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

What is wrong with this picture ?
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Nov 3 11:55:03 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  A court in Saudi Arabia has sentenced the victim of a gang rape to 90 lashes of the whip because she was alone in a car with a man other than her husband.

The Jerusalem Post reports the high-profile and controversial trial ended with the convicted rapists sentenced to punishments ranging from one thousand lashes to as little as 80 10 fewer than the victim along with prison terms of between one and five years. The woman's family says it will appeal what it considers inadequate sentences for the rapists.




 
Posted: Fri Nov 3 16:57:36 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  http://www.ffrf.org/

it's about time, s'all I'm saying.


 
Mesh Posted: Fri Nov 3 23:48:02 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  To be fair, in the bible it says a woman who is raped within the city walls should be the one executed(because she should have "yelled out for help".) Only if it was outside the city walls should the rapist be punished.


I agree though, that is messed up. Islam needs to catch up with at least the 18th century, if not the 21st. I just thank the fates I wasn't born in a country like that. It's a shame anyone should be. Cultural differences my ass, fucked up is fucked up, no matter what.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Nov 4 08:15:36 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Mr. Misses said:
>Cultural differences my ass, fucked up is fucked up, no matter what.
>
Thou speakest the truth


 
libra Posted: Sat Nov 4 13:17:28 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  This isn't necessarily indicative of all countries in the middle east. Saudi Arabia has the most strict set of laws based on a strain of Islam that most others don't practice.

Women are treated inferiorly in every country. In the US, Only fifty years ago, a woman who was raped had to have witnesses in order to press charges. most women who were raped and reported it to the police felt like the police made the rape their fault..saying things like they were wearing provocative clothing, or walking in the wrong area. Most women didn't report rape to the police, and many still don't.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Nov 4 13:52:20 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>This isn't necessarily indicative of all countries in the middle east. Saudi Arabia has the most strict set of laws based on a strain of Islam that most others don't practice.
>
>Women are treated inferiorly in every country. In the US, Only fifty years ago, a woman who was raped had to have witnesses in order to press charges. most women who were raped and reported it to the police felt like the police made the rape their fault..saying things like they were wearing provocative clothing, or walking in the wrong area. Most women didn't report rape to the police, and many still don't.
>
Are you equating the treatment in the Middle East with the treatment of women in the US ? Is it even close ?


 
libra Posted: Sat Nov 4 14:21:09 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>libra said:
>>This isn't necessarily indicative of all countries in the middle east. Saudi Arabia has the most strict set of laws based on a strain of Islam that most others don't practice.
>>
>>Women are treated inferiorly in every country. In the US, Only fifty years ago, a woman who was raped had to have witnesses in order to press charges. most women who were raped and reported it to the police felt like the police made the rape their fault..saying things like they were wearing provocative clothing, or walking in the wrong area. Most women didn't report rape to the police, and many still don't.
>>
>Are you equating the treatment in the Middle East with the treatment of women in the US ? Is it even close ?

I'm saying that the treatment of women is culturally specific. I'm saying that women are generally treated pretty poorly in every society. We cannot criticize them until we deal with the problems in our own society. I'm saying that having a holier-than-thou attitude is wrong, no matter how different our societies are. Women in every society have problems they may want to remedy, and no society is all that quick to help them solve their problems.

Maybe the US should cut off relations with Saudi Arabia until they meet human rights standards.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Nov 4 17:13:53 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>>>
>
>I'm saying that the treatment of women is culturally specific. I'm saying that women are generally treated pretty poorly in every society. We cannot criticize them until we deal with the problems in our own society. I'm saying that having a holier-than-thou attitude is wrong, no matter how different our societies are. Women in every society have problems they may want to remedy, and no society is all that quick to help them solve their problems.
>
>Maybe the US should cut off relations with Saudi Arabia until they meet human rights standards.
>
Really ?
Tell me Libra, based on human rights, what first world country would you prefer to live in ?



 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Nov 4 17:16:06 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
We cannot criticize them until we deal with the problems in our own society.
>
Kind of a load of bullshit don't you think ?
No critique of barbarism until we achieve utopia based on your idea of whatever utopia is ?


 
libra Posted: Sat Nov 4 21:47:27 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I'm not saying that what they did is okay or right. What I'm saying is that cultures are all relative. People in some other cultures think that it is absolutely terrible that in the US women feel that their self-worth can be bettered by getting breast implants, just as it is hard for people in the US to understand why women in some countries believe that female circumcision is a sign of bettering one's self.

We will never reach utopia. But we also cannot order cultures the way Spencer did. We have to understand why and when and where and how things happened. Stricter, distorted variations of Islam often arose as a backlash to outside influence from European countries in the US. Many of the dictatorial governments in power in the middle east arose as groups that were fighting colonialism of the British and French.

It's the concept that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorists. One group's revolution is another's insurgency.

In my own opinion, its useless to hold other countries up as examples of why we are good and wonderful. There is always room for improvement within our own nation, and that's where we should be looking.


 
FN Posted: Sun Nov 5 07:00:01 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I'm not a big fan of cultural relativism.

Without saying there's a defined model to which all societies should look to, I think it's safe to say that any half-brained human being can spot the difference between right and wrong.

Having theoretical discussions about how one can define good and right and to what standard you measure them is one thing, execution of the notion that no morals can be defined and/or exist is something else.

Women being punished for being raped is wrong, I don't care how some bearded freak in the middle east wants to interpret it to satisfy and justify his own perverse needs.

To say that all cultures are equal is a cowardly sham. What's wrong with defining boundaries and speaking out about things you do not agree with and taking a stand about at least the basic levels of human worth.

You agree that it's wrong to rape women, or don't you? Why then be hypocritical about it and say we have to look at it from "their" point of view and that all in all, it is not perhaps "not bad" but it is justifiable?

Would that be what you'd tell the raped and whipped woman when you'd confront her after she's been beaten half to death? Don't kid yourself for the sake of political corectness. You're not a bad human being for taking a stand every now and then that is not only defiling the own nest.

Mutilating a woman's genitals might be all fun and dandy in some cultures, fact of the matter is that these women have no idea about what is happening when their clitoris gets peeled off at that age because of what some insecure asshole said a few centuries ago because he was afraid other men could satisfy his many women better.

I must say libra, without the intention to offend, that I find that kind of leftist moral duality questionable. The problem is not that in their cultural it is either done or not done, the problem is these women get degraded and are forced to live in a culture that puts more value on a herd of camels than on them.

If you'd be eye to eye with this woman, and she tells you her story, you would agree with her that what was done to her is an affront to humanity. Who cares that some people can't afford tv's in the US at that moment? How can you not be able to comment on what is happening somewhere because your own state of affairs isn't on the edge of perfection?

It's like saying that an ugly person can't say somebody else looks like shit. The own situation has nothing to do with it. The only thing that it does is make the person who makes the comments more open to negative comments himself, but his or her value judgement is not impaired by it.






So long story short, you're not a dreaded cultural racist for saying that women getting raped and whipped because of it is not a good idea.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Nov 5 07:07:09 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Well said Chris !

If you cannot bring yourself to say that public flagellation of a women for being raped is wrong, wrong, wrong, in any culture, then I have to question your own moral compass.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Nov 5 10:47:39 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
> I'm not saying that what they did is okay or right. What I'm saying is that cultures are all relative. People in some other cultures think that it is absolutely terrible that in the US women feel that their self-worth can be bettered by getting breast implants.
>
Ummm, let's see . . . . voluntary breast augmentation that is reversible and forced female genital mutilation . . . . yeah, I see the similarities.


just as it is hard for people in the US to understand why women in some countries believe that female circumcision is a sign of bettering one's self.
>
I don't think it's the women that believe this so much as the men.
Also what you are talking about here is something that is not done voluntarily.


 
libra Posted: Sun Nov 5 13:21:27 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>libra said:
>> I'm not saying that what they did is okay or right. What I'm saying is that cultures are all relative. People in some other cultures think that it is absolutely terrible that in the US women feel that their self-worth can be bettered by getting breast implants.
>>
>Ummm, let's see . . . . voluntary breast augmentation that is reversible and forced female genital mutilation . . . . yeah, I see the similarities.

I would argue against breast augmentation being entirely voluntary. Misinformation and the creation of scientific definitions for small breasts as a deformity create an environment where women feel that there is something WRONG with them if they have small breasts.
>
> just as it is hard for people in the US to understand why women in some countries believe that female circumcision is a sign of bettering one's self.
>>
>I don't think it's the women that believe this so much as the men.
>Also what you are talking about here is something that is not done voluntarily.

Actually, women who have female circumcision done feel that it is done FOR them, not TO them, and oftentimes, performing and creating the environment in which it is done is controlled by and articulated by older women.

If you read my above post, you will see that I did say that I don't think that what happened to that woman is right. I think it is terrible.

What I am trying to argue for is the understanding that one muslim country is not another, and that there is more to this overall situation than we often see. I also want to stress the point that situations for women are not very good in the US.


 
casper Posted: Sun Nov 5 17:20:23 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  oh...wow


>I would argue against breast augmentation being entirely voluntary. Misinformation and the creation of scientific definitions for small breasts as a deformity create an environment where women feel that there is something WRONG with them if they have small breasts.

personally i happen to like small breasts...in every woman i've ever met who wants a breast enlargement it is simply because THEY feel insecure about it and has nothing to do with what men think about breasts. And then with just about every women i've met with large natural breasts they've all wanted breast reductions. human beings in general, both men and women, have a tendancy to not be happy with themselves physically. If i had a small penis should i blame all the females for making me feel inferior? :)


>What I am trying to argue for is the understanding that one muslim country is not another, and that there is more to this overall situation than we often see. I also want to stress the point that situations for women are not very good in the US.

personally i don't see it. maybe it's because i'm a white, male republican :) but i have females who work with me and many who outrank me and i follow their orders just like i follow anybody elses. My sister is a police officer and she holds the same respect that any man in her department holds because she's earned it. generally when i've noticed that women or really anybody complains about not getting respect and blaming it on race and or sex it's usually just because they are actually shitbags and do not deserve respect. and i know you are not going to agree with any of this but i feel better about saying it non the less :)

hi to everyone by the way


 
FN Posted: Sun Nov 5 18:16:50 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  casper said:
>personally i happen to like small breasts...

amen

I say whatever's more than a handful is a waste.

>in every woman i've ever met who wants a breast enlargement it is simply because THEY feel insecure about it and has nothing to do with what men think about breasts. And then with just about every women i've met with large natural breasts they've all wanted breast reductions.

true

>human beings in general, both men and women, have a tendancy to not be happy with themselves physically. If i had a small penis should i blame all the females for making me feel inferior? :)

What do you mean, "if" ;o)

>i have females who work with me and many who outrank me and i follow their orders just like i follow anybody elses.

And you get a kick out of it as well, just be brutally honest here.

>generally when i've noticed that women or really anybody complains about not getting respect and blaming it on race and or sex it's usually just because they are actually shitbags and do not deserve respect.

agreed

>hi to everyone by the way

greetings


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Nov 5 19:34:30 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
I also want to stress the point that situations for women are not very good in the US.
>
Compared to what ?


 
Beep Posted: Sun Nov 5 19:39:11 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I think i've lost my moral compass..
I personally can't believe that there is a moral right or wrong. I cannot agree with an absolutist standpoint.
and before you start arguing, i am most definately not a relativist either.
I do not believe that there is such a thing as right or wrong good or bad, how can there be? morality (and all things related, ie conscience &c.) is all too dependant on upbringing and society. this doesn't mean that morality is different for everyone, like a relativist, it means that there is no such thing as morality full stop.
arguably there are personal things which are good and bad, right or wrong, like something is good because it helps me directly or indirectly. or vice versa.
but this is purely selfish. the 'good' or 'bad' cannot and does not exist. everything that thinks it does exist is commiting 'naturalistic fallacy' (i would have thought that there's an entry on wikipedia for it).
I cannot wait for the day that we are all automated robots in some orwellian society so we don't have to worry and confuse ourselves about these issues..

and hello casper.


 
casper Posted: Sun Nov 5 20:48:31 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Beep said:
>I think i've lost my moral compass..
>I personally can't believe that there is a moral right or wrong. I cannot agree with an absolutist standpoint.

ok i believe that "good" or "bad" are simply how actions affect society as a whole. if your actions hurt society then they are bad and if they are benificial then they are good. these "morals" are our cost for having the benefits of living with other human beings. if we just wanted to live in the middle of nowhere and depend on nobody but ourselves for survival then sure do whatever floats your boat. but that's not the lifestyle most of us want.

>and hello casper.

howdy :)


 
DanSRose Posted: Sun Nov 5 20:51:42 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  First, I'm going to go on a limb and say that there is a certain amount of moral relativity, the example being stealing when bored versus stealing when starving. That there are certain cultures and certain situations that require a different flexability with beliefs and actions within their moral structure.
The Aztecs were making a peace treaty with a small local tribe, and the tribe sent their princess across the water to Teotihuacan as tribute. The Aztec priests thanked them, thanked the gods, ritually sacrificed the princess, flaying her skin in honor of the new peace and the god Xipe. The other tribe was horrified; the Aztecs knew it was the highest of honors and any of them would have killed to be the tribute.

That said, no matter how neat I find that story, it's all bunk and bullshit. It goes all the way back to that Golden Rule, that whole "Do Unto Others As You Would Have Done Unto Yourself". If you don't want your self sistermotherdaughterwife further hurt and ashamed, don't send that horror onto a stranger and theirs. Now I'm angry and lost my train of thought.


 
Beep Posted: Mon Nov 6 14:47:05 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Casper said:

>ok i believe that "good" or "bad" are simply how actions affect society as a whole

that's all good in thought but i can still easily pick problems. What about the Nazi society? based upon your answer to that it becomes obvious that what counts as 'good' and 'bad' is not purely dependant on society.

And Dan, you said it yourself, treat others as you wish to be treated doesn't always work either. (though it is probably the best idea behind good that anyone has come up with so far) those aztecs would have gladly been sacrificed. they would have been most proud that their sistermotherdaughterwife was sacrificed.
No arguement or reasoning you've got is a foolproof working version of morality.


 
casper Posted: Mon Nov 6 15:08:47 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Beep said:
>Casper said:
>
>>ok i believe that "good" or "bad" are simply how actions affect society as a whole
>
>that's all good in thought but i can still easily pick problems. What about the Nazi society? based upon your answer to that it becomes obvious that what counts as 'good' and 'bad' is not purely dependant on society.
>

i'm sorry i don't understand your point really. I would say that what the nazi party did was bad because their actions were not beneficial to the society as a whole. the death of millions of productive members of the society would be considered not "good" for the society correct? :)


 
libra Posted: Mon Nov 6 16:56:46 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  casper said:
>Beep said:
>>Casper said:
>>
>>>ok i believe that "good" or "bad" are simply how actions affect society as a whole
>>
>>that's all good in thought but i can still easily pick problems. What about the Nazi society? based upon your answer to that it becomes obvious that what counts as 'good' and 'bad' is not purely dependant on society.
>>
>
>i'm sorry i don't understand your point really. I would say that what the nazi party did was bad because their actions were not beneficial to the society as a whole. the death of millions of productive members of the society would be considered not "good" for the society correct? :)

not if they felt that the 'race' of Jews was inferior and should not be continued.
(obviously not what I think, but that was the argument)


 
libra Posted: Mon Nov 6 16:57:10 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>libra said:
> I also want to stress the point that situations for women are not very good in the US.
>>
>Compared to what ?

Compared to men in the US


 
casper Posted: Mon Nov 6 17:41:45 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
 
>not if they felt that the 'race' of Jews was inferior and should not be continued.
>(obviously not what I think, but that was the argument)

but since the jews were a part of that community then those actions were not for the common good of the community so my argument still holds water in my opinion.


 
libra Posted: Mon Nov 6 18:05:21 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  casper said:
>
>>not if they felt that the 'race' of Jews was inferior and should not be continued.
>>(obviously not what I think, but that was the argument)
>
>but since the jews were a part of that community then those actions were not for the common good of the community so my argument still holds water in my opinion.

but decisions are never made that fit the common good of the community, really. That's why there's a very huge stratification of wealth in the US.


 
casper Posted: Tue Nov 7 17:14:16 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  well i'm just a dumb soldier...just ask kerry...and i don't know what stratification means but it seems to me there is a somewhat of a corrolation between the amount of money someone has in the US and how much they are willing to sacrifice and work for it.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Nov 8 13:40:49 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  methinks the reason for the huge stratification of wealth in the US is because there is such a huge amount of wealth in the US.



 
FN Posted: Wed Nov 8 13:43:23 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>methinks the reason for the huge stratification of wealth in the US is because there is such a huge amount of wealth in the US.

Not really, with stuff like that the law and social organisation come into play.

Wether that's a good or a bad thing is a different discussion, but saying "there's more wealth in the us" (which is highly dependable on what you're talking about and how you define the existance of wealth, but still) doesn't really cut it.


 
libra Posted: Wed Nov 8 16:40:45 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>methinks the reason for the huge stratification of wealth in the US is because there is such a huge amount of wealth in the US.
>


That doesn't explain why it is concentrated in so few hands, and that doesn't justify the total lack of distribution of wealth in the US.

Dictators in third world countries often have quite a bit of wealth. But that doesn't mean that the rest of the country is benefitting from said wealth.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Nov 9 07:45:27 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>methinks the reason for the huge stratification of wealth in the US is because there is such a huge amount of wealth in the US.
>>
>
>
>That doesn't explain why it is concentrated in so few hands, and that doesn't justify the total lack of distribution of wealth in the US.
>
>Dictators in third world countries often have quite a bit of wealth. But that doesn't mean that the rest of the country is benefitting from said wealth.
>
You get what you earn, that's capitalism.
Are you aware that most people in the US living below the poverty line own their own car and have a cell phone ?


 
libra Posted: Thu Nov 9 12:42:19 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>libra said:
>>ifihadahif said:
>>>methinks the reason for the huge stratification of wealth in the US is because there is such a huge amount of wealth in the US.
>>>
>>
>>
>>That doesn't explain why it is concentrated in so few hands, and that doesn't justify the total lack of distribution of wealth in the US.
>>
>>Dictators in third world countries often have quite a bit of wealth. But that doesn't mean that the rest of the country is benefitting from said wealth.
>>
>You get what you earn, that's capitalism.
>Are you aware that most people in the US living below the poverty line own their own car and have a cell phone ?

that's because those things are easier to buy and finance than something like a house which allows a person to have assets.

The minimum wage is far below a living wage. People spend more than half their income on housing, which is sooooo much more than they used to. The poverty line is poorly calculated, and people like single mothers spend at least another 30% of their income on childcare.


 
casper Posted: Thu Nov 9 21:14:20 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
 
>The minimum wage is far below a living wage. People spend more than half their income on housing, which is sooooo much more than they used to. The poverty line is poorly calculated, and people like single mothers spend at least another 30% of their income on childcare.

yeah...and i also heard the 42 percent of statistics are made up on the spot :)


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Nov 10 07:33:08 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>
>The minimum wage is far below a living wage. People spend more than half their income on housing, which is sooooo much more than they used to. The poverty line is poorly calculated, and people like single mothers spend at least another 30% of their income on childcare.
>
so what is your point?
Distribution of wealth is not fair to those who earn it. The government has no right to take my hard earned cash and give it away as they see fit.
Yes, I believe in charity, but you are talking about socialism.
I would like to remind you of a great quote by Sir Winston Churchill:

"The great vice of capitalism is that there is an unequal distribution of the benefits, the great virtue of communism is that there is an equal distribution of the misery".


 
addi Posted: Fri Nov 10 08:01:01 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  casper said:
>well i'm just a dumb soldier...just ask kerry...

You're not dumb, casper...just misguided : )

You've been listening to Fox and Rush I'm guessing. Informed people understand that Kerry really blotched that joke attempt. He's no stand up comedian for sure. It was meant as a slam on Bush's Iraq policy, not on the intelligence of our soldiers. He was guilty of a poorly delivered joke, but innocent of the charges made by desperate conservatives grasping at anything they could to help their cause right before the election.

and for the record...people shouldn't confuse brave and patriotic soldiers with intelligent soldiers. There are currently very smart soldiers out there, and there are poorly educated dumb ones as well...just like in our general populace. Anyone believing they are all morons, or all intelligent just because they were a uniform is incorrect.


*nice to see you around again.



 
addi Posted: Fri Nov 10 09:13:00 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>The government has no right to take my hard earned cash and give it away as they see fit.

Ahhhh....yes they do my good friend.

Our federal taxes are much less than most (if not all) of the other major western developed nations.
You don't have to like where all the money goes (god knows I don't), but it's hard to argue against the need for taxes as a way for our federal government to gain revenue.

Charity? If we had to rely completely on the generous good will of our citizens and corporations to fund all essential national services we'd plunge into a third world disaster quicker than you could say "Vote Libertarian".
It really pisses me off that the taxes I pay are being spent by directing hundreds of billions of dollars on the Iraq war, that I feel could be used in SO many better ways, even to fight terrorism.
Massive waste, misapropriation, fraud, beaurocracy...all things that plague our government and need to be addressed by informed citizens, and changed through legal means. It's an evil necessity, but the alternative to me is so much worse.


 
Mesh Posted: Fri Nov 10 21:06:34 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  But socialism and communism are not the same.

Hard working people who have had a rough life who are doing the very best they can with the cards life gave them shouldn't be forced to choose between buying groceries(shitty, unhealthy food, because the healthy food is expensive) or going to the doctor when they get sick or injured.


You know what, less welfare to negros who pop out babies every nine months and don't ever even try to get a job, and more services and help to those that work hard and actually try to be a decent human being.



PS. I am again on some pain meds. I am not entirel sure of what I just wrote, but I AM sure you should ignore it.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Nov 10 22:15:19 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Mr. Misses said:
>But socialism and communism are not the same.
>
Technically true, but they are similar in the fact they neither has ever been proven to work.


 
libra Posted: Fri Nov 10 22:41:42 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Mr. Misses said:
>>But socialism and communism are not the same.
>>
>Technically true, but they are similar in the fact they neither has ever been proven to work.


Is capitalism actually working?

I don't have the time or energy right now to do this thread anymore really, but I would like to say one thing.

People were here before our institutions were here. And we created them. We don't have to live with something we don't think works well for us. We don't have to say things like "well, its the best thing we have right now." Too many people go through life thinking that because they're paid a certain amount to do a certain job and other people are doing the same thing, that that's the only way it has to be done.
I don't want to accept what is offered.

We can change what is not serving us well--governments and companies are actually supposed to be serving us, not the other way around, and the more often they act like they are not accountable to us, the more people start to believe it.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Nov 11 08:25:22 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Mr. Misses said:
>>>But socialism and communism are not the same.
>>>
>>Technically true, but they are similar in the fact they neither has ever been proven to work.
>
>
>Is capitalism actually working?
>
Yes, it is working quite well.
>
>People were here before our institutions were here. And we created them. We don't have to live with something we don't think works well for us. We don't have to say things like "well, its the best thing we have right now." Too many people go through life thinking that because they're paid a certain amount to do a certain job and other people are doing the same thing, that that's the only way it has to be done.
>I don't want to accept what is offered.
>
Unless you have something better to offer, must accept what is offered.
What do you offer that is better ?




 
casper Posted: Mon Nov 13 12:36:29 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>casper said:
>>well i'm just a dumb soldier...just ask kerry...
>
>You're not dumb, casper...just misguided : )
>
>You've been listening to Fox and Rush I'm guessing. Informed people understand that Kerry really blotched that joke attempt. He's no stand up comedian for sure. It was meant as a slam on Bush's Iraq policy, not on the intelligence of our soldiers. He was guilty of a poorly delivered joke, but innocent of the charges made by desperate conservatives grasping at anything they could to help their cause right before the election.
>
>and for the record...people shouldn't confuse brave and patriotic soldiers with intelligent soldiers. There are currently very smart soldiers out there, and there are poorly educated dumb ones as well...just like in our general populace. Anyone believing they are all morons, or all intelligent just because they were a uniform is incorrect.
>
>
>*nice to see you around again.
>

i totally agree with everything you just said :) i know he is not stupid enough to slam the troops...but i find it very funny that he did so :)

it all depends on what uniform you wear too though too as far as how people percieve you...i always tell people whenever i screw up "well if i was smart i would have been in the air force." :)

thanks it's nice to be seen :)




 
casper Posted: Mon Nov 13 12:39:47 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
 
>
>We can change what is not serving us well--governments and companies are actually supposed to be serving us, not the other way around, and the more often they act like they are not accountable to us, the more people start to believe it.

confusion not only reigns it pours...

since when are corporations supposed to be serving us? they are there to serve their stock holders best interest. now the government yes...i agree with that...


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Nov 13 14:09:50 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  casper said:
>addi said:
>>casper said:
>>>well i'm just a dumb soldier...just ask kerry...
>>
>>You're not dumb, casper...just misguided : )
>>
>>You've been listening to Fox and Rush I'm guessing. Informed people understand that Kerry really blotched that joke attempt. He's no stand up comedian for sure. It was meant as a slam on Bush's Iraq policy, not on the intelligence of our soldiers. He was guilty of a poorly delivered joke, but innocent of the charges made by desperate conservatives grasping at anything they could to help their cause right before the election.
>>
>>and for the record...people shouldn't confuse brave and patriotic soldiers with intelligent soldiers. There are currently very smart soldiers out there, and there are poorly educated dumb ones as well...just like in our general populace. Anyone believing they are all morons, or all intelligent just because they were a uniform is incorrect.
>>
>>
>>*nice to see you around again.
>>
>
>i totally agree with everything you just said :) i know he is not stupid enough to slam the troops...but i find it very funny that he did so :)
>
I believe he has a record of slamming our troop going all the way back to Viet Nam.

Yes it's very good to see you 'round these here parts again and I hope your damn proud of the uniform you wear.


 
casper Posted: Mon Nov 13 15:24:43 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
 
>>
>I believe he has a record of slamming our troop going all the way back to Viet Nam.
>
>Yes it's very good to see you 'round these here parts again and I hope your damn proud of the uniform you wear.

yes well i wouldn't say he slammed the troops but he did disrespect them. but while i do not agree with his politics (mainly because i can't figure out what they are exactly) i don't think he is stupid enough to purposely put down the troops. he has to know that this isn't vietnam all over again and that while the war itself is not popular people learned not to blame the troops for what is happpening.

And yes I am proud :) i've been a soldier so long (almost 10 years now) i wouldn't know how to be anything else :)


 
addi Posted: Mon Nov 13 17:55:09 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  a few points, if you please

1. Unlike the majority of our congressmen Kerry was/is a soldier (once a soldier always a soldier). He served in the Nam War. He has the utmost respect for soldiers, boys. He has the right to disagree with our policies without being accussed of the shameful attacks conservatives have been throwing at him (the swiftboat ads back in '04 were disgraceful)..including hypocritical idiots that never served a day in their life, or escaped from real duty by getting Daddy to use his political clout.

2. If you want to look at things literally (like many conservatives do) then Iraq is not Nam. However, the growing similarities between what happened there, and what has and continues to transpire in Iraq has many (including a growing number of Republicans)seeing too many things in common now with what happened four decades ago. In some ways Iraq is turning out to be very much like Nam, symbolically speaking.

3. I lived through the Nam war (one tense year from the draft before it ended). My older brother fought there. Most war protesters back then never blamed the troops for what was happening there. They didn't come back to a hero's welcome and ticker tape parades because we didn't "win" the war (like WWII), and because an ever growing number of people in the country were turning against it. It sucked for the boys coming back home, but people weren't blaming them personally for what was happening there...they were blaming LBJ and Nixon and congress.

Likewise, people support our troops now even when they disagree with the fact that they're over there dieing. I personally hate this war, but I'm damn proud of the men and women that wear the uniform and serve our country. They're doing what soldiers have to do..follow dumbass political decisions to go to war. They don't have the luxury of deciding which fight to join.

It is extremely narrow-minded and shortsighted to blast away at politicians and citizens vocally opposed to this war as being unsupportive of our troops and unpatriotic.

rant over : )


 
casper Posted: Mon Nov 13 18:08:03 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  what's with all the yelling addi i thought i was agreeing with you (mostly) :)


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Nov 13 19:59:49 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
> a few points, if you please
>
>1. Unlike the majority of our congressmen Kerry was/is a soldier (once a soldier always a soldier). He served in the Nam War. He has the utmost respect for soldiers, boys. He has the right to disagree with our policies without being accussed of the shameful attacks conservatives have been throwing at him (the swiftboat ads back in '04 were disgraceful)..including hypocritical idiots that never served a day in their life, or escaped from real duty by getting Daddy to use his political clout.
>
He wasn't a soldier, he was a sailor and a damned poor one at that.
He has a record of disdain for our military. It's all there in black and white if you want to look for it. See Winter Soldier. Or just go back to last year when he state that our troops were terrorizing Iraqis and raping their women. Yeah, he said that.
The Swiftboaters are not disgraceful, they are patriots telling their side of the story.
You tell me how you get three purple hearts in 90 days and not miss one day of work.
Kerry still has yet to release his full military records and has yet to explain why his honorable discharge is dated during Carters tenure in the White House. Most observers think it's because he was released with a less-than-honorable discharge and later used his pull to have it upgraded.
>>
>3. I lived through the Nam war (one tense year from the draft before it ended). My older brother fought there. Most war protesters back then never blamed the troops for what was happening there. They didn't come back to a hero's welcome and ticker tape parades because we didn't "win" the war (like WWII), and because an ever growing number of people in the country were turning against it. It sucked for the boys coming back home, but people weren't blaming them personally for what was happening there...they were blaming LBJ and Nixon and congress.
>
There were lots of people at the airports ready to spit on them and call them babykillers, but that's not personal I suppose.

>Likewise, people support our troops now even when they disagree with the fact that they're over there dieing. I personally hate this war, but I'm damn proud of the men and women that wear the uniform and serve our country. They're doing what soldiers have to do..follow dumbass political decisions to go to war. They don't have the luxury of deciding which fight to join.
>
>It is extremely narrow-minded and shortsighted to blast away at politicians and citizens vocally opposed to this war as being unsupportive of our troops and unpatriotic.
>
Disagreeing with policy is certainly not unpatriotic, but when you've got the New York Times releasing classified information, not once, but twice, and idots like Rosie O'Donell wanting us to lose over there, then you have guilt by association. Certainly not all liberals are unpatriotic, but they are out there.


 
addi Posted: Mon Nov 13 21:46:19 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>He wasn't a soldier, he was a sailor and a damned poor one at that.

I see..so enlisting in the navy, becoming a Swift Boat officer, and serving on a gunboat in the Mekong Delta in Vietnam doesn't constitute serving in our military as a soldier? You have some very strange notions of what a soldier is hif.

>He has a record of disdain for our military. It's all there in black and white if you want to look for it.

He came back from serving over there and publically questioned our involvemnet in Vietnam. Wow! How terrible!
Guess what...lots of Nam vets came back and did the same thing after experiencing that hellhole.


>The Swiftboaters are not disgraceful, they are patriots telling their side of the story.

Read about those patriotic Swift Boat Veterans for Truth on the net, hif. If you look at something other than Fox you might run across the deceit, smears, half-truths and lying that was done by that upstanding group of men regarding Kerry's service.

>You tell me how you get three purple hearts in 90 days and not miss one day of work.

Regarding just one purple heart James Rassmann, who Kerry pulled back into the boat after he was knocked overboard following an explosion, "said he has never had any question that Kerry deserved the Purple Heart.", and the guy is a republican.

In September 2004, Vice Admiral Ronald A. Route, the Navy inspector general, completed a review of Kerry's combat medals, and concluded "I have determined that Senator Kerry's awards were properly approved and will take no further action in this matter."

But I suppose you know more about this kind of thing than the Navy Inspector general.


>Kerry still has yet to release his full military records

"June 7, 2005 WASHINGTON -- Senator John F. Kerry, ending at least two years of refusal, has waived privacy restrictions and authorized the release of his full military and medical records....An earlier release of the full record might have helped his campaign because it contains a number of reports lauding his service. Indeed, one of the first actions of the group that came to be known as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was to call on Kerry to sign a privacy waiver and release all of his military and medical records. But Kerry refused, even though it turned out that the records included commendations from some of the same veterans who were criticizing him."

get your facts straight please.


>There were lots of people at the airports ready to spit on them and call them babykillers, but that's not personal I suppose.

"Lots"? How many is that? 500,000? 2,500? 800? or was it a handfull of disgruntled protestors in Madison Wisconsin? Let me know when you find out.


Kerry's an afterthought now really. The only reason I even bother to respond is that he's one more perfect example of the low tactics republicans have taken over the years to smear their enemies..ask Max Cleland or McCain about that to name just two.



 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Nov 14 08:09:51 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>He wasn't a soldier, he was a sailor and a damned poor one at that.
>
>I see..so enlisting in the navy, becoming a Swift Boat officer, and serving on a gunboat in the Mekong Delta in Vietnam doesn't constitute serving in our military as a soldier? You have some very strange notions of what a soldier is hif.
>
He did not enlist in the navy, he received an officer's commission, and this after he was denied the deferments he requested. He did not serve as a soldier, he was a sailor.
As an ex navy man I can tell you that sailors do not consider themselves to be soldiers anymore than Casper might consider himself to be a sailor.
A mere technicality but an accurate one.
>>>He came back from serving over there and publically questioned our involvemnet in Vietnam. Wow! How terrible!
>Guess what...lots of Nam vets came back and did the same thing after experiencing that hellhole.
>
He went before congress and said our soldiers were murderers, rapists, and torturers of civilians on a daily basis. He claimed to have seen this with his own eyes. He enlisted as his witnesses, people who claimed to have been there and seen it also, who later were found out to never even have served. They lied.
>>The Swiftboaters are not disgraceful, they are patriots telling their side of the story.
>
>Read about those patriotic Swift Boat Veterans for Truth on the net, hif. If you look at something other than Fox you might run across the deceit, smears, half-truths and lying that was done by that upstanding group of men regarding Kerry's service.
>
Actually I don't get all my info from Fox. My favorite website, believe it or not is msnbc.com. Though I do frequent fox.com, I prefer FOX on tv.
As for the Swiftvets, they are a large group of guys that resent what Kerry did and wanted to set the record straight.
Of course being a large group, there's bound to be a turd or two in the group, but there are democrats and independents as well as republicans in the group.
Tell me what does it say about Kerry that his entire chain of command, every officer he served under, to a man, says he us unfit to command ?

>>You tell me how you get three purple hearts in 90 days and not miss one day of work.
>
>Regarding just one purple heart James Rassmann, who Kerry pulled back into the boat after he was knocked overboard following an explosion, "said he has never had any question that Kerry deserved the Purple Heart.", and the guy is a republican.
>
That is one purple heart and one man. Still the fact is that he was not hospitalized and did not miss one day of work. My brother still carries Vietcong shrapnel in his lungs and knees and he resents this pussy getting the same medal for superficial wounds.

>In September 2004, Vice Admiral Ronald A. Route, the Navy inspector general, completed a review of Kerry's combat medals, and concluded "I have determined that Senator Kerry's awards were properly approved and will take no further action in this matter."
>
>But I suppose you know more about this kind of thing than the Navy Inspector general.
>
Would you agree with me that the Navy inspector general is a politician ?

>>Kerry still has yet to release his full military records
>
>"June 7, 2005 WASHINGTON -- Senator John F. Kerry, ending at least two years of refusal, has waived privacy restrictions and authorized the release of his full military and medical records....An earlier release of the full record might have helped his campaign because it contains a number of reports lauding his service. Indeed, one of the first actions of the group that came to be known as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was to call on Kerry to sign a privacy waiver and release all of his military and medical records. But Kerry refused, even though it turned out that the records included commendations from some of the same veterans who were criticizing him."
>
>get your facts straight please.
>
Would you be so kind as to tell me who these records were made available to ?
And what are the circumstances of his discharge ?



 
addi Posted: Tue Nov 14 08:35:58 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Okay..Okay...you win

I'm now convinced that Kerry was never a soldier. That everyone he ever came into contact with in Nam thought he was unfit to command. That he came back and told the world that every soldier over there was raping young women and pigs. That instead of getting any medals for his service he should have been dishonorably dischanged and sent to Leavenworth and been subjected to multiple anal rapes. That every one of the Swiftboat veterans spoke the entire truth about Kerry's stint in Nam with unbiased objectivity. That he never released his full and complete military records to the public last year.

I'm so ashamed really that I ever voted for the guy, when in hindsight it's so clear now that Bush's military career was so stellar, and his months of duty in the Texas Air National Guard eminantly qualified him to be the Commander in Chief and lead us to victory against the dreaded Terrorists and Hottentots!
What was I thinking?!

: )


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Nov 14 09:46:08 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>Okay..Okay...you win
>
Yes, of course, as it should be
:-)


 
FN Posted: Tue Nov 14 11:52:11 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>addi said:
>>Okay..Okay...you win
>>
>Yes, of course, as it should be
>:-)

Lame :p


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]