Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

dubya says....
iggy Posted: Sat Apr 10 00:51:58 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  http://www.george-says.com/index.php


 
choke Posted: Sat Apr 10 01:51:19 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  heh. poor georgie


 
FN Posted: Sat Apr 10 05:53:25 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Lol.


Anybody notice how Iraq is getting more and more fucked up?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Apr 10 09:57:34 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Lol.
>
>
>Anybody notice how Iraq is getting more and more fucked up?
>
Sure it is, do you think this is coming as a surprise to anyone ?
Anybody with half a brain knew that the most dangerous and difficult part of the situation over there would come after the end of major hostilities.
It's only been 12 months since the war started, how quickly do you expect something like this to take ?


 
FN Posted: Sat Apr 10 11:21:24 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Yes hif, whatever.


 
simonvii Posted: Mon Apr 12 11:23:43 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Lol.
>
>
>Anybody notice how Iraq is getting more and more fucked up?

im not sure which fucked up ur referring to...by and large the iraqis are better set now to start a better life than they had before they were there, i dont agree that we should have gone in the first place cuz it wasa based on lies and misinformation and was a stupid cowboy hat trick thing but anyway i think, aside from the recent rebellions and such, the iraqis new schools and hospitals and freedoms are worth whatever crap is going on...tho i will admit, not being an iraqi its easy for me to say ignorant sheit...i think we did some good stuff even with the bad, but yeah, nows time to pull out, they want to govern themselves, and theyve refused to support our troops any longer (understandably cuz if they did support us it would mean fighting fellow iraqis)...so id say our time is about up, they can take it from here


 
FN Posted: Mon Apr 12 12:54:32 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Yes, it will be a much more stable situation after the US pulls out now...

600 Iraqi's killed and 1200 injured in latest uproars.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Apr 12 13:12:34 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Yes, it will be a much more stable situation after the US pulls out now...
>
>600 Iraqi's killed and 1200 injured in latest uproars.
>
There are very few Iraqis among the casualties. The vast majority of the casualties, those who are fighting against the coalition are insurgents coming in from Iran and Syria mostly.
The few Iraqis that are fighting against the coalition are fringe extremists.



 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Apr 12 13:36:45 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  April 12, 2004, 8:31 a.m.
Dodge City, Iraq
Marines battle for control of Fallujah and other urban centers.

By W. Thomas Smith Jr.

In a fight that has been compared to both Hue (1968) and Dodge City (19th century), U.S. Marines spent most of last week fighting house-to-house for control of several urban centers in Iraq. The worst of the fighting has been in the towns of Fallujah and Ramadi. There, young Marine riflemen, many less than a year out of boot camp, have been battling black-masked rebel gunmen who don't seem to care whether they live or die.



The Marines have the advantage of superior battlefield technologies, as well as air and tank support. But in the narrow streets and alleyways, where both belligerents are closing to within yards of one-another, technological advantages are greatly lessened. The edge instead goes to the quickest, most-accurate marksmen and those who are conditioned physically and emotionally to handle the clamor and horror of close-quarters battle.

Fortunately, the Marines are winning. Unfortunately, there have been losses.

Last week, 47 American soldiers and Marines were killed, countrywide. Nearly a thousand Iraqi guerillas — both Shiite and Sunni — were killed.

The death toll spiked on April 6. That day, 12 Marines were killed and over 20 wounded when Iraqi guerillas launched a surprise attack against a U.S. base in Ramadi, just up the road from Fallujah.

Americans back home were shocked. One man compared the Ramadi casualties to the losses suffered during the initial assaults up Hamburger Hill in 1969, a battle lasting for 10 days and ultimately costing the lives of 70 American soldiers. Others have confessed they believe the Iraqi war might be spiraling out of control.

Marines in the fight, however, have an entirely different perception.

"We're all doing great," said 1st Lt. Eric Knapp, in a e-mail message to me, a few hours into the battle. "The Marines of 2/4 [2nd Battalion, 4th Marines] fought hard and long yesterday and lost 12, but inflicted double that on the attackers."

Knapp, a spokesman for the 1st Marine Division, is based in Ramadi where the 12 Marines died. He conceded, "we are fighting a tough battle," but his press briefs over the next several days detailed the capture of numerous suspected terrorists and scores of enemy combatants killed.

Heavy fighting erupted early in the week when Marines moved into Fallujah seeking those who, on March 31, killed four American civilian contractors, mutilated their bodies, and then dragged them through the city's streets before hanging them from a bridge.

The fighting escalated in Fallujah and Ramadi, and quickly spread to other Iraqi cities. Meanwhile, a series of raids near the Iraqi-Syrian border netted several captured terrorists, including ten "high-value targets," two large weapons caches, and "the disruption of the terrorist network in the western portion of the Al Anbar Province." According to Knapp, the capture of the "high-value targets" yielded solid intelligence increasing the effectiveness of U.S. forces operating in the area. Still the fighting has been difficult for Marines and soldiers on the front. The enemy is rarely in uniform. They are familiar with their neighborhoods. And civilians are often in the crossfire - which is where the guerillas want them.

"What you are really facing is what we Marines call 'the three-block war,'" said Lt. Col. Matthew Lopez, 40, a Chicago-native currently leading Marines on the Iraqi-Syrian border. "On one block you can be doing humanitarian aid. In another block you could be providing security. In the third block you could be engaged in full combat. In this environment, the transition between those three blocks happens instantaneously."

As the battle raged in Fallujah, reports of Marines attacking a mosque filled with worshipers — including women and children — threatened to derail any chance for winning the proverbial hearts-and-minds. But within hours, the reports were deemed nothing more than anti-Coalition disinformation. Photographs proved the mosque was not damaged. Additionally, those inside were not women and children, but a platoon of enemy combatants firing at U.S. troops. According to the 1st Marine Division's daily brief of April 8, "The enemy combatants firing from the mosque blatantly misused a protected symbol by conducting offensive military operations from a place of worship. As a result, the mosque lost its protected status and regretfully became a lawful military target."

Nevertheless, the only damage was to a wall several hundred yards away. By knocking down a portion of the wall, the Marines were able to enter the compound and wipe out the enemy force.

Marines were later fired on by insurgents holed up in at least two other mosques. In one instance near Abu Gharayb, a local imam assisted Marines in a search of his mosque after U.S. forces drew fire from the building. During the search, two enemy combatants were killed.

Near Mahmudiyah, Marines together with members of the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps (ICDC) engaged insurgents who were battling from behind fortified positions in a local mosque. After gaining the upper hand, the Marines and the ICDC soldiers sought and were granted permission by a senior cleric to enter the structure. Inside, two enemy combatants were killed and nine wounded. As in other engagements where possible, the Marines immediately rendered first aid to their foes.

Maj. Gen. James N. Mattis, commanding general of the 1st Marine Division, said that his forces would continue to respect holy sites and operate in a "humanitarian" fashion in their efforts to control the cities. The general added, however, Iraqi insurgents would be fought on his terms, and "May God help them when we're done with them."

Mattis's younger leathernecks believe last week's battle was inevitable. They are also convinced that the individual guerilla is basically afraid and knows his days are numbered.

During a brief lull in the fighting, 21-year-old Cpl. Philip Cook of West Virginia, said he knew there were "plenty of them [enemy combatants]" remaining who had temporarily withdrawn from the front. "There just weren't any more who wanted to mess with us last night."

As fighting continued around the Fallujah-Ramadi area, insurgents stepped up their attacks on highway convoys and began taking foreign civilians hostage. They threatened to behead some of the hostages or burn them alive.

By Friday, April 9, Ambassador Paul Bremer ordered the suspension of offensive operations by the Marines in-and-around Fallujah. The ceasefire, which officially began on Saturday, is a chance for cooler heads among the rebel forces to prevail.

On Sunday, elements of the U.S. Army's 1st Armored Division retook the city Al-Kut after the city was abandoned last week by Ukrainian troops. At the same time, over a million Iraqi Shiites were marking the Muslim holy day of al-Arbaeen in Karbala and other Shiite cities. Large sectors of city centers were still in rebel hands. Fighting was sporadic throughout the country. On the western outskirts of Baghdad, a U.S. helicopter was shot down, killing both crewmembers. A few foreign hostages were released. The fate of others was still unknown. And thousands of U.S. Marines surrounding Fallujah were eagerly awaiting further orders to attack.

"The big fight — this big Fallujah face-off — had to happen at some point," said Cpl. Mike Baccellieri, 23, of Portland, Oregon. "Let's get it over with so we can start rebuilding this place and get out of here."

— A former U.S. Marine infantry leader and paratrooper, W. Thomas Smith Jr. is a freelance journalist whose work has appeared in a variety of national and international publications. His third book, Alpha Bravo Delta Guide to American Airborne Forces, has just been published.



 
addi Posted: Mon Apr 12 14:26:32 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
 
yes, once we get past this big fallujah mess it will be clear sailing.....

for any of you interested in a counterbalance to the myriad of conservative radio pundits out there:

http://www.airamericaradio.com




 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Apr 12 14:49:06 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>
>yes, once we get past this big fallujah mess it will be clear sailing.....
>
>for any of you interested in a counterbalance to the myriad of conservative radio pundits out there:
>
>http://www.airamericaradio.com
>
>
Yeah, or ABC, NBC, or CBS, or virtually any major newspaper in America.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Apr 12 15:02:12 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>
>yes, once we get past this big fallujah mess it will be clear sailing.....
>
Nobody ever said it would be easy, but just because a mission will be costly and difficult is not a reason to dismiss it as unworthy.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Apr 12 15:05:12 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  It's the War, Stupid
Europeans and the left aren't going to give George Bush credit for building schools and hospitals in Iraq.
by Larry Miller
04/12/2004 12:00:00 AM

"OKAY. It doesn't seem all right to me, but what do I know? Nothing. What do they know? Everything. So I guess everything's okay."

That's, more or less, what I've been saying to myself for the last year. Not quite out loud, just muttered most of the time, when I'm alone, or when the kids are watching TV, which is much the same thing. What makes me mutter so?

Seeing a headline about another 2, or 5--or 12--American soldiers killed.

Hearing the top folks say, "No, we don't need more troops. Got plenty now."

Having a hard date of June 30 announced and underlined again and again, instead of, "We'll do it as soon as we're ready, not a day before, and it'll be this year, or next year, or whenever, and, no, you don't get to know when. Next question."

And especially watching well-known nests of domestic and imported bad guys being allowed to grow and grow and grow and grow, and get stronger, and make their plans. And watch. And wait. And attack.

I mean, please, anyone who ever reads past page two has known since President Bush landed on that aircraft carrier that Fallujah was the headquarters, the homeland, the core of everyone who ever worked and killed for Saddam Hussein. It's not just a place, a city, a neighborhood, with terrific down-home folks going to choir practice and trying to get by in tough times. It's the place--the bull's eye, it's got them all, and it might as well be called Tortureville, or
Saddamfield, or Baathburg, and the best of them could most charitably be called "loyalists." What in the world did anyone imagine was going to sprout up there in the last 12 months? A chamber of commerce? A garden club? A band shell for Sunday programs of Sousa?

All right, wait. Sorry. Let me repeat my mantra; that always helps. Breath in, breath out . . . "What do I know? Nothing. What do they know? Everything. It's all fine, just fine."

Hey, it didn't help much that time. What's wrong? It's like what they say about heroin, the effect is less and less, until you finally have to take it just not to feel horrible.


I MENTIONED the president and the aircraft carrier for a reason, something else I've held in for a year.

I hated it. I support what we've done the whole way; I think we've started to crack the hardest granite in history; I think we're in World War Three, Four, Five, and Six-through-Ten combined--and I think we should be--but I hated that landing so much.

It made me wince like a big sip of sour milk, and I never said it then, because I didn't know why, and it didn't seem helpful, and it's surely not helpful now. But I'm saying it anyway, because I just realized what bugged me so much.

It was an end zone dance, and I hate end zone dances. And because the game isn't over by a long shot.

Now, the sum total of my military knowledge and experience has been watching the Ken Burns Civil War thing, and reading Red Dawn Rising. I have no war fantasies, I have no service record, fantastical or otherwise, and I'm not an armchair general. I would never be flippant about the risk and loss of the lives of our soldiers (or our police and firemen, for that matter), or of any of those who put themselves in harm's way to protect and serve.
But when I saw that banner saying "Mission Accomplished," I thought, no, no, it isn't accomplished at all, it's barely begun, and if we're going to do this thing, accept this challenge, fully absorb the import of this moment, it's going to wind up making the Hundred Years War look like a performance of Nicholas Nickleby.

And please don't hand me that "Well, he just meant the major operations, and the rest of the message was more nuanced, and if you read the text . . ."

Baloney. I support the president in all of this, but what he should have done then, in my opinion, is what he can still do now. What I've been waiting for. What the whole country needs, for, against, and in between.

A speech. A big one. A grave one. Say that the world is a very bad place and has been for a long time, and that we're going to stop it in its tracks and make it better because we have to, and because, as Tony Blair said when he spoke to Congress, "It's your destiny."

Stand next to a map of Iraq, and another one of the world, and point out what's good and what's bad, what's been done and what's left. Say, "You may disagree, but here's where we are, and here's where we're going."

Most important, say, "It may happen before, during, or after the election, but I don't care, I'm doing it because it's right, and if I'm president again next year, I'm going to
keep doing it."

And then win. Win in Iraq, and then look around for other threats like a silverback gorilla after slapping the head off of an upstart.

Message to the administration: No one in Europe or on the left is ever, ever, ever going to like you from seeing a photograph of a marine handing a bag of groceries to a woman in a burkha. Jacques Chirac is never going to say, "Well, they have built a lot of community centers. Maybe Bush was right."

Win. Stopping building schools. Win. There's plenty of time and need for hospitals, but first . . . Win. Yes, yes, Iraqi girls can be very empowered by seeing a female colonel running an outreach program, and we can all chip in for the posters that say "Take Your Daughters To Mosque Day," but in the meantime, would you please win.

If I have to listen to one more administration spokesperson say, "The overwhelming number of Iraqis is with us, it's just a small percentage of cranks causing all the trouble," I'll be tempted to say something I swore I never would: "Du-uuh."

A small percentage, huh? About the same size as the few thousand Bolsheviks who took over the 100 million Russians in 1917? More? Less?

In service of this goal, I would like to propose a new slogan. It's based on the old anti-war chant from the sixties, "Peace Now!" You must've heard that one. Demonstrators have been shouting it for the last 40 years. "Peace Now, Peace Now, Peace Now." Hell, I think I probably shouted it, myself, somewhere around '73. (This would have been shortly before the drinking age in Massachusetts went down to 18, after which my friends and I took to shouting far more sensible things, like, "You can't cut us off, it's only 11:00. Hey, let go of me.")

Here's the new slogan: Win now.

Okay, hold it. Sorry again. Maybe I'm wrong. Yeah, I'm sure everything's okay. It doesn't seem so rosy to me, but, after all, what do I know? Nothing. What does everyone else know? Everything. Yeah, no problem.

Hey, what do you know? It's working again. I feel better already.


Larry Miller is a contributing humorist to The Daily Standard and a writer, actor, and comedian living in Los Angeles.







 
FN Posted: Mon Apr 12 17:43:30 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>It's the War, Stupid
>Europeans and the left aren't going to give George Bush credit for building schools and hospitals in Iraq.
>by Larry Miller
>04/12/2004 12:00:00 AM


Shouldn't bush be looking at his own schools instead?


 
FN Posted: Mon Apr 12 17:45:16 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Maj. Gen. James N. Mattis, commanding general of the 1st Marine Division, said that his forces would continue to respect holy sites and operate in a "humanitarian" fashion in their efforts to control the cities. The general added, however, Iraqi insurgents would be fought on his terms, and "May God help them when we're done with them."



Yes, let's kill those religious fanatics! If they don't accept our invasion they must die!


 
FN Posted: Mon Apr 12 17:47:47 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Nobody ever said it would be easy, but just because a mission will be costly and difficult is not a reason to dismiss it as unworthy.


Easy for everybody else to say hif, as long as you're not in the midst of it huh.

I wonder if the american troops will be withdrawn within time, after all, if everybody saw this comming they must have taken the extra time into account, right?


 
FN Posted: Mon Apr 12 17:54:22 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Last week, 47 American soldiers and Marines were killed, countrywide. Nearly a thousand Iraqi guerillas — both Shiite and Sunni — were killed.


Yes, Iraqi's from Iran and Syria.

Luckily though for about every american killed, 20 iraqi's died, and still they aren't grateful that we're comming to save them.

Oh wait I forgot, they are grateful and spend their days saluting american flags and soldiers whilst stamping on pictures of saddam.


 
FN Posted: Mon Apr 12 17:57:27 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>"We're all doing great," said 1st Lt. Eric Knapp, in a e-mail message to me, a few hours into the battle. "The Marines of 2/4 [2nd Battalion, 4th Marines] fought hard and long yesterday and lost 12, but inflicted double that on the attackers."


"How many did ya get toda' Joe?"
"I got me 'bout 5 o' those camelfuckers today, you?"
"I got me 6 o' 'em, you lost, where's ma sixpack"


 
FN Posted: Mon Apr 12 18:01:49 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>I mean, please, anyone who ever reads past page two has known since President Bush landed on that aircraft carrier that Fallujah was the headquarters, the homeland, the core of everyone who ever worked and killed for Saddam Hussein. It's not just a place, a city, a neighborhood, with terrific down-home folks going to choir practice and trying to get by in tough times. It's the place--the bull's eye, it's got them all, and it might as well be called Tortureville, or
>Saddamfield, or Baathburg, and the best of them could most charitably be called "loyalists." What in the world did anyone imagine was going to sprout up there in the last 12 months? A chamber of commerce? A garden club? A band shell for Sunday programs of Sousa?
>


I guess that's where Doctor Evil's evil volcano is as well.

Why don't you throw in some sharks with freakin' laserbeams attached to their head.


 
FN Posted: Mon Apr 12 18:07:40 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Message to the administration: No one in Europe or on the left is ever, ever, ever going to like you from seeing a photograph of a marine handing a bag of groceries to a woman in a burkha. Jacques Chirac is never going to say, "Well, they have built a lot of community centers. Maybe Bush was right."
>


Perhaps over here people aren't so indoctrinated by the media and government.

I don't think an american with half a brain would be convinced by something like that either.


 
FN Posted: Mon Apr 12 18:11:04 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>A speech. A big one. A grave one. Say that the world is a very bad place and has been for a long time, and that we're going to stop it in its tracks and make it better because we have to, and because, as Tony Blair said when he spoke to Congress, "It's your destiny."
>


Yes, Iraq is the gateway to hell and the world will be a better place for everybody when it's outta here. And a speech will make it a lot better as well. Yay for propaganda!


>Stand next to a map of Iraq, and another one of the world, and point out what's good and what's bad, what's been done and what's left. Say, "You may disagree, but here's where we are, and here's where we're going."


Because we're americans *salutes* and we know what's right and wrong and have the right to do as we damn well please! Who cares what the world thinks? Let's play ball!


 
FN Posted: Mon Apr 12 18:16:13 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>During a brief lull in the fighting, 21-year-old Cpl. Philip Cook of West Virginia, said he knew there were "plenty of them [enemy combatants]" remaining who had temporarily withdrawn from the front. "There just weren't any more who wanted to mess with us last night."


It's "us" versus "them", don't get me wrong, we're trying to free "them".

They didn't wannna mess with us lean mean fighting machines anymore!

Who are we? "americans!"
What do we do? "kill camelfuckers!"
Why do we do it? "to free them and to win some beer!"
Who gives us the right to do so? "almighty god! Bless america!"


Keep 'em religious fanatics comming, we'll send 'em straight to allah.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Apr 12 21:02:40 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Hey Chris, you're very good at putting words in others mouths.
But you know something ?
There are no western European countries that budget any monies to defend themselves other than the UK.
They depend on the US and Britian to defend them, including Belgium.
So you can be as anti-American as you want to be, just know that the freedom to do so is provided by the deterrent power of our military.
And don't try to say that you are not anti-American because it's obvious in your tone that you want us to fail in the middle east.


 
FN Posted: Mon Apr 12 21:51:30 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Right now 'you' ARE failing in the middle east, hif.

I'm not anti-american at all, I'm anti-current american government and policy.

And yes, you're probably right, Germany and France don't have a military.

It's not because European countries don't blow half of their income on 'defence' that they don't spend any money on it.

We got great and very affordable healthcare, schoolfunds, and other support systems, but who needs that anyway huh.

Belgium has an army for a support role, the country is too small to have a massive army by itself so it targets on humanitarian and support missions.

Plans are made (just like the start of Europe started for a very large part by Belgium) to make a European army by the way.




Perhaps I'm putting words in other (fictional) people's mouths, it only serves to make a point.

And I think that I'm not too far away from the reality behind it all either.

Lets go get us some towelheads.


 
marsteller Posted: Mon Apr 12 22:05:37 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  you pussy french-speakers are just lucky that old-school imperialism is dead, otherwise the US would've taken over your shitty little countries a good while ago. who's to stop us?


 
iggy Posted: Mon Apr 12 22:42:41 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  us chinese speakers


 
simonvii Posted: Mon Apr 12 22:46:42 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  christophe, i understand where you're coming from, particularly being from out of the country i can imagine your distaste for america and its cowboy "we-do-what-we-want-when-we-want-kick-ass-in-the-morning-take-names-in-the-evening" attitude...shoot i live here and it pisses me off that we're so ignorant to think we can do what we want and that everyone else in the world wants us to...so im not sure what the point of this post is i guess, except to say i do my best to understand a truthful global perspective, and though i disagree with the precepts involved with our initial involvement in iraq, i do think we have to finish what we've started...if the good can be as believed as the bad then there really are good things happening in iraq, and i have a friend in the marines leaving for iraq in june who's going with the idea that he needs to be there to help where he can, not to kill a bunch of people, but to help make things right...


 
marsteller Posted: Tue Apr 13 00:16:42 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  simonvii said:
>...shoot i live here and it pisses me off that we're so ignorant to think we can do what we want and that everyone else in the world wants us to...

we CAN do what we want, fuck what the rest of the world wants


 
DanSRose Posted: Tue Apr 13 01:26:06 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  marsteller said:
>we CAN do what we want, fuck what the rest of the world wants

Because that worked so well in the past. Like in the Cold War, when the only to deal the commies was to give weapons to those "cameljockies" (bleh hate all words like that) to take out the commies. Like pitting Iran and Iraq together. Like removing the 'dangerous' socialist governments in the South and Central Americas, replacing them with warlords, despots, and drug kings, many of whom are American trained (yay, School for the Americas!).

It's too big a fucking world to think like that.


 
marsteller Posted: Tue Apr 13 01:44:29 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>It's too big a fucking world to think like that.

the world is not enough


 
FN Posted: Tue Apr 13 06:22:40 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  marsteller said:
>you pussy french-speakers are just lucky that old-school imperialism is dead, otherwise the US would've taken over your shitty little countries a good while ago. who's to stop us?


You my friend are probably one of the naievest people on here if you think that's the case.

You think america could take on Europe (and the rest of the world along with that)?

"You" invaded 2 camelfucker countries and the country's dept is running into the billions.

And I don't speak only french you uneducated trailertrash redneck, I speak a multitude of languages because "my" schoolsystem doesn't create indoctrinated simpletons like you.

Go salute a flag or something.


 
FN Posted: Tue Apr 13 06:39:28 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  simonvii said:
>christophe, i understand where you're coming from, particularly being from out of the country i can imagine your distaste for america and its cowboy "we-do-what-we-want-when-we-want-kick-ass-in-the-morning-take-names-in-the-evening" attitude...

I have a natural aversion to stupidity.

>shoot i live here and it pisses me off that we're so ignorant to think we can do what we want and that everyone else in the world wants us to...so im not sure what the point of this post is i guess, except to say i do my best to understand a truthful global perspective, and though i disagree with the precepts involved with our initial involvement in iraq, i do think we have to finish what we've started...

That much I can agree with. I'm not saying that at first glance it seems a good idea to have removed saddam, I'm just wondering what kind of a mess it's going to leave behind. I am against the reason for this war (money) since it isn't said so honnestly but instead "they" try to make it look as it would be for the good of Iraq and the rest of the world.

And yeah, "they" got themselves into the mess, now "they" can fix it themselves.

>if the good can be as believed as the bad then there really are good things happening in iraq, and i have a friend in the marines leaving for iraq in june who's going with the idea that he needs to be there to help where he can, not to kill a bunch of people, but to help make things right...

Very honourable on your friend's account but I hope you don't actually believe that the "people on top" went there for the same reasons.

I don't think they've said "let's blow billions of dolars because we have to free the Iraqi's and save the world from their "WMD's"

The term WMD has pissed me off from the very start by the way. "WMD" that sounds so cool huh.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Apr 13 06:49:05 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Chris you are just as indoctrinated as everyone else, you're just too naive and arrogant to know it.
You haven't lived or travelled enough to have an accurate picture of what the real world is like.
And if you really think of Americans as stupid towel-killing rednecks, then you are also hopelessly retarded.

I'm very proud that you speak a multitude of languages dude, we Americans just aren't smart enough to learn ya know.
That skill is going to come in real handy when you get that *ahem* European army up and going, Especially when you get a French Commander and his Belgian troops, trying to communicate with their German air support. Yeah, probably never be any mistakes made there. Uh-uh.
And as for the health care system in Europe that is so fucking great.
Hope you didn't have any French relatives in that awful heat wave last summer. Yeah, what a great health care sysem.
Our street people get better health care than that.


 
FN Posted: Tue Apr 13 06:54:26 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Chris you are just as indoctrinated as everyone else, you're just too naive and arrogant to know it.
>You haven't lived or travelled enough to have an accurate picture of what the real world is like.

And you and martseller have, hif?

Over here the media isn't anti-american either you know, both good and bad are shown just as much, the stuff I say is from my own conclusions.

>And if you really think of Americans as stupid towel-killing rednecks, then you are also hopelessly retarded.
>

That was purely based on the articles YOU posted.

>I'm very proud that you speak a multitude of languages dude, we Americans just aren't smart enough to learn ya know.

Yeah I'm kind of proud of that as well, especially when people who don't know any other languages than their own start giving me crap about only speaking french or whatever.

>That skill is going to come in real handy when you get that *ahem* European army up and going, Especially when you get a French Commander and his Belgian troops, trying to communicate with their German air support. Yeah, probably never be any mistakes made there. Uh-uh.

To early to tell.

>And as for the health care system in Europe that is so fucking great.
>Hope you didn't have any French relatives in that awful heat wave last summer. Yeah, what a great health care sysem.

Ofcourse, that would never happen in almighty america where the poor are helped at the expense of the rich, whatever the cost, because americans are just so giving. Accidents happen you know.

>Our street people get better health care than that.

I doubt it hif, I doubt it.


 
addi Posted: Tue Apr 13 08:06:40 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  simonvii said:
>so im not sure what the point of this post is i guess, except to say i do my best to understand a truthful global perspective,

thoughtful post, simon.

Ludwig wants to add his two cents to all this...

anyone that believes the vast majority of Iraqis were better off with Saddam in power is a fool. Saddam was an evil tyrant

anyone that believes Bush's motives to invade Iraq were purely altruistic, that it was a justified response to the al queda 9/11 attacks, and that it was primarily because of the WMD threat to western democracies is a fool. Bush manipulates the truth under the guise of patriotism and self defense.

anyone that believes marsteller's frequent brand of 5th grade put down humor on this forum adds anything remotely close to value is a fool. He's nothing more than a lap dog to Asswipe's caustic, but frequently insighful thoughts. He's become what Waylon Smithers is to Montgomery Burns.
"Fuck this, Fuck that, Fuck you" has gotten old and stale, dude, like Bart's "I didn't do it!" routine on the Krusty Show did. It's only showing your lack of origonality.

*i guess Ludwig's in a foul mood today : )




 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Apr 13 08:29:32 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:

>Over here the media isn't anti-american either you know, both good and bad are shown just as much, the stuff I say is from my own conclusions.
>
You're nuts ! The European press is overwhelmingly anti-American.

>
>>That skill is going to come in real handy when you get that *ahem* European army up and going, Especially when you get a French Commander and his Belgian troops, trying to communicate with their German air support. Yeah, probably never be any mistakes made there. Uh-uh.
>
>To early to tell.
>
You're living a fantasy if you think all the European countries are going to be able to get along well enough to form
a viable army.
Tell me how would you feel about being a Belgian in the European army and having an Italian commander jumping in your shit for not shining your shoes.
Or a French petty officer telling you that it's your turn to clean the urinals today ?
Or an English officer giving you orders to secure that machine gun embattlement that is spraying your unit with lead.

>>And as for the health care system in Europe that is so fucking great.
>>Hope you didn't have any French relatives in that awful heat wave last summer. Yeah, what a great health care sysem.
>
>Ofcourse, that would never happen in almighty america where the poor are helped at the expense of the rich, whatever the cost, because americans are just so giving. Accidents happen you know.
>
>>Our street people get better health care than that.
>
>I doubt it hif, I doubt it.
>
You shouldn't
And I wouldn't call the deaths of 11,000
elderly an "accident", that my friend is a major failure.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Apr 13 08:34:32 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>simonvii said:
>>so im not sure what the point of this post is i guess, except to say i do my best to understand a truthful global perspective,
>
>thoughtful post, simon.
>
>Ludwig wants to add his two cents to all this...
>
>anyone that believes the vast majority of Iraqis were better off with Saddam in power is a fool. Saddam was an evil tyrant
>
I believe your are correct.

>anyone that believes Bush's motives to invade Iraq were purely altruistic, that it was a justified response to the al queda 9/11 attacks, and that it was primarily because of the WMD threat to western democracies is a fool. Bush manipulates the truth under the guise of patriotism and self defense.
>
I believe you are wrong

>anyone that believes marsteller's frequent brand of 5th grade put down humor on this forum adds anything remotely close to value is a fool. He's nothing more than a lap dog to Asswipe's caustic, but frequently insighful thoughts. He's become what Waylon Smithers is to Montgomery Burns.
>"Fuck this, Fuck that, Fuck you" has gotten old and stale, dude, like Bart's "I didn't do it!" routine on the Krusty Show did. It's only showing your lack of origonality.
>
I believe you are correct

>*i guess Ludwig's in a foul mood today : )
>
Welcome back old and venerable friend.
I need a competent foil, lest I dominate the world with impunity.

>


 
FN Posted: Tue Apr 13 08:43:59 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Christophe said:
>>ifihadahif said:
>
>>Over here the media isn't anti-american either you know, both good and bad are shown just as much, the stuff I say is from my own conclusions.
>>
>You're nuts ! The European press is overwhelmingly anti-American.
>

How would you know, you don't understand 90% of it.

>>
>>>That skill is going to come in real handy when you get that *ahem* European army up and going, Especially when you get a French Commander and his Belgian troops, trying to communicate with their German air support. Yeah, probably never be any mistakes made there. Uh-uh.
>>
>>To early to tell.
>>
>You're living a fantasy if you think all the European countries are going to be able to get along well enough to form
>a viable army.
>Tell me how would you feel about being a Belgian in the European army and having an Italian commander jumping in your shit for not shining your shoes.
>Or a French petty officer telling you that it's your turn to clean the urinals today ?
>Or an English officer giving you orders to secure that machine gun embattlement that is spraying your unit with lead.
>

I'm not in the army. And if you're in the army you know what you're in for it's as simple as that. Do american soldiers refuse to take orders from their black superiors? Comes down to the same thing.

>>>And as for the health care system in Europe that is so fucking great.
>>>Hope you didn't have any French relatives in that awful heat wave last summer. Yeah, what a great health care sysem.
>>
>>Ofcourse, that would never happen in almighty america where the poor are helped at the expense of the rich, whatever the cost, because americans are just so giving. Accidents happen you know.
>>
>>>Our street people get better health care than that.
>>
>>I doubt it hif, I doubt it.
>>
>You shouldn't
>And I wouldn't call the deaths of 11,000
>elderly an "accident", that my friend is a major failure.

Major failure then, it's something that wasn't forseen and it is simplistic and completely besides the point to take that as an example. It was an extreme and unforseen situation that could have happened anywhere and it doesn't say shit about the general/normal way healthcare is regulated. And you know it.

How good is your healthcare when you don't have the money to afford an insurance?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Apr 13 09:11:18 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>I'm not in the army. And if you're in the army you know what you're in for it's as simple as that. Do american soldiers refuse to take orders from their black superiors? Comes down to the same thing.
>
No, it's not the same thing. American blacks are still Americans.
There is another example of how you fail to understand America. Blacks are not discriminated against as much as the European press would have you believe. For the most part, blacks in America are middle class but you don't hear about that, do you ? The black community in America is the world's 10th largest economy by itself. All you hear about are the Hip hop urban Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton clowns.
No back on topic, Me taking an order from Colin Powell is not the same thing as Mssr. Chirac taking an order from Tony Blair now is it ?

>>>>And as for the health care system in Europe that is so fucking great.
>>>>Hope you didn't have any French relatives in that awful heat wave last summer. Yeah, what a great health care sysem.
>>>
>>>Ofcourse, that would never happen in almighty america where the poor are helped at the expense of the rich, whatever the cost, because americans are just so giving. Accidents happen you know.
>>>
>>>>Our street people get better health care than that.
>>>
>>>I doubt it hif, I doubt it.
>>>
>>You shouldn't
>>And I wouldn't call the deaths of 11,000
>>elderly an "accident", that my friend is a major failure.
>
>Major failure then, it's something that wasn't forseen and it is simplistic and completely besides the point to take that as an example. It was an extreme and unforseen situation that could have happened anywhere and it doesn't say shit about the general/normal way healthcare is regulated. And you know it.
>
>How good is your healthcare when you don't have the money to afford an insurance?
>
Not that bad, if you are a street person, you still don't get turned away from most facilities.
If you are on welfare, then your healthcare is as good as anything you get in Europe.


 
addi Posted: Tue Apr 13 10:17:41 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Welcome back old and venerable friend.
>I need a competent foil, lest I dominate the world with impunity.

thanks, hif. i guess you're going to take this back now. lol

This is how things are going in Iraq:

Since April 5th, 880 killed in Iraq according to the Associated Press. 600 of those women and children and the elderly.
An entire battalion of Iraqi soldiers refused to fight against al-Sadr. Several have defected to fight for him.

And this is sowing the seeds of peace loving democratic citizens there?

It isn't just a Fallalah thing. As long as we are there it will continue. I'm not justifing their actions (in fact, I think most are fanatical wackos), but just stating what should be bloody obvious to everyone- many see us as occupiers of their homeland, not as liberators.
A percentage of the population (both inside and outside Iraq) will continue to fight to their deaths to get the "infidels" out of their land. every new death each day does nothing but strenghten their resolve. This isn't just an insignificant small "lawless band" as Bush states, and the hatred of anything american will grow as the death toll mounts.



 
FN Posted: Tue Apr 13 10:19:23 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>No, it's not the same thing. American blacks are still Americans.

Just like a German is just as much a European as a French or Belgian person.

>There is another example of how you fail to understand America. Blacks are not discriminated against as much as the European press would have you believe.

That's not my point, my point was that there are differences but that it doesn't matter within a chain of command like the army has.

>For the most part, blacks in America are middle class but you don't hear about that, do you ? The black community in America is the world's 10th largest economy by itself. All you hear about are the Hip hop urban Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton clowns.

Don't think our press spends much time on the black american community, be it positive or negative, I can't remember the last thing I've heard about it so no, it isn't depicted as some kind of racial struggle in america.

>No back on topic, Me taking an order from Colin Powell is not the same thing as Mssr. Chirac taking an order from Tony Blair now is it ?

Because Chirac and Blair are both prime ministers who are equal in rank, just like 2 generals are the same in rank.

You don't go as high as powell does (on a military level) so no it isn't the same thing.


 
FN Posted: Tue Apr 13 10:24:55 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Christophe said:
>>>ifihadahif said:
>>
>>>Over here the media isn't anti-american either you know, both good and bad are shown just as much, the stuff I say is from my own conclusions.
>>>
>>You're nuts ! The European press is overwhelmingly anti-American.
>>
>
>How would you know, you don't understand 90% of it.
>


I would still like to know where you got this while you can't possibly know.

How many Belgian, Dutch, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Swedish, etc journals have you seen and how many newspapers from those countries have you read?

The only way you could get that is from your overly pro-american press who tries to create that primitive 'us' against 'them' feeling to get some back-up for this mess.

And yeah I do know what I'm talking about because I understand what they're saying.


 
marsi Posted: Tue Apr 13 10:45:19 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Christophe said:
>>ifihadahif said:
>>>Christophe said:
>>>>ifihadahif said:
>>>
>>>>Over here the media isn't anti-american either you know, both good and bad are shown just as much, the stuff I say is from my own conclusions.
>>>>
>>>You're nuts ! The European press is overwhelmingly anti-American.
>>>

I can tell you that almost all the media in Slovenia is anti-american.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Apr 13 10:57:46 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>No, it's not the same thing. American blacks are still Americans.
>
>Just like a German is just as much a European as a French or Belgian person.
>
But being European is not a national identity like being German or Swiss.

>>There is another example of how you fail to understand America. Blacks are not discriminated against as much as the European press would have you believe.
>
>That's not my point, my point was that there are differences but that it doesn't matter within a chain of command like the army has.
>
Sure it will.
There is no way that a German officer is going to kowtow to an English commander.

>>For the most part, blacks in America are middle class but you don't hear about that, do you ? The black community in America is the world's 10th largest economy by itself. All you hear about are the Hip hop urban Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton clowns.
>
>Don't think our press spends much time on the black american community, be it positive or negative, I can't remember the last thing I've heard about it so no, it isn't depicted as some kind of racial struggle in america.
>
ok, I was just making a point, because it seemed to me that you considered american blacks to be an oppresed group.
My bad.

>>No back on topic, Me taking an order from Colin Powell is not the same thing as Mssr. Chirac taking an order from Tony Blair now is it ?
>
>Because Chirac and Blair are both prime ministers who are equal in rank, just like 2 generals are the same in rank.
>
Your taking my statements literally.
I was using two well known people to illustrate a point. Their rank is unimportant.

>You don't go as high as powell does (on a military level) so no it isn't the same thing.
>
Once again, you're taking me literally.
Colin Powell is a black American. His rank is unimportant. A general gives orders as well as a sergant. They must be followed.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Apr 13 11:45:58 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>The only way you could get that is from your overly pro-american press who tries to create that primitive 'us' against 'them' feeling to get some back-up for this mess.
>
>And yeah I do know what I'm talking about because I understand what they're saying.
>
So show me some pro-American press from France, Germany, Belgium, or the UK, and for each pro-American article, there will be 10 anti-American articles.
And for the record, most of our press is decidedly liberal and anti-bush.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Apr 13 13:04:22 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Titanic irresponsibility
Thomas Sowell
April 13, 2004


The so-called "9/11 Commission" is supposedly trying to find out what happened, or failed to happen, that allowed the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 to succeed. But there is a big difference between trying to unearth facts about September 11, 2001 and trying to collect political ammunition for November 2, 2004 -- election day.

It has become painfully obvious from some Commission members' grandstanding, especially during their questioning of national security advisor Condoleezza Rice, that they are more interested in scoring political points during an election year than in finding out what happened before the terrorist attacks in 2001.

Many of what was presented to Dr. Rice as questions were really political speeches -- and the fact that the questioners tried to keep her from replying to their insinuations showed how little interest they had in finding out facts.

After all, Condoleezza Rice had already testified for hours before this same commission in private, so calling her back to testify again before television cameras was pure politics.

The underlying assumption that an unprecedented surprise attack could succeed only if there was an intelligence failure is one of the signs of the lack of realism in our times. During World War II, the American government knew that the Japanese were likely to attack us somewhere, somehow, during the last months of 1941 -- but that was wholly different from knowing that they were going to bomb Pearl Harbor on December 7th.

To some today, the fact that the Bush administration had warnings that al-Qaeda was up to something should have told them that terrorists were going to fly planes into the World Trade Center on September 11th.

We already know from Osama bin Laden himself that not even all the terrorists on the hijacked planes that flew into the World Trade Center knew that this was what those in the cockpit were going to do. If hijackers on board the planes didn't know, how could anyone else know?

The same people who have been criticizing our Homeland Security's generalized warnings and alerts seem to think that generalized information before September 11th should have let the administration know what specifically the terrorists were going to do and when and how they were going to do it.

Commission member and former Senator Bob Kerrey argued that President Bush had enough information on the terrorist networks before September 11th to ask Congress for a declaration of war on them.

Put aside the fact that this commission is supposed to be finding out what actually happened, not drawing up plays like Monday morning quarterbacks. Can you imagine what would have happened if President Bush had done what Bob Kerrey suggested?

Suppose the president had somehow managed to get the closely divided Congress to issue a declaration of war against terrorist networks prior to 9/11 and then 9/11 happened. You know and I know that the president's declaration of war would have been blamed for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Loud cries would be ringing out across the land that this would never have happened except for President Bush's declaration of war. You can just hear the words and the music.

All this political grandstanding is taking place in the shadow of the greatest danger our nation has ever faced. North Korea is not only rebuilding its nuclear capacity, it is a threat to sell nuclear weapons to terrorist organizations, including those who planned the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Make no mistake about it. We could wake up some morning and find American cities in smoldering radioactive ruins.

Against the background, partisan political grandstanding is obscene. It is as if officers on the Titanic were spending their time arguing among themselves about who should have seen the iceberg, instead of getting people into lifeboats.

We already know that our enemies are following American political bickering. Senator John Kerry's political statements are being reported extensively in North Korea's government-controlled press. The North Korean regime is no doubt among the foreign supporters who want him to win this year's election.







 
DanSRose Posted: Tue Apr 13 13:55:53 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I'd really like to know where you get you sources from.
Because I don't see it, the "liberal" media.
NY Post, Daily News, Washington Times, all of FOX media, the latest trends of CBS and ABC, most local news and papers, the Clear Channel radio network, the major Florida papers. Those are all those that come to mind of major news outputs that are in high distribution.

The NY Times and even more so the LA Times are the "liberal" print media.

NBC, Washington Post, USA Today, Chicago Tribune, CNN are all various in the range of moderate, where most of the nation stays politically.
Most polarization (to the far-left or far-right) stems from the far-right forces that demand action! against something, usually by stretching the law. The far-lefters occasionally instigate the far-righters, but since the far-lefters are generally grassroot organizations and laughed at.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Apr 13 14:10:09 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>I'd really like to know where you get you sources from.
>Because I don't see it, the "liberal" media.
>NY Post, Daily News, Washington Times, all of FOX media, the latest trends of CBS and ABC, most local news and papers, the Clear Channel radio network, the major Florida papers. Those are all those that come to mind of major news outputs that are in high distribution.
>
>The NY Times and even more so the LA Times are the "liberal" print media.
>
>NBC, Washington Post, USA Today, Chicago Tribune, CNN are all various in the range of moderate, where most of the nation stays politically.
>Most polarization (to the far-left or far-right) stems from the far-right forces that demand action! against something, usually by stretching the law. The far-lefters occasionally instigate the far-righters, but since the far-lefters are generally grassroot organizations and laughed at.
>
hmmm, CBS, NBC, ABC, account for more viewers than all the other tv media combined and they are decidely liberal.
The New York Times and The LA Time and the Boston Globe do the same for the print media.
The ONLY foothold that the conservatives
have in the media is talk radio.
Check out "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg and you will see without a doubt that the liberal media does exist.
One example I will give you is the new book by Sean Hannity, a conservative pundit. His book, Deliver us from Evil has outsold Al Franken's latest by a gazillion copies, and remains on the NY Times bestseller list, yet not one major network has asked him to appear, nor have they done any reviews for his book. When Al Franken publishes, these same networks fall all over themselves trying to get him to appear and every single one has favorably reviewed all the tripe he writes.
Bill O'reilly gets the same treatment.



 
DanSRose Posted: Tue Apr 13 14:37:59 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  CBS, NBC, ABC, account for more viewers than all the other tv media combined and they are decidely liberal.
They have multiple viewerships. What they say they are is not how they present themselves. They report the news as moderates/

>The ONLY foothold that the conservatives have in the media is talk radio.
You say that, then list conservative writers/TV personalities
"Bias" by Bernard Goldberg did not use the most recent TV news reporting. Most of his research was from the Clinton administration.
>Sean Hannity ... Evil
He is and was being picked up by the Converted. He has horible interview skills, asks loaded questions, uses flawed surveys. Also, he brings the latest conservative books/authors/studies on his shows. He hates democrats and liberals, without listening to the whole arguement. He does not appear to care about the American people, only His Glorious View of America, God Bless It and Smite the Infidels.
>Al Franken
>Bill O'reilly gets the same treatment.
They are on par with their writing, equal and opposites. Socially, O'Reilly is a liberal. Fiscally, Franken is a Republican. They get equal air time.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Apr 13 14:57:53 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>>The ONLY foothold that the conservatives have in the media is talk radio.
>You say that, then list conservative writers/TV personalities
>
I listed Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly, granted they have TV shows, but the amount of viewers they have is miniscule compared to the major networks, their major foothold, as I stated is in talk radio.

>"Bias" by Bernard Goldberg did not use the most recent TV news reporting. Most of his research was from the Clinton administration.
>
His research was based on over 30yrs of service to CBS. What could the Clinton administration possibly have to do with the media anyway ? Even if it did, has it somehow transformed itself in 3yrs ?

>>Sean Hannity ... Evil
>He is and was being picked up by the Converted. He has horible interview skills, asks loaded questions, uses flawed surveys. Also, he brings the latest conservative books/authors/studies on his shows. He hates democrats and liberals, without listening to the whole arguement. He does not appear to care about the American people, only His Glorious View of America, God Bless It and Smite the Infidels.
>
Your opinion. And what does it have to do with how the major networks present themselves ? If they were impartial or moderate, then they would have Sean Hannity and Bill O'reilly as often as they have Al Franken base only on their performances as authors or pundits. But we all know that is not the case.

>>Bill O'reilly gets the same treatment.
>They are on par with their writing, equal and opposites. Socially, O'Reilly is a liberal. Fiscally, Franken is a Republican. They get equal air time.
>
Really ? Equal air time ?
Name one time that O'reilly has been on with Katie Couric or Tom Brokaw or Diane Sawyer ?
Show me a review of any of his books in the NY Times.


 
DanSRose Posted: Tue Apr 13 15:18:10 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Moderates don't show radicals. Radicals never explain their point rationally, which ends up reflecting on your show and network
They do however interrupt, are rude, cut off, verbally abuse, and personally insult the competition. ie: Hannity and colmes (colmes is lower case as he is a doormat) and the Franken-O'Reilly incident over the summer.

>Really ? Equal air time ?
>Name one time that O'reilly has been on with ...
See above.
>Show me a review of any of his books in the NY Times
The Times is liberal. Not moderate. They have a high standard of reporting. Since you are going bring up Blair, he faked and copied his work very well.

Bias still was a poor research job. His arguements came from a time America needed to liberal, like Vietnam/the 70s. They also came from left-push media has against a society whch has its roots in conservative, restrictive Puritanical ideology.


 
marsteller Posted: Tue Apr 13 15:42:58 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ok, for one thing, i wasn't putting you down for speaking french...more power to you for being able to communicate in more than one language...mais je parle francais aussi. i was just saying that generally speaking, the french are huge pussies, and america wouldn't have too much of a problem taking over your tiny little country either.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Apr 13 15:47:15 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>Moderates don't show radicals. Radicals never explain their point rationally, which ends up reflecting on your show and network
>They do however interrupt, are rude, cut off, verbally abuse, and personally insult the competition. ie: Hannity and colmes (colmes is lower case as he is a doormat) and the Franken-O'Reilly incident over the summer.
>
You keep spouting your own opinion and not making a real argument.
Not too many would call O'reilly a radical. Many other name might come up, but radical wouldn't be one of them.
And you still can't explain the lack of air time for either of them, because even when it is staring you in the face, the liberal media is real, you won't see it.

>>Really ? Equal air time ?
>>Name one time that O'reilly has been on with ...
>See above.
>>Show me a review of any of his books in the NY Times
>The Times is liberal. Not moderate. They have a high standard of reporting. Since you are going bring up Blair, he faked and copied his work very well.
>
You prove my point for me. The liberal media does exist.

>Bias still was a poor research job. His arguements came from a time America needed to liberal, like Vietnam/the 70s. They also came from left-push media has against a society whch has its roots in conservative, restrictive Puritanical ideology.
>
So you did read the book ?
YOU say that during the Vietnam era and the 70's, that America needed to be liberal. I disagree and say the liberalism extended the war and cost even more American lives than otherwise would have been necessary.
Restrictive Puritanical Ideology ?
Yeah, the Bill of Rights is so restrictive and puritanical, that virtually every third world country is having an epidemic of people trying to leave their own country to get into ours.
Since we are so restrictive and puritanical, where is the flood of refugees from our society trying to leave ?


 
marsteller Posted: Tue Apr 13 15:58:15 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  go exploring, kick ass, kill the natives and steal all their shit. ahh, the good old days....


 
FN Posted: Tue Apr 13 16:06:27 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  marsteller said:
>ok, for one thing, i wasn't putting you down for speaking french...more power to you for being able to communicate in more than one language...mais je parle francais aussi. i was just saying that generally speaking, the french are huge pussies, and america wouldn't have too much of a problem taking over your tiny little country either.


The french are pussies? For what? They aren't such big pussies as you think perhaps because they're refusing to just tag along.

You think america can take on the whole world by itself huh, forgot vietnam, and Iraq right now?

You think "you" would stand a chance in actually taking over and keeping control over the entire world?

And no, "you" wouldn't be able to take over Belgium you ignorant nitwit, I don't see the US going up against Europe.

Get the shit out of your eyes man you irritate me.

You sound like a fucking 5 year old bragging about his GI Joe collection.

"My big brother will kick your ass"

I wanna see about that.


 
FN Posted: Tue Apr 13 16:08:44 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I might add perhaps that without the french you wouldn't be here.

You think americans are natives or something?

I wouldn't be surprised.



Action movies aren't real either you know.

I wouldn't be surprised if you thought bruce willis died to save your ass from a giant asteroid.


 
marsteller Posted: Tue Apr 13 16:16:33 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>You think america can take on the whole world by itself huh, forgot vietnam, and Iraq right now?

yeah, if we went back to doing business the way things were back in imperial times....just go in, kill or convert everyone, and set up shop in your nice new home. worked for lots of white people coming to america, i don't see why it wouldn't work again today.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Apr 13 16:17:43 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>I might add perhaps that without the french you wouldn't be here.
>
>You think americans are natives or something?
>
That one works both ways.
Without America, there would be no Europe.
And thank god for Bruce Willis or the whole planet would have been crushed.
Don't you dare tell me he's not real,
I saw it happen on TV with my own eyes.


 
FN Posted: Tue Apr 13 16:39:55 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  marsteller said:
>Christophe said:
>>You think america can take on the whole world by itself huh, forgot vietnam, and Iraq right now?
>
>yeah, if we went back to doing business the way things were back in imperial times....just go in, kill or convert everyone, and set up shop in your nice new home. worked for lots of white people coming to america, i don't see why it wouldn't work again today.


I'm not surprised that you don't.

I refuse to get pissed off because of your ignorance, I'm above that.

Good luck in life, you'll need it.


 
FN Posted: Tue Apr 13 16:40:28 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Christophe said:
>>I might add perhaps that without the french you wouldn't be here.
>>
>>You think americans are natives or something?
>>
>That one works both ways.

Never said it didn't did I?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Apr 13 16:48:08 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Christophe said:
>>>I might add perhaps that without the french you wouldn't be here.
>>>
>>>You think americans are natives or something?
>>>
>>That one works both ways.
>
>Never said it didn't did I?
>
Nope.
But that was then and this is now.
There was a time when the French were a military power, but that time is long gone. Their last military victory came under Napoleon.
Truth be told, the only military power of consequence in Europe today, is England.


 
marsteller Posted: Tue Apr 13 16:50:24 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  might makes right. sucks to be from a pussy country that can't do shit.


 
FN Posted: Tue Apr 13 16:53:07 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  So what hif, it's the first time since WO II Japan sent troops out of their borders.

I guess the Japanese army doesn't mean shit either.

France is a nuclear power as well in case you didn't know.

Tell me when the last English military victory was.

No, Iraq doesn't count as a victory to me.



It's hard to have a lot of victories if you don't go to war every time somebody farts.

What do you say? They lost in vietnam? I can name another country that got it's ass kciked over there as well.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Apr 13 17:01:17 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>So what hif, it's the first time since WO II Japan sent troops out of their borders.
>
>I guess the Japanese army doesn't mean shit either.
>
>France is a nuclear power as well in case you didn't know.
>
>Tell me when the last English military victory was.
>
>No, Iraq doesn't count as a victory to me.
>
>
>
>It's hard to have a lot of victories if you don't go to war every time somebody farts.
>
>What do you say? They lost in vietnam? I can name another country that got it's ass kciked over there as well.
>
No our military did not lose in Vietnam.
Our politicians lost that war.
Our military did not lose a single major battle in Vietnam.
You can technically say we lost that war, but our military performed quite well. We lost fifty-eight thousand, they lost hundreds of thousands.

Iraq was the world's third largest standing army, and we toppled them in what, two weeks ?


 
FN Posted: Tue Apr 13 17:01:22 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  marsteller said:
>might makes right. sucks to be from a pussy country that can't do shit.


I'm pretty sure I'd kick your ass any day actually.

It's easy to act tough from behind your keyboard though so I won't get into something simplistic like that.

You act like you're the one who makes "your" country what it is by the way, and like a kid that gets his ass kicked on the playground everyday and threatens the others that he'll tell the teachers

You are nothing and seem to be too stupid to ever rise above your current value.

I'm sorry (not) but you are beneath me, be thankful that I take the time to respond, watch and learn.

Keep that flag waving and that great educational system of which you are the product running, the world needs people like you to man underpaid positions to check the conveyer belts and get ripped off by trailer salesmen.


Booyah cowboy


 
FN Posted: Tue Apr 13 17:04:34 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>You can technically say we lost that war, but our military performed quite well. We lost fifty-eight thousand, they lost hundreds of thousands.
>

Preformed well or not, you lost, period.

>Iraq was the world's third largest standing army, and we toppled them in what, two weeks ?

We both know that the Iraqi army was worth shit.

A headcount doesn't say anything, if you would look at it that way the African continent would be the biggest military power.

Yes I know they aren't united but you get my point so don't even start.


 
addi Posted: Tue Apr 13 17:44:48 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Yo, Asswipe...call the lap dog back in! He's gotton loose again and is marking his territory by taking dumps all over the neighborhood.

Bad Little Doggie!

: )


 
Asswipe Posted: Tue Apr 13 19:50:14 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  man, good to see some shit-slinging, it has been way to clean around here.

i'd just like to say that if the majority of the press out there is liberal than that's prolly good to have them like that, being the opposite of what the government is. However, the population of the country is currently divided pretty evenly conservatives/liberal wise, and since news channels care most about ratings and revenues than objectiveness they will create their programs to get the most viewers. So unless less conservatives watch the news than liberals, i'd bet the division of conservative/liberal news groups reflects the populations division.


 
Asswipe Posted: Tue Apr 13 20:00:00 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>marsteller said:
>>might makes right. sucks to be from a pussy country that can't do shit.
>
>
>I'm pretty sure I'd kick your ass any day actually.

i don't know you or anything about your abilities to fight but i'll assure you that marstellar can benchpress 7 elephants and throw a punch that matches that.

>
>It's easy to act tough from behind your keyboard though so I won't get into something simplistic like that.

yes, it is.

>
>You act like you're the one who makes "your" country what it is by the way, and like a kid that gets his ass kicked on the playground everyday and threatens the others that he'll tell the teachers

no, he acts like he's sitting back and enjoying the work of others through a policy of imperialism.

>
>You are nothing and seem to be too stupid to ever rise above your current value.
>
>I'm sorry (not) but you are beneath me, be thankful that I take the time to respond, watch and learn.
>
>Keep that flag waving and that great educational system of which you are the product running, the world needs people like you to man underpaid positions to check the conveyer belts and get ripped off by trailer salesmen.
>
>
>Booyah cowboy

damn you're real easy to get a rise out of.


 
Asswipe Posted: Tue Apr 13 20:01:05 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  i have to write a paper on capitalism being the root of human evil, how sweet is that.


 
FN Posted: Tue Apr 13 20:11:44 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>damn you're real easy to get a rise out of.

Lol, like I said before I refuse to get pissed off because of him, I really feel superior towards somebody like that so it doesn't really bother me.

It irritated me a bit at first but I regained control before I let it bother me.


I'm not impressed by his bench-pressing abilities by the way. Doesn't say shit about "fighting skills".

More than once I've seen guys like that getting their asses kicked by people who were a head shorter than them, simply because they didn't see it comming and thought they were going to win anyway.

However, I'm past kintergarten so I'll pass on making threads towards somebody thousands of kilometres away.




And capitalism isn't the root of human evil, human evil is the root of capitalism.


 
Asswipe Posted: Tue Apr 13 20:25:09 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>And capitalism isn't the root of human evil, human evil is the root of capitalism.

Well, I agree that human evil exists outside of capitalism, and capitalism is driven from our desire for self-improvement, and i'm stating that, but i'm also showing how capitalism leads to major inequalities, especially after the industrial revolution. Basically, it all boils down to a debate between capitalism and communism, and i'm taking the stance that neither are good.


 
FN Posted: Tue Apr 13 20:43:37 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I don't believe in equality.


Don't know where I got this but I agree completely:


"There can be no more myth of “equality” for all—it only translates to “mediocrity” and supports the weak at the expense of the strong. Water must be allowed to seek its own level without interference from apologists for incompetence. No one should be protected from the effects of his own stupidity."


Communism is Utopia, capitalism is reality.


 
FN Posted: Tue Apr 13 20:48:49 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  By the way, something I found funny is when bush said "bring 'em on".

Easy for him to say from behind his desk isn't it.

And I'm sure he isn't the only one who talks like that "back home".


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Apr 13 20:50:49 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>I don't believe in equality.
>
>
>Don't know where I got this but I agree completely:
>
>
>"There can be no more myth of “equality” for all—it only translates to “mediocrity” and supports the weak at the expense of the strong. Water must be allowed to seek its own level without interference from apologists for incompetence. No one should be protected from the effects of his own stupidity."
>
>
>Communism is Utopia, capitalism is reality.
>
Yep, you'd make a damn fine Republican Chris.
Freedom is better than equality and stupid people reap what they earn.


 
FN Posted: Tue Apr 13 20:54:43 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I'm probably somewhere in between as I share standpoints from both parties as far as I know.


I find it extremely odd by the way that there seem to be only 2 parties.

What's up with the other ones?


 
FN Posted: Tue Apr 13 21:05:32 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Freedom is better than equality and stupid people reap what they earn.


And say what you want but from my point of view your republican government is restricting personal freedom.


I am for economic freedom, and just as much for personal freedom and the 2 are 2 very different and seperate things and the republican party only takes care of the economic part.

Here in Belgium the liberal party, the VLD (Vlaamse Liberalen en Democraten, Flemish Liberals and Democrates) is for both economic and personal freedom and is doing a great job in providing both.

Can't say the same about the republican party.

Patriot act anyone?

Safety measures my ass.


 
Asswipe Posted: Tue Apr 13 22:16:02 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  i'm not completely finished w/ this paper, the structure needs work, and the flow is sort of crappy, but if any would be so kind to read it and maybe point out some problems they see, it'd be much appreciated.

"We are consumers; we are by-products of a lifestyle obsession. Murder, Crime, Poverty, these things don't concern me. What concerns me are celebrity magazines, Televisions with 500 channels, some guys name on my underwear" - Fight Club

The Right to Property forms the basis of the US constitution because many believe liberty cannot be attained with out this right. This idea was clearly stated in Locke’s Second Treatise on Civil Government where Jefferson, the writer of the Declaration of Independence, found his ideas. In the Treatise, Lock discusses that as men living in this world, we are entitled to claim its elements and through our labor in harvesting, fencing in, or whatever is required to make use of them, they become our property. His ideas are noble, but when the right to property is taken further in considering the progression of this theory, many problems arise. I intend to show that the claiming of property, combined with natural inequalities, leads to the manifestation of much larger inequalities and, because of our instinctive qualities of self-improvement and survival of the fittest, as Tyler Durden tells us in the movie Fight Club, and to a whole host of blind obsessions. However property is not the root of all evil as Rousseau believes, it is merely a path for humans to channel our instinctual want for self-improvement. This instinct conflicts with our nature of pity for other humans, which gives rise to theories of communism.

Locke begins his discussion on property, showing us that the world and its goods are granted to humanity by God, and individual property is gained through one’s labor. If someone picks an apple that no one previously owned, it now belongs to the picker. He believed that property will not be hoarded, that each will only take what they can use, and there will always be enough of everything for everyone. And he was right, but he did not account for men’s desire to keep improving. Men were attracted to the exciting lifestyles of big cities, exchanging their rakes and hoes for luxurious dreams; to leave behind the dull and monotonous lifestyle of a farmer to, hopefully, live as aristocrats; as kings. With the advent of big business and the industrial revolution, men climbed the social ladder, going from rags to riches, transforming into a class comparable to European aristocrats, yet this lifestyle is not available for all, but all struggle for it. This is where Rousseau’s notions of inequality and evil can be seen.

Locke’s theory on property is not complete; he does not foresee the right to accumulate property leading to a very intricate state of war within the business world. At the start of society, before the industrial revolution, corporations and the mass production of goods, Locke’s theory is applicable. Small towns needed a man of every profession to live there, and often, more than one. They needed a farmer (or more than one), a blacksmith, a carpenter, etc. The men could each get a relatively fair value for their labor. However, ever since the industrial revolution all men cannot get an even price for their labor; their effort is worth far less. Instead, capital is hoarded by those with all of the money. The business leaders own the simple-to-run machines that produce better shoes, clothing, hamburgers, etc., at far faster paces than a single cobbler, seamstress or chef could. Their ability to create such a large quantity of goods at cheap prices forces smaller businesses that do not mass produce their goods out of business. Furthermore, the large population of uneducated citizens is plentiful enough to stifle competition for the numerous, easy-to-operate jobs created, lowering the value of the common worker and with that, his wages. This, as Rousseau and Marx told us, is the formation of class inequality, where a few men who made wise discoveries benefit from the monotonous work of the majority. When government attempted to regulate these inequalities by implementing a minimum wage, many large companies shipped across oceans where they could return to paying foreign workers even less than Americans.

These men, the leaders of big business, compete for the best men who have the best ideas in developing new products, or improvements on new products that people will want to buy. Similar to the dog eat dog world of nature, the strong prosper by developing the best methods of creating a certain good, or developing improved products, making them filthy rich. This, of course, is only possible when people are willing to keep buying better and better goods, and through the desire for self-improvement, they are very willing to do so. This result of people competing in a never ending struggle to create, and to own the best products, is a quest to improve their well-being. This endless quest is a form of evil, in that it is with out purpose and succeeding in it only means that someone, or because of the industrial revolution, many people will fail because of one man’s success. Not only will many men fail after being out-competed, but some will be degraded to performing the monotonous jobs required of the industrial era.

Communist theories try to rectify these problems, agreeing with Rousseau that personal property leads to class inequalities and oppression of the masses by the minority. They state that this is the cause of all human evils, but their theories are equally flawed because just as communist thinkers pity weak humans and want to help them, there is an equal if not, stronger, desire to promote the self. Humans care very much about the self, not about the community. With out the ability to directly promote the well-being of the self, the motivation to produce is greatly diminished. This can lead to a lack of technological developments because most will not be inspired to, and those who do will lack the altruism to believe that although they created this widely desired good, they get no special privileges because of it.

Another problem with communism is, to make everything truly equal, the only goods that could be available would be the bare necessity of survival. Any goods that require rare recourses to produce could not be divided evenly because there may simply not be enough of them. Furthermore, any goods that require a great deal of time to create would need to be distributed to some before others. Basically, unless society reverts to simple farm life, equality would be impossible and the problem of inequality would still reign. If people were content with the meager existence of farm work, capitalism would not have engrained itself so fiercely and deeply as it has. This is simply stating that equality is impossible and resentful feelings will still exist in a communist state, but evils exist outside of property envy as well.
Freud discusses the nature of man in Civilization and Its Discontents concluding that men are not that far from animals in having natural aggressive tendencies towards our neighbors. We see our neighbors as competitors in life and will very often abuse them in order to raise our own value. If private property is completely abolished, Freud believes “there still remains prerogative in the field of sexual relationships.” (p. 71) He does not know the path our aggressive nature will take if sexual relationships become completely open, but he believes it will come out in some way. He is also failing to account for the feelings of pity that Rousseau described as being innate in all beings.

The idea of communism seems contrary to the nature of survival of the fittest found in life. For billions of years animals have struggled to survive and the strongest or most intelligent, those best suited for living, survive and create the best offspring, while the weaker die off. This process of natural selection has shaped the history of the Earth. It is easy to see that capitalism is better suited for the nature of life, since it benefits the strong and intelligent, however the weaker and less able humans are required to keep the system alive. This is where human sympathy runs contrary to the nature of survival of the fittest and causes communistic thinkers to want to support their fellow brothers in offering them a fairer share of the pie. The problem is many people are not confronted with the horrible lives led by many out there, so do not feel directly responsible. They also do not want to give up their own wealth and security to protect others. It is like seeing a fire consuming a house. While any man who sees such a travesty will feel bad for those who may still be trapped in the house, most would not sacrifice their own lives in offering help. This example is extreme but the same principles of self-preservation vs. pity for our fellow man come into conflict.

Locke’s argument boils down to the natural tendencies to care primarily about the self, and it seems Freud would agree with him. Locke, however, failed to see, or just did not care about, the inevitable inequality that arises from the desire for self-improvement. Rousseau and Marx pointed out the inequalities that arise, and even went as far as to call it the source for all evil. They failed to look to our roots in nature and the survival of the fittest means that flourish within it; rather they took up a view of pity for their fellow, unequal man, and Marx especially wanted to follow this natural feeling of pity in creating a classless society. It is an interesting conflict of our natural tendencies that could help lead to a better understanding of the nature of humans and society.


i need a title too


 
addi Posted: Tue Apr 13 23:31:45 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  i'm tired and off to bed, asswipe, so i don't feel like i can do you justice here. All in all I think it's good and most of the comments i would end up making would be nitpicky things (for example: some geologists and palentologists believe that it hasn't just been survival of the fittest in several catastrophic events in earth's history, but that the "weaker and smaller", but most able to adapt to the post trauma environment were the animals able to continue their line).

If I was back in the classroom grading these as a teacher i might comment that your understanding of the history and strenghts and weaknesses of both systems was presented, but I would have liked to have read what Asswipe's thoughts were on a solution to the weaknesses each system possess. One prefered over the other, or a combination of some type? What modifications if any would you make to better them, or why you feel that isn't possible.

but that's just the teacher in me coming out guy, and i'm shot for the night


 
Asswipe Posted: Wed Apr 14 01:17:46 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>i'm tired and off to bed, asswipe, so i don't feel like i can do you justice here. All in all I think it's good and most of the comments i would end up making would be nitpicky things (for example: some geologists and palentologists believe that it hasn't just been survival of the fittest in several catastrophic events in earth's history, but that the "weaker and smaller", but most able to adapt to the post trauma environment were the animals able to continue their line).

i havn't thought about this point but i don't think these examples represent what happens most of the time. They are more representative of examples from movies like trading spaces where eddie murphy, a bum on the street, gets slapped into a rich guys house by some objective gods. And this example isn't "nitpicky", it's a small shot against my thesis. i need more stuff like this so i can strengthen the argument.

>
>If I was back in the classroom grading these as a teacher i might comment that your understanding of the history and strenghts and weaknesses of both systems was presented, but I would have liked to have read what Asswipe's thoughts were on a solution to the weaknesses each system possess. One prefered over the other, or a combination of some type? What modifications if any would you make to better them, or why you feel that isn't possible.

good idea to toss this in there, but i think i'm pretty much done w/ the paper and don't have the energy or will to give a crap. My teacher will agree w/ you though.

>
>but that's just the teacher in me coming out guy, and i'm shot for the night

i do verily appreciate you taking the time to read it. I know the topic can be dry and boring, and i didn't do a super job of clearly presenting my points, so thanks mucho.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Apr 14 06:50:10 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Patriot act anyone?
>
>Safety measures my ass.
>
And what do you know about the Patriot Act ?
Can you name one instance where any citizen has be deprived of his civil rights because of it ?
I can certainly tell you that there are hundreds of terrorists in prison now because of it, that would otherwise be walking around bombing things.


 
Asswipe Posted: Wed Apr 14 09:46:06 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Christophe said:
>>Patriot act anyone?
>>
>>Safety measures my ass.
>>
>And what do you know about the Patriot Act ?
>Can you name one instance where any citizen has be deprived of his civil rights because of it ?
>I can certainly tell you that there are hundreds of terrorists in prison now because of it, that would otherwise be walking around bombing things.

haha, the patriot act violates about 4 of our rights secured to us in the bill of rights. it allows the government to violate our freedom of assembly and freedom of assembly, grants given to us by bills 9, 1, 2, 3 and 4 and breaks the ideals of 5. a whole bunch of muslims have been falsely held w/ out trial and i'm sure thousands more have been monitored(via secret wire taps) w/ out a judges consent. gives all the power to the executive, bipassing the judicial system, saying FU to our system of checks and balances. it will be declared unconstitutional shortly.


 
Asswipe Posted: Wed Apr 14 09:47:04 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Christophe said:
>>>Patriot act anyone?
>>>
>>>Safety measures my ass.
>>>
>>And what do you know about the Patriot Act ?
>>Can you name one instance where any citizen has be deprived of his civil rights because of it ?
>>I can certainly tell you that there are hundreds of terrorists in prison now because of it, that would otherwise be walking around bombing things.
>
>haha, the patriot act violates about 4 of our rights secured to us in the bill of rights. it allows the government to violate our freedom of assembly and freedom of assembly, grants given to us by bills 9, 1, 2, 3 and 4 and breaks the ideals of 5. a whole bunch of muslims have been falsely held w/ out trial and i'm sure thousands more have been monitored(via secret wire taps) w/ out a judges consent. gives all the power to the executive, bipassing the judicial system, saying FU to our system of checks and balances. it will be declared unconstitutional shortly.

2nd freedom of assembly = freedom of privacy... these are both granted to us through interpretation of the bill of rights by numerous judicial cases, check griswold v. connecticut


 
addi Posted: Wed Apr 14 09:59:37 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>I can certainly tell you that there are hundreds of terrorists in prison now because of it, that would otherwise be walking around bombing things.

i just hate it when they walk around bombing things : )


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Apr 14 10:05:13 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  hmmmmm, I suppose we could just release all the terrorists that are in prison now because of the Patriot Act Asswipe, would it be ok with you if we turned them loose in your town ?
Would you deny the govt the tools they need to protect us ?
You speak in abstract terms when you say
"a whole bunch of muslims falsely held without trial and thousands more."
Which ones specifically ?
You can bitch and scream about the injustices of our govt, but you provide no solutions. What good is that ?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Apr 14 10:18:17 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Leftist Lies About the Patriot Act

By Peter King and Ed Koch
New York Post | December 9, 2003


The brutal attacks of 9/11 brought home to the American people what should have been clear to our nation's leaders years before that fateful day: We are at war with Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and their radical Islamic terrorist allies throughout the world and within our borders.

It is a war that threatens our national survival. Yet, listening to an increasingly shrill chorus of political voices, Americans could almost conclude that the real threat to our country comes not from bin Laden and al-Qaeda but John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act.

Wesley Clark says the Patriot Act "essentially suspended habeas corpus." Howard Dean calls the law "shameful" and "unconstitutional." Dick Gephardt pledges to fire Aschroft in his "first five minutes as president." John Kerry assures his audiences, "There will be no John Ashcroft trampling on the Bill of Rights" in a Kerry administration.

All this for a law that two years ago passed both houses overwhelmingly, with only one dissenting vote in the Senate.

For the most part, the Democratic presidential aspirants have not gone beyond applause-gathering one-liners. But former Vice President Al Gore recently delivered a detailed speech extremely critical of the Patriot Act and the motives of the Bush administration itself.

Gore accused the president and his attorney general of "constant violations of civil liberties," "putting our country in grave and unnecessary danger" and "using the war against terrorism for partisan advantage." His attacks centered on three parts of the Patriot Act: Sec. 214, which allows federal agents to delay giving suspects notice after a search has been carried out; Sec. 215, which allows searches of medical, business and library records of suspected terrorists; and Sec. 218, which allows surveillance of cell phones and Internet communications.

Before addressing these specifics, let's put Gore's case in its proper perspective by citing Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, who recently said she hadn't found a "single abuse of the Patriot Act" - and when she asked the ACLU for any instance of abuse, was told, "they had none." Similarly, Sen. Joe Biden, D-DE, said criticism of the Patriot Act "is both misinformed and overblown" and the Justice Department has "done a pretty good job in terms of implementing" the law.



Now for the details.

* The delayed notification in Sec. 213 was already the law in cases involving organized crime, narcotics and pornography. It makes common sense because it would be absurd to inform a suspected mobster or a terrorist during the course of an investigation that a listening device had been installed in his home or office.

* Sec. 215 - the much-feared "assault against librarians" - has not been used even once. Nonetheless, we strongly believe this is a weapon that must remain in the prosecutor's arsenal. There could well be cases, for instance, when it would be critical to learn whether a suspected terrorist is reading books on explosives or the structural design of office buildings, landmark sites, bridges or tunnels. It should also be noted that library records were instrumental in tracking down such murderers as the Zodiac killer and the Unabomber.

* Sec. 218 merely gives federal agents authority to conduct surveillance of cell phones and the Internet to the same extent they can surveil rotary phones. It would be foolhardy to let terrorists use the technology of modern telecommunications without fear of being detected.

The bottom line is that the criticisms by Gore and the other critics are shameful and irresponsible. Of course we gave our government added power in the aftermath of 9/11. These powers are essential to confront a new and deadly threat.

We are also well aware that all police powers are susceptible to abuse. That risk exists, however, every time we give a law-enforcement office a loaded weapon. It is the job of the legislatures and the courts to guard against such abuses. Responsible criticism is essential to safeguarding our citizens against governmental abuse.

It is in that spirit of responsible criticism that we raise our own concern - on President Bush's claimed right (which is not a part of the Patriot Act) to declare American citizens "enemy combatants" and effectively take them out of the legal system by detaining them indefinitely without judicial review. This practice is too susceptible to well-intentioned error - let alone abuse - without built-in judicial safeguards. Similarly, whether or not an individual is entitled to proceed in a court action, any person being detained should have the right to consult with an attorney.

Having raised these concerns, we commend President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft for the superb job they have done over the past two years. Our liberties have been protected and our country has not been attacked. Unlike their critics, George W. Bush and John Ashcroft have had to face the hard choices and make the hard decisions. And they have made them well.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
addi Posted: Wed Apr 14 11:08:43 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I sat and watched last nights press conference, shook my head at the question dodging, the long awkward pauses, the stumbling over and for words, and was embarressed for the leader of the free world.


Tom Maertens
April 13, 2004MAERTENS0413
MANKATO, MINN. -- Few Americans would seriously argue that we are winning the war on terrorism. Instead of pursuing Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaida, we have become bogged down in a war against Iraqi extremists.

These are not the people who attacked us on 9/11.

American tactics in Iraq are increasing support for Muslim extremists everywhere. The U.S. military reacted to the killing and mutilation of four American contract workers in Fallujah by using gun ships and U.S. Marines against a mosque and Iraqi civilians.

The fighting that resulted looks like a popular uprising uniting traditional Sunni and Shiite enemies against us. George W. Bush is a uniter after all.

It doesn't take a lifelong student of Arab-Muslim societies to understand that these people are seething with hatred for the United States. As would anyone who has been unjustly attacked, they want revenge. One need look no further than the attacks of 9/11 to understand this.

U.S. success in Iraq had been predicated on the majority Shiites remaining neutral. This isn't happening.

The typical dynamics of a quasi-revolutionary situation favor the most radical elements -- even if only a small minority -- who are fully committed and more willing to use violence than the silent middle. Events of the American Revolution bear this out. The current cycle of Muslim attack followed by a U.S. military reaction will inevitably create more "martyrs" for the cause.

Under these conditions, we can expect more of the moderate Shiite followers of Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani to join the extremists. Even those who oppose the violence will be neutralized by the increased radicalization that makes it dangerous to side with the U.S. against their Islamic brethren.

The Fallujah atrocities and the subsequent U.S. overreaction could be a turning point in this fight, perhaps like the 1968 Tet offensive in Vietnam that revealed the hollowness of administration claims to be winning that war.

Although U.S. forces could level Fallujah or any other city, each inflammatory "victory" further damages any hope of establishing democracy. Bombing mosques and killing civilians will not win hearts and minds.

Why are we planning to stay? The administration contends that a quick U.S. departure could result in civil war, encourage our enemies and damage our credibility in the world.

These concerns are all justified, but the administration should have seen this earlier. It has gotten the country into a war without having an exit strategy.

To date we have suffered 4,000 casualties, 600 of them deaths, and spent $160 billion.

Six months from now, the cost and casualty figures will be higher, and proponents of the war will still argue the dangers of early departure: civil war, heartened enemies and damaged U.S. credibility.

One year from now, assuming we stay the present course, only the casualties and the costs will have changed. The arguments for this no-win scenario will remain the same, just as they were for Vietnam.

The Soviet Union faced the same dilemma after it became bogged down in Afghanistan following the 1979 invasion. It took several years before the Soviets realized that no meaningful definition of "winning" justified the costs. The arguments against leaving, similar to what we hear now in the United States, prevailed: We must stay the course; we cannot cut and run.

Not until 1989, after 1.3 million Afghans were dead and 485,000 Soviets were casualties, did Moscow conclude that the costs far outweighed any gains.

I served as a U.S. diplomat in the Soviet Union from 1987 to 1989 and saw firsthand the damage inflicted on Soviet society by nine years of slow blood-letting in Afghanistan, including the crippled, embittered veterans who returned home only to find they were somehow blamed for losing the war.

We are faced with a momentous decision in Iraq that could lead to similar consequences. Saddam Hussein is in custody, there are no weapons of mass destruction and there never was any connection with 9/11. Sovereignty is to be restored to Iraq on June 30, and the United Nations is helping to organize elections.

What further measures of success must the administration achieve in order to declare victory and leave? How many more lives is it willing to spend in order to achieve what they define as victory? A mindless admonition to stay the course without defining the end point won't do.

Instead of planning to withdraw troops, however, the Bush administration is now talking of sending reinforcements. More troops will only prolong the agony and raise the costs, without any real prospect of improving the situation -- or of "winning."

It's not a question of cut and run; it's a question of declaring victory and cutting our losses. The Bush administration dragged us into this war using false pretenses and macho "bring it on" posturing. The only right course now is for the administration to support the troops by bringing them home.

Tom Maertens, now retired, also served as a Naval officer during the Vietnam era and a Peace Corps volunteer in Africa



 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Apr 14 12:14:37 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  There are some good points that were made in your above post Addie, but some not so good either:

Number one, NO ONE ever said that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. We attacked them for other reasons, bringing up point number two: We did not go to war under false pretenses.
WMD's were but one of the many reasons we went to war, and that one still has not been laid to rest.
I would ask you one more time: Where are the chem/bio weapons that were documented by Hans Blix before he was kicked out ?

We can't really compare this to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan because we are not trying to occupy them. This is a totally different mission, and the country is not united against us.
Most of Iraq is a calm place now and the vast majority of Iraqis are getting on with their lives. The MINOR insurgency, and that's what it was, an insurgency, not an uprising, in Fallujah was quelled rather quickly for a quagmire don't you think ?
Yes, this war is costly both in lives and resources, but all wars are, and this is no different. I have friends and family over there, and still I support the mission.
We are fighting to end terrorism. Of course this is a war that will never be won completely, but terrorism can and will be controlled to a point that it will be a minor nuisance.
Iraq has been proven to be a hotbed of terrorist support and the toppling of Saddam has already paid great dividends in the war on terror. There can be no mistaking this, just look at Libya and Syria and what they are doing now. We just might be able to accomplish in Syria with diplomacy, what we thought could only be accomplished with the military just one year ago. We'll see . . .


 
Asswipe Posted: Wed Apr 14 16:18:19 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>but that's just the teacher in me coming out guy, and i'm shot for the night

you were... a teacher?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Apr 14 16:18:19 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>
>yes, once we get past this big fallujah mess it will be clear sailing.....
>
>for any of you interested in a counterbalance to the myriad of conservative radio pundits out there:
>
>http://www.airamericaradio.com
>
>
After just two weeks on the air, Air America Radio, the fledgling liberal talk-radio network featuring Al Franken and Janeane Garofalo, appears to have encountered serious cash-flow problems.

The CHICAGO TRIBUNE is developing a story, insiders tell DRUDGE, on how the network was pulled off the air this morning in Chicago and Los Angeles, the network's second- and third-largest markets, because, the owner of both stations said, the network bounced a check and owes him more than $1 million! A charge the network strongly denies...

A Chicago source familiar with the situation said a Multicultural representative showed up at WNTD's offices Wednesday morning, kicked out Air America's lone staffer overseeing the network's feed to the station from New York, switched over to a Spanish-language feed, and changed the locks on the doors...

Air America filed a complaint Wednesday in New York state Supreme Court charging Multicultural with breaching their contract and seeking an injunction to force Multicultural to restore the Air America broadcast on both stations... Developing...




 
FN Posted: Wed Apr 14 17:03:10 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>I sat and watched last nights press conference, shook my head at the question dodging, the long awkward pauses, the stumbling over and for words, and was embarressed for the leader of the free world.


Leader of the free world minus 1.

He doesn't have shit on me and I'd never recognise anybody I don't respect as a leader.


 
marsteller Posted: Wed Apr 14 17:05:03 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  actually, he does have shit on you, because he commands the biggest collection of armed forces in the world, and you ain't got shit but the bb gun in your closet.


 
marsteller Posted: Wed Apr 14 17:05:52 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  say what you want about G-Dub, but to be in the position of power that he's in, he must've done something right.


 
FN Posted: Wed Apr 14 17:14:49 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Yes, this war is costly both in lives and resources, but all wars are, and this is no different. I have friends and family over there, and still I support the mission.
>We are fighting to end terrorism.


I think that's what the "porblem" is in your case hif.

You can't possibly be objective because you don't want/can't believe friends and family are risking their lives for the search for money/power of a few.

They are fighting for a president who is acting tough from behind his desk in some sort of midlife-crisis macho fling to prove himself to his daddy.

Well, not only that ofcourse but you get my point.

I mean, seriously, "bring 'em on" while you're thousands of miles away of the people who are actually in harms way, while you're surrounded by an army of bodyguards, do I really have to say more?

Others on here (do I dare to say "like me"?) have no emotional bond with the whole thing, it won't change a single aspect of my life, and since I got nothing to lose or no illusions to protect I (and many other along with me) can be pretty objective, at least more so than you.

You don't even need to respond to this because you're not "to blame" for it all, it's only human and it isn't meant as an attack on you either, just thought that perhaps you might want to take that into account for a second (although I'm sure you won't and dismiss it as lefty bullshit;I'm center-right by the way (and again, what's up with other american parties?))


 
FN Posted: Wed Apr 14 17:15:32 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  marsteller said:
>actually, he does have shit on you, because he commands the biggest collection of armed forces in the world, and you ain't got shit but the bb gun in your closet.


Lol.

He doesn't have shit on me.


 
FN Posted: Wed Apr 14 17:16:12 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>marsteller said:
>>actually, he does have shit on you, because he commands the biggest collection of armed forces in the world, and you ain't got shit but the bb gun in your closet.
>
>
>Lol.
>
>He doesn't have shit on me.


Unless they go forging documents again and call me a terrorist.


 
marsteller Posted: Wed Apr 14 17:18:00 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  yeah, but you gotta respect the fact that if he/they wanted to, he/they could, and it wouldn't really be much of a problem. they can do whatever the hell they want, and that's pretty fuckin sweet


 
addi Posted: Wed Apr 14 17:25:37 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:

>you were... a teacher?

hard to believe , I know. up until a few years ago i was warping sweet innocent young conservative minds and exposing them to the dark (liberal) side of life.
now i have to do it on the internet.


did you finish your paper?


 
FN Posted: Wed Apr 14 17:26:48 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  marsteller said:
>yeah, but you gotta respect the fact that if he/they wanted to, he/they could, and it wouldn't really be much of a problem. they can do whatever the hell they want, and that's pretty fuckin sweet



Nope.

He doesn't have shit on me as a leader and you can't regulate somebody's thoughts about stuff like that.

You want to be somebody's lapdog, fine by me, but don't assume everybody is that submissive.


 
marsteller Posted: Wed Apr 14 17:28:18 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  i think we've got some sort of a miscommunication on that last part, but i gotta head to class, so maybe we'll clarify later.


 
addi Posted: Wed Apr 14 17:29:02 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  marsteller,
put the bong down...
now slowly back away from the keyboard...
good boy!


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Apr 14 17:51:51 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Yes, this war is costly both in lives and resources, but all wars are, and this is no different. I have friends and family over there, and still I support the mission.
>>We are fighting to end terrorism.
>
>
>I think that's what the "porblem" is in your case hif.
>
>You can't possibly be objective because you don't want/can't believe friends and family are risking their lives for the search for money/power of a few.
>
>They are fighting for a president who is acting tough from behind his desk in some sort of midlife-crisis macho fling to prove himself to his daddy.
>
>Well, not only that ofcourse but you get my point.
>
>I mean, seriously, "bring 'em on" while you're thousands of miles away of the people who are actually in harms way, while you're surrounded by an army of bodyguards, do I really have to say more?
>
>Others on here (do I dare to say "like me"?) have no emotional bond with the whole thing, it won't change a single aspect of my life, and since I got nothing to lose or no illusions to protect I (and many other along with me) can be pretty objective, at least more so than you.
>
Sorry to disappoint but I supported this war long before anyone was fighting. As far as I'm concerned, we waited too long before we attacked.

As far as what you think of Dubya, his intelligence is not in question.
He has degrees both from Harvard and Yale that were not bought by daddy.
And he is the leader of the most powerful nation in history, both militarily and economically.
Yeah, he's dumb like a fox eh ?

And as long as people like you continue to underestimate him, he will get over on you every single time.


 
Asswipe Posted: Wed Apr 14 21:21:52 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>
>hard to believe , I know. up until a few years ago i was warping sweet innocent young conservative minds and exposing them to the dark (liberal) side of life.
>now i have to do it on the internet.

haha, that's awesome, i'd no idea. I always assumed you were a dream deferred cartoonist who ended up working some desk job.

what'd you teach, to whom and why'd you move away from it? If you don't mind me probing...

>
>
>did you finish your paper?

yeah, i did. Fixed a lot of the sentence structures up to ease the flow and cleaned up some weak statements. I think the teacher may have just wanted us to pick a side, either communist/capitalist, and support it but i don't think i could have done much more than restate shit locke/marx said, so F that.

gotta write another one tonight, so if anyone has any good robert frost topics to write a paper on lemme know, and soon.


 
Asswipe Posted: Wed Apr 14 21:26:31 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  marsteller said:
>say what you want about G-Dub, but to be in the position of power that he's in, he must've done something right.

you even gonna vote in the next election?


 
addi Posted: Wed Apr 14 22:34:00 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:

>what'd you teach, to whom and why'd you move away from it? If you don't mind me probing...

Reading and writing to elementary children, mostly K and 1st graders. One year of 4th graders. The specialized reading program was discontinued by the school district so I spent 2 years being a substitute in middle school and high school (everything from french to band to phy.ed) I ended up accepting a desk job in education because the pay was much better and i got very sick of the administrative bullshit and poor pay. But even though i earn more now I really miss the interaction with the students, and frequently wonder if I made the wrong decision for the sake of more income. oh well...

>gotta write another one tonight, so if anyone has any good robert frost topics to write a paper on lemme know, and soon.

Don't know a whole lot about him. Just the standard "Stopping By Woods On snowy Evening", and that's probably too commonplace to analyze for you. I know he was (and remained) a traditionalist in his meter and style when others during his time were being experimental and moving on to a more modern free verse. I had a college class years ago on English and american poets and seem to remember that Frost often dealt with darker topics and wasn't just fluffy sugary sweet stuff (check that one though). Sorry can't be of much more help on this one.


 
marsteller Posted: Thu Apr 15 02:13:03 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>you even gonna vote in the next election?

fuck voting man, i don't get down like that


 
FN Posted: Thu Apr 15 08:47:36 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  This is appropriate for religious threadsq but for this one as well i think, found it on GT:



If you were taught that elves caused rain, every time it rained, you'd see the proof of elves.
- Ariex


 
FN Posted: Thu Apr 15 08:49:36 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  We need not fear those who do evil in the name of evil, but Heaven protect us from those who do evil in the name of good.

Arthur C. Adams





 
FN Posted: Thu Apr 15 08:58:23 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  If you don't control your mind, someone else will.

John Allston



There are no warlike peoples -- just warlike leaders.

Ralph Bunche



As Hitler showed us, a press suppressed does not make a recovery. As Lenin indicated, a press controlled does not revert to a critic's role. As history reminds us, free speech surrendered is rarely recovered.
William J. Small - former president of United Press International



War is at its best barbarism... Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have never fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.

General William Tecumseh Sherman
speech to the Michigan Military Academy, 1879


 
simonvii Posted: Thu Apr 15 11:03:03 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  "terror cannot succeed unless opposed by equal or greater terror..."
adolf hitler


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Apr 15 13:08:12 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  do unto others before they do unto you -- king thong


 
FN Posted: Thu Apr 15 16:14:36 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>do unto others before they do unto you -- king thong

and sooner or later somebody's going to beat you to it -- Christophe


 
Mesh Posted: Thu Apr 15 16:24:34 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  "I like lots of things. I like cake. I like boobies. I like the women attached to the boobies. But there is one thing I dont like. And that is Your face. Bitch."


 
addi Posted: Thu Apr 15 16:28:44 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  i think he's referring to your proboscis monkey hif


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Apr 15 16:36:26 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>i think he's referring to your proboscis monkey hif
>
Are you sure?
I thought it was a quote from The Lion King.


 
FN Posted: Thu Apr 15 16:38:29 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>addison said:
>>i think he's referring to your proboscis monkey hif
>>
>Are you sure?
>I thought it was a quote from The Lion King.

The Thong King


Although word on the street is he smells like a beast.


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]