical definition but the modern definition of somebody who supports the state running an ever-increasing list of areas in your everyday life.
                Yeah ... uh huh ... sure. Now you are just purposely baiting me.
                You call it "baiting". I call it "pointing out rampant inconsistency".
                But, I have the feeling you have been baiting me all along. Still, I would say that I have at least found a few things to agree with you upon ... therefore your 'black and white' comment is null. You on the other hand, have not found any common ground with me and have been deliberately condescending in your replies.
                Most of what you said is, to be generous, incorrect. No, it is not terribly meaningful to me. I do not dislike you and I do feel you truly believe what you write --- but I do know that a lot of what you write is factually incorrect.

                For example, if Vyce here was to write about legal precedents, there isn't a lot I could say to disagree since he IS a lawyer and knows them significantly better than I.
                I didn't say that the dems didn't slander the Reps. If I did, please provide proof.
                Fair enough. But when you complain of one side doing it and ignore that the other does the same, then you are giving tacit approval for one side's behavior.
                I was saying that the dems have not found an effective way to counter it. They always try to 'play it nice' which is a mistake with such and active and determined opponent. Running people like Kerry and Hillary Clinton doesn't help either.
                And that's where the inference is made. "Play it nice". The Dems don't "play it nice". They've never "played it nice".

                Goldwater wanted to nuke little girls.
                Reagan was a complete idiot.
                Bush raised taxes and the Dems didn't agree (ignoring that they called for it)
                Bush Jr is responsible for what happened post-Katrina.

                No, the Dems have had few qualms about being quite mean. I've not even mentioned the outright offensive ads and comments made by the Dems over the decades.
                Apparently, you haven't seen the video footage of McCain during the debate, telling Bush that he should be ashamed of himself.
                I'd like some proof of the scandal --- McCain's word just isn't quite enough.

                Again, do some research on it. The amount of "evidence" to support it is flimsy to non-existant.
                I guess someone hired actors that looked like them and they simply made it all up so you could stand there and tell me that it isn't so.
                If Bush said that Hillary was the anti-Christ --- would his accusation alone be enough to prove it?

                Or would you expect SOME semblance of evidence?

                I'd expect evidence, personally.

                A politician saying "You should be ashamed" is one thing. Proof that ANYTHING happened is another.

                Remember, Hoover thought Martin Luther King Jr was a Communist. Didn't have proof, mind you --- but the charge was enough, right?
                -=Mike

                Comment


                • #83
                  Screaming Evil

                  I think, you just made my point! With both sides consistently screaming evil...the debate is relentless. I was talking about standing back and trying to see that "everyone" was calling everyone else evil. Remember the old "Buffalo Springfield" song that said "If everybody's right, then everybody's wrong". I feel that was one of the best statements, I'd ever heard.

                  No, you're right (in more ways than one), people other than hard core conservatives don't like to hear the "free speech" assertions of the opposition any better than the right-wingers, but we're not near as likely to have people arrested at our conventions for wearing opposition tee shirts or barred from events for having a difference of opinion. But you're right, we're human; so we can be intolerent too...but we, at least, still realize that our "honorable opponents" have the "right" to their positions no matter how heartless and oppressive. (Sorry...couldn't resist!)

                  Unfortunately, in the end this isn't about Israel or the Palestinians, it isn't even about what used to be the United States of America. It's about a group of international power brokers who want ultimate control of the planet's merchandising rights. Go ahead and roll your eyes, it doesn't bother me. A psychology professor once told me that the larger the reaction you get from an assertion, the closer you got to the truth. So, I fully expect you to call me a conspiracy theorist...whatever! The sad fact is that the middle class of our society has been kept so fat, dumb and happy, they haven't bothered to look at the rug that is swiftly being pulled out from under their feet.

                  By the way, I consider myself an Independent, now, and have been for some time, so I'm not into the Repubs's vs the Demos diversion. I have also noticed a lot more Americans are calling themselves Independents, these days.. It is especially clear in the letters to the editor and the public opinion sections of our local papers. Why do you think that is? Well, I'm guessing that a lot of people are waking up to the corruption on both sides of the "traditional" aisle in this country. That is why most people who "carefully watch" what is going on try to keep an open mind. As long as they keep us at each others throats, we won't have much time or inclination to really look at what they're doing. The congress and the senate remind me of the lawyers who treat each other with absolute scorn and indignation during the trial and then go out for drinks, afterward, and laugh at how idiotic their clients were. The Israelis and the Palistinians, the Democrats and the Republicans, the religious right and the less aggressive Christians...all such delicious diversions for the cruel and vicious reality.

                  By the way, one of the churches I attended was a right-wing fundamentist church, led by none other than Hal Lindsey, the author of "The Late Great Planet Earth". I found him fascinating, at first, until I realized that he was running more of a political machine than a church. I did enjoy his analysis of prophecy, however, as it is a tremendously interesting study no matter where you stand on it. According to Hal and Friends, the biblical "Harlot" is false religion...of course, every church, especially his, thinks that the false religion is someone elses. There again, "crying evil like a motherf----r without realizing your own". (Thank you, I like that quote) I personally have another concept, but either way we can argue till the hot place freezes over (which may happen, come to think of it) if we choose to. But as long as Lindsey thinks that false religion is the devil, how about the new religion of Perpetual Greed. Let's see, we have the power brokers as our new apostles and saints. Donald Trump as our most worshiped redeemer: redeeming us from the curse of conscience, mercy or compassion. Then of course there are the warrior Gods, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield who sitteth at the right hand of the oil and energy fields all mighty, and when our "terrible foes become scary and "perturbed" we have the Great Medussa Goddess Rice to terrify them into submission. Hmm...this is looking pretty good, might be a story in this! Then we have the angels of light who have descended into that great Babylon, now called Hollywood. Consistently they raise our consciousness to the realization that unearthly beauty alone is the greatest reason for worship. Of course inherent in that estate, the wealth that is only "earned" by trophyism is considered just reward for being of the "slim and the chosen". Herein lies the beating heart of the Great God Saddism who punishes and banishes, at will, all who do not worship at the foot of the Great Lord Studio System. Yeah, now I'm just ranting, but sometimes it's a fun diversion, and frankly a lot less depressing than reality...or is this really the reality? I'm feeling kind of Matrixy right now.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by starbound
                    I guess I should have expected this kind of condescension from an elitist such as yourself, but for your information I am well aware that Babylon 5 is not the real world. I made that reference because this site is a spinoff of a Babylon 5 site. and I found it a convenient reference.
                    But when discussing the real world, fictional worlds, while interesting, don't have a lot of merit. It'd be like me making He-Man references.
                    By the way if one cared to dig through reams of file footage, once would find numerous reports of the abusive treatment that Israel inflicted upon the Palestinians, as well. I have seen reports that told of the Palestinians being walled off and denied education, business opportunity and even general freedoms. These were restricted by various methods that included sanctions, curfews and constant policing which stymied growth options considerably. Had this been done to the Israelies we would never have heard the end of it. Sometimes when we fight very hard to escape oppression, we become just exactly what we are running from.
                    About the "video" of those "atrocities" committed by the Israelis:

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pallywood
                    http://www.seconddraft.org/movies.php

                    They've been caught, red-handed, doing it far too often to actually take them seriously any longer. The whole "Boy who cried wolf" syndrome.
                    Further, you seem to require others to provide a written statement of proof of everything they say. Of course, you know that would take forever, but I notice you don't include much of that yourself.
                    Feel free to request proof. I would be quite happy to oblige.
                    For all our rhetoric, this is why I believe that America is no longer a Christian Nation. Christ would have cared for those at the base of the mountain.
                    I would normally request that those who know precious little of Christianity cease from discussing it, but it seldom does any good.
                    If I made any "blatant" reference to "Nazis" it is because of the attitude of the "hard-core Christian right as of late.
                    Yes. I've seen the murders and assaults from Christians all of the time. It's a never-ending barrage.
                    Recently, ""Charlie Rose" interviewed a fascinating Jewish author. Unfortunately, I don't remember his name, but he said one thing that I found extremely relevant to the situation today. he said tht the "new" Christianity being espoused today (especially in the United States) was really nothing like the original concepts espoused in earlier christianity. His statement was "This new Christianity with Jesus Christ as CEO" was nothing like the original Judeo/Christianity". (This is paraphrasing slightly but close enough to the original statement to keep the content in tact.) I agree completely. The churches I see today are nothing like the churches I grew up in.
                    Seeing as how you have a rather visceral disdain for Christianity, I'm not overly concerned nor worried.
                    Today's Christians act more like Darwinians, survival of the fittest etc. etc! When these holier than though Christ-mongers proclaim their righteousness for all the world to hear and then break every tenant that bound the faith...it is extremely depressing. By the way, I consider myself a Christian.
                    Hey, Dr. Norman Finkelstein views himself as Jewish.

                    Doesn't take away from the fervently anti-Semitic swill he pushes to college campuses and the international left.
                    I was brought up in the Catholic Faith but have attended many other churches and read many other opinions, but I can only tell you that I agree with the the Jewish guy.
                    And that is grand. People can believe any of a wide variety of incorrect things.
                    -=Mike

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by starbound
                      I think, you just made my point! With both sides consistently screaming evil...the debate is relentless. I was talking about standing back and trying to see that "everyone" was calling everyone else evil. Remember the old "Buffalo Springfield" song that said "If everybody's right, then everybody's wrong". I feel that was one of the best statements, I'd ever heard.
                      So, Hitler thought he was right. We thought we were right.

                      Heck, who were WE to judge, right?

                      I mean, THIS is the kind of inanity that your opening declaration brings about. You seem to advocate moral relativism without once actually considering what all it entails.
                      No, you're right (in more ways than one), people other than hard core conservatives don't like to hear the "free speech" assertions of the opposition any better than the right-wingers, but we're not near as likely to have people arrested at our conventions for wearing opposition tee shirts or barred from events for having a difference of opinion.
                      Umm, excuse me?

                      Missed speech codes on college campuses, eh? Not passed by conservatives.

                      The attempts to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine"? Surely not conservative idea.

                      I don't see liberal student papers burned or stolen. You do see it happen to conservative papers.

                      You don't see liberal speakers shouted down or attacked with pies at colleges. Funny, you DO see that with conservatives.

                      Heck, the left was the most fervently gung-ho for campaign finance reform restrictions on the 1st Amendment --- and then gleefully exploited every loophole they could.

                      And you won't bar people from events for differences of opinion? Yup, explains those pro-life Democrats you see all of the time at the DNC, right?

                      I'm sure Lieberman would be amazed to hear of the Democrats' tolerance for differing viewpoints. Heck, the GOP is funding Lincoln Chaffee's Senate bid, and the man is more liberal than about 14 Democrat Senators.

                      So, please, do you have other tales that match the brazen lie of the left's approval of "free speech"?
                      But you're right, we're human; so we can be intolerent too...but we, at least, still realize that our "honorable opponents" have the "right" to their positions no matter how heartless and oppressive. (Sorry...couldn't resist!)
                      Well, repeat the same lie often enough and it becomes the truth, right?

                      I've already proven this point to be an outright lie.
                      Unfortunately, in the end this isn't about Israel or the Palestinians, it isn't even about what used to be the United States of America.
                      What "used to be"?
                      [quote]It's about a group of international power brokers who want ultimate control of the planet's merchandising rights. Go ahead and roll your eyes, it doesn't bother me. A psychology professor once told me that the larger the Wow. You mean segregationists were right and the groups that wanted racial equality ACTUALLY believed that blacks were inferior? I mean, there were some major events about racial equality in the past. Must've been a reaction to how truthful the assertion was --- right?

                      I know, offensive --- but the fact that you're offended shows it's true.

                      ...or does it show that your professor's empty platitude has absolutely no merit whatsoever?

                      Your psychology professor, to be generous, shouldn't be educating anybody. Well, he apparently ISN'T educating so much as expressing mindless gibberish --- but he shouldn't be in a position of educator.
                      So, I fully expect you to call me a conspiracy theorist...whatever! The sad fact is that the middle class of our society has been kept so fat, dumb and happy, they haven't bothered to look at the rug that is swiftly being pulled out from under their feet.
                      But, of course, you --- being so much wiser and more enlightened than they --- DO see the truth.

                      Wow, and people think I'm elitist.
                      By the way, I consider myself an Independent, now, and have been for some time, so I'm not into the Repubs's vs the Demos diversion. I have also noticed a lot more Americans are calling themselves Independents, these days.
                      People who lack the information or guts to have a position are not people to be applauded.
                      It is especially clear in the letters to the editor and the public opinion sections of our local papers.
                      You do realize that most papers view the letter writers as basically being insane, right?
                      Why do you think that is? Well, I'm guessing that a lot of people are waking up to the corruption on both sides of the "traditional" aisle in this country. That is why most people who "carefully watch" what is going on try to keep an open mind.
                      But you don't. At all. Normally I wouldn't care --- but when somebody whines that others don't do it, they had best be "open-minded" as well.
                      As long as they keep us at each others throats, we won't have much time or inclination to really look at what they're doing. The congress and the senate remind me of the lawyers who treat each other with absolute scorn and indignation during the trial and then go out for drinks, afterward, and laugh at how idiotic their clients were.
                      Would you prefer they engage in gang rumbles?
                      The Israelis and the Palistinians, the Democrats and the Republicans, the religious right and the less aggressive Christians...all such delicious diversions for the cruel and vicious reality.
                      But you --- yes, YOU are above that kind of tripe. You're too darned clever for it.
                      By the way, one of the churches I attended was a right-wing fundamentist church, led by none other than Hal Lindsey, the author of "The Late Great Planet Earth". I found him fascinating, at first, until I realized that he was running more of a political machine than a church.
                      Good.
                      I did enjoy his analysis of prophecy, however, as it is a tremendously interesting study no matter where you stand on it. According to Hal and Friends, the biblical "Harlot" is false religion...of course, every church, especially his, thinks that the false religion is someone elses. There again, "crying evil like a motherf----r without realizing your own". (Thank you, I like that quote) I personally have another concept, but either way we can argue till the hot place freezes over (which may happen, come to think of it) if we choose to. But as long as Lindsey thinks that false religion is the devil, how about the new religion of Perpetual Greed. Let's see, we have the power brokers as our new apostles and saints. Donald Trump as our most worshiped redeemer
                      Who worships Trump as anything but a rich dufus with a crap haircut? Stop trying to write "epic prose" and actually make a point with some semblance of logic behind it.
                      redeeming us from the curse of conscience, mercy or compassion. Then of course there are the warrior Gods, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield who sitteth at the right hand of the oil and energy fields all mighty, and when our "terrible foes become scary and "perturbed" we have the Great Medussa Goddess Rice to terrify them into submission.
                      Yup, that sounds DARNED open-minded right there. Whew, I was worried you had a political axe to grind. Clearly, I was mistaken.
                      -=Mike

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Wow ... where to begin DerMike?
                        Let's see...

                        People who lack the information or guts to have a position are not people to be applauded.
                        So, someone who chooses to be an Independant because both parties make them sick is lacking position, information and guts? On the contrary, they should be applauded. They HAVE made a decision and a move based on the knowledge that there are corrupt motherf***kers on both sides of the aisle and they believe in a third party coming in to return the balance of power that is so sorely out of whack these days. Someone as intelligent as you has no excuse for missing something as obvious as that.
                        Wow, and people think I'm elitist.
                        Yeah. We do. As much as you think we are uninformed, lacking information, and guts.
                        Yup, that sounds DARNED open-minded right there. Whew, I was worried you had a political axe to grind. Clearly, I was mistaken.
                        Says the pot to the kettle
                        I would normally request that those who know precious little of Christianity cease from discussing it, but it seldom does any good.
                        Care to share where your vast expertise in Christianity comes from? The Catholic church alone? Or are you more worldly and have studied the many different Chritian religions? Are you a Theologian? Do you have some sort of degree or certificate which makes you any more of an expert than Starbound? According to SB's comments, he/she seems to have spent some time researching religions. How about furnishing some proof to back your claims of having more knowledge about Christianity here? I mean, if you are going to make the implication ... no ... assertion that the poster in question doesn't know enough about Christianity to even approach the subject.
                        When I call you liberal, I am not remotely referring to the classical definition but the modern definition of somebody who supports the state running an ever-increasing list of areas in your everyday life.
                        Well, then you are simply being insulting and are in error in your belief of where my politics concerned. You can hold the opinion, I wont begrudge that ... but since it is me we are talking about here, I take exception and say that you are wrong.
                        Interesting how you think that classic liberalism is at the core of Conservative beliefs. I read both of those definitions. they are as opposite as can be. Furthermore, every rascist, every bigot, and almost every greedy person I know (within the context of the nebulous, of course) is a self-definied conservative.
                        Now my very closest friend is a Republican and I have a great deal of respect for him. He is conservative ... but in the way that I remember conservatives while growing up. Conservation, fiscal responsibility, less taxation on middle class.
                        Today's conservatives hold few to none of those qualities. They have become Big Business, monied interest, gay-hating, environment destroying, Jesus loving (but oddly not his actual teachings) hypocrites ... but the views they espouse are NOTHING like the definition of Liberalism. So, where you get that horse-hockey from is beyond me.
                        Let's examine again:
                        Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

                        Well you must not mean the Christian right ... because if they do not have Dogmas, traditions, Orthodoxy, Authoritarian attitudes, views, etc.

                        Hmmm I guess they are stinkin' Liberals.

                        Let's see ... 'free from Bigotry' ... hmmm none of the conservatives I've met fit that bill, save one or two and I think they are just confused. To be fair though, I know enough Self Proclaimed Liberals who don't fully fit that either. They tend to be the ones that won't stand up and condone gay marriage. Instead they say that they are for "Civil Services."
                        Horseshit I say. I don't care if homosexuals want to marry. That's their business. They don't nose into mine. As Bill Maher once said ... "I believe all marriages are same sex marriages. You get married and every night, it's the same sex."
                        If marriage is so sacred, and the Christians were truly not being hypocrites and obeying the commandment against infidelity (ie. not committing adultery) the divorce rate in this country wouldn't be so astoundingly high.
                        Times change and attitudes change. If we are going to allow "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" and "Will & Grace" to entertain us and accept homosexuals in that fashion, why does it matter whether or not homosexuals be allowed to marry. It doesn't. It's simply another way to play upon the bigotry of voters and get them to vote for a candidate that they normally wouldn't because they share this ONE hot-button issue in common. This was one major area where Democrats failed in the last election. They showed truly how politically limp they could go.
                        Bigotry, sadly, is alive and well in this country.
                        Trying to enlighten you. If you take that as condescension, I cannot help you. I assumed you'd want erroneous beliefs or outright false assumptions of yours to be corrected.
                        As I stated earlier, but you seemed to have somehow missed. I have learned a few things from the discourse with you. However, you produced no proof for many of your claims while asking for proof for mine. So, I am not going to take your explanations as Gospel, sorry. I don't feel like you are enlightening when you engage in the "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" debate. You aren't trying to enlighten at all ... you're trying to stalemate. You don't have to win a debate as long as you can stalemate it because then you win by default.
                        furthermore, you say you are trying to enlighten but I can actually hear the sarcasm dripping from some of your written responses. As if you had actually said them. So, yeah, you are coming off as condescending, yes.
                        But if it is based on fallacies and errors --- what good is your belief system?
                        Apparently as good as yours. Don't make the mistake of my admiring your intelligence as some sort of evidence that I believe everything you say. I see your beliefs as no more or less valid than my own.
                        What you wrote here is a caricature of Rush not how he really is
                        Um ... no, it is how he really is. Unless he's a closet Liberal and he's just not telling anyone. Perhaps he's just mad at Clinton because doesn't need prescription drugs and Viagra to be able to get a BJ.
                        Rush repeats ad-nauseum the offenses of Clinton. That's how he has made his living.
                        The infamous blow job is his favorite refrain and the favorite refrain of every ditto-head I've had the displeasure of trying to engage in any sort of political conversation.
                        Save for you of course, provided that you are a Rush listenener.
                        I do not dislike you and I do feel you truly believe what you write --- but I do know that a lot of what you write is factually incorrect.
                        Well, that I appreciate. However, it's obvious that you DO NOT know or else you would furnish evidence to the contrary since that seems to be your litmus test for showing credibility and plausibility to ones assertions.
                        I do not dislike you either and I feel that you truly believe what you write as well. You do however frustrate me ... more so, because you are much more skilled at debate. I should say that I am learning from your example though and will try to hone my debate skills. See you at the next Toastmaster meeting.
                        "If I could be a bird, I'd be a Flying Purple People Eater because then people would sing about me and I could fly down and eat them because I hate that song. " - Jack Handey

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Somewhat epic prose

                          You are tremendously amusing! I once had a boyfriend like you, I think he was depressed unless he was shredding someone or attempting to. Either way, my logic is fine, you just don't like it because it isn't your straight jacket, alliegence to the corps, anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot brand.

                          But actually, I enjoy your retorts (must be masochistic) as they are always pointed and clever. You also remind me of my brother; and everyone wonders why it took me years, after leaving home to regain my self esteem. However, I love him anyway and he really is bright and funny...and he is a lawyer.

                          As for my political axe...you are right, I do have my own views that tend to separate me from the rank and file, that is not elitist, that is just utilizing the option of choice and intellect. As for the duping of the middle class (and other) your are right again, I do think myself above it. However, rather than being an elitist point of view, I think, it's rather more the view of someone who thinks the lesser of two evils is still evil.

                          As for a disdain for Christianity, I believe that I clearly stated that I truly believe in the teachings of Christ (which by the way I do understand) that I learned BEFORE the current ramblings of "Capitalist Christianity". You do not know whether my alliegence to God is worthy or not, as only God can decide that...so with respect to that it is you who are being the judgemental elitist. Further, discussing the subject, whether you have a masters in it or not, is definately a way to learn more about it and about the way others feel. If you do not explore and question, you will not learn anything beyond that which was your original programming.

                          As for the professor of psychology, you have a right to your opinion, but I reserve the right to disagree. I do give you points on your analogy about the U.S. and Hitler but you went to a gross exageration to dispell my point. Further, our "Christian" president is bombing the hell out of civilians and children to chase after the "evil doers" who by the way weren't even from that country. So don't tell me that these New World Christians are benign. I do not disdain Christianity at all, I do have disdain for the imposter of it that is riding it's trojan horse to the brink of disaster.

                          As for the earlier comment on "what was the United States of America", I meant the America before:

                          Usury became common business practice.

                          Banks, Insurance Companies and Credit Card Companies could conjoin to collect information to literally control an individuals entire future.

                          The computer in Brussels, engineered in part by the Ralph M. Parons Company, which controls information on every man, woman and child in the world (who has a paper trail) existed.

                          The commingling of of Homeland Security, bank information and the right to search and seizure at the whim of the government.

                          The dismissal of the Geneva Convention.

                          The wage gap that allows for top-heavy gouging and the evisceration of the American working class.

                          The merging of so many corporations that it is close to impossible to compete on an individual basis anymore.

                          The greed-monger "developer's gone wild" craze that has again placed most of the development in this country in the hands of a few. Small wonder they can call their price. (Supply and demand, yes, but more realistically just lack of competition for developers). Ever notice that no matter where you go in the States these days, the houses, strip malls and even theaters and gas stations all look the same?

                          The oil and energy people gouging while they still can (before the advent of enough alternative energy - which they will also control no doubt).

                          The absolute inequality of the educational system.

                          The attitude came into being that one should be moral, but if it's business..."Well, it's just business and the rules don't apply. This philosophy ushering in the area of gouging the already poor with punishing interest rates, red-lining and in general corraling them into a never ending cycle of debt and dispair definately displays brotherly love.


                          Much more applys, but that will do for now!

                          Not a lawyer, but Vyce is, huh?

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Yes. And I get drunk sometimes and laugh heartily at some of the idiots that I have to deal with.

                            Mike, do you watch South Park? I was telling Cheesmo, starbound reminds me of those hippie college kids who chastised Stan, Kyle and Kenny in that one episode where Cartman has to save the town from the hippie concert. I mean, it's the same damn message.

                            "See, kids, the evil CORPORATIONS have turned you all into little Eichmans."
                            Last edited by Karachi Vyce; 08-14-2006, 12:44 AM.
                            "I don't find myself in the same luxury as you. You grew up in freedom, and you can spit on freedom, because you don't know what it is not to have freedom." ---Ayaan Hirsi Ali

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              And once again, I have to stop by to remind you all to stop discussing each other and stick to discussing topics.

                              Jan
                              reaching for that hat..
                              "As empathy spreads, civilization spreads. As empathy contracts, civilization contracts...as we're seeing now.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Aw come on Jan! It's really good reading!
                                "En wat als tijd de helft van echtheid was, was alles dan dubbelsnel verbaal?"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X