1. Why do you find it necessary to constantly bash America, especially when a repub is in office? For some the bashing is consistent, so why? For others, it only happens when repubs are in office. And, yes there are some who bash when a dem is in office. Why?

2. If you live in America, please state why you feel it appropriate to accept the services or freedoms enjoyed and then bash the hand that feeds you? And, no my position is not one of my country right or wrong. Nor, do I think it is as simple as invoking the right to free speech. In fact, if that is your only response. Please, do not participate.

3. If you do not live in America, do you apply the same standards to your country that you do America?

If I think of other questions, I will post them.

Let it rip, I am sure some of the responses will be very entertaining!!!

P. S. Yes, I understand that government is not the provider of freedom as question two seems to imply. I am merely saying that we are a country that holds freedom in high esteem.

2. If you live in America, please state why you feel it appropriate to accept the services or freedoms enjoyed and then bash the hand that feeds you?

Who's bashing America? We're bashing the government. And the government sure as heck doesn't feed me. I can't think of one thing the government does, or has done, for me. It's the American people that support this country.

Even then, nobody is bashing America. What's being done is when people make posts saying so-and-so is evil and pretends as if America is innocent, we point out the errors in their thinking. Stating truth isn't bashing unless you're one who gets offended by the truth and chooses to live a life in blissful ignorance.


I am merely saying that we are a country that holds freedom in high esteem.

Not many don't hold freedom in high esteem. :confused:

- N

1. Why do you find it necessary to constantly bash America, especially when a repub is in office? For some the bashing is consistent, so why? For others, it only happens when repubs are in office. And, yes there are some who bash when a dem is in office. Why?

Well, I suppose some people support the rebublicans; others support the democrats. And they bash the other side when their policies are different from what they think they should be.

As for general America-bashing, it is probably because America isn't the perfect place some people like to think it is.


3. If you do not live in America, do you apply the same standards to your country that you do America?

Absolutely.

Freedom? in the US? lol... The US have lost freedom long ago, even before 9/11, because of FEAR. Its not just the goverment, it's also the media and the people that use the fear to pursue their aims.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

"The great masses of the people... Will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one." - Adolph Hitler

"Quite an experience, to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave." ~ replicant Roy Batty in Blade Runner

http://www.wealth4freedom.com/

i love america.... but i admit... it has been corrupted.... yet.. its not to late.

we can bring her back to her former glory.

-MT

1. Repubs generally have the reputation of favouring religious rightwing fundamentals. eg: Anti-Abortion, Anti-Homosexual. This is not nessesarily so, but is more common with hardcore republicans than other groups.
As well, i agree to a certain extend that small government leads to a better functioning economy, but there are still many ways that the government must guide and assist the society through regulation and public services. Republicans seem to want small government (tax cuts, program cuts), but this can lead to the case where the richer just get richer and the poorer get poorer. Social programs are not created to enable people to just laze around and reap the benefits of society. The point is so that everyone has the same opportunity. I personally don't believe every human is the same, but whether you are born to a rich/poor family or neighborhood should not restrict your potential in society. This is what universal school systems and alot of public services are all about. Enabling people to have a chance.

As for bashing USA, i'm living in Germany right now and (as a Canadian) am generally defending the american ideals to most people here. The main arguements are usually against the lack of social programs and big business vs common person. That being said, Germany currently has something of like an 8-10% unemployment rate, with the east germany sections enjoying up to 17% or so in some areas.

Xeeg, it is amasing how your oppinion can change when when you spend a little time in another country and see what is really going on out side your comfort zone, you would be even more amased if you were in a third world country and saw what really is happening to the people in thoses countries.

I know what your saying Rad. I ask myself this question all the time. I think it has a big part to do with the war in Iraq. You can't blame people for being upset over that though. I think why American's are bashing America is because, one reason, they're ashamed over the war in Iraq.

No, I respectfully dissagree with you, what it really has to do with is loss of power, liberals power.

Partially, Buffalo, in that the loss of democratic power meant a loss of checks and balances and increased abuses of power.

I love America and the freedoms that I enjoy, but recently those freedoms have come under attack in the form of wiretapping and secret prison camps.

What is your problem with America?
Whats Americas problem with the rest of the World ?

What is your problem with America?
”

Whats Americas problem with the rest of the World ?

Lol, touche.

- N

I love America and the freedoms that I enjoy, but recently those freedoms have come under attack in the form of wiretapping and secret prison camps.

Sorry not buying it, my freedoms are attacked every day on a more personal level. First, wiretapping does not effect my privacy (phone company owns my number it is not my private number). Second, I have yet to know anyone that has been sent to a "secret prison camp." By the way the fact that that was reported by the media is a direct assault on national security, the people involved should be tried for treason.

But more importantly, my freedom are attacked everyday in the following ways:

Everyday I work to earn money, I do not keep all of it.

Everyday I drive, I am told to buckle up and not speed.

Everytime I gas up as if I have not paid enough in taxes, I pay twice the amount of the profits oil companies make per gallon that goes to the federal government.

If a person breaks and enters my personal property with nefarious intent, I will be held accountable if I defend myself. Consider the allegator controversies in FLA. and that is a wild reptile not even a human being.

Everyday I work, I have to be careful about what I say for a host of reasons: it could be taken as sexual harassment, verbal abuse, forcing my beliefs, and finally job threatening because of political beliefs.

These things are far more threatening to my freedoms than a sensationalize claim of wiretapping and secret prison camps for terrorists, who are bent on ending the lives of my family and myself simply because I AM AMERICAN.

I know what your saying Rad. I ask myself this question all the time. I think it has a big part to do with the war in Iraq. You can't blame people for being upset over that though. I think why American's are bashing America is because, one reason, they're ashamed over the war in Iraq.

I wonder whether or not people would still be ashamed if the press reported objectively about Iraq?

When I hear everyday about this or that atrocity committed by the US and, of course, authorized by the president. I guess that would have a tremendous impact on that particular sentiment.

Many of those alleged "terrorists" in secret camps have been let go. So much for your infantile assumptions.


U.S. Constitution - Amendment 4
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In modern times that means telephone calls.

First, wiretapping does not effect my privacy (phone company owns my number it is not my private number).

Technically, if you have a mortgage, the bank owns your house, but somehow you still expect privacy there, why is that? You don't own a public restroom, yet you expect not to be filmed in there either, strange. You didn't build and don't own the road, yet you expect to be able to speed if you want to, how odd.

The wiretapping is only what the government told us they are doing, therefore there is nothing "sensational" about it.

I'd really like to know what your problem with America is. What is it about American values that make you abandon them at the first sign of trouble?

"Love My Country, Fear My Government." That old bumper sticker pretty much sums me up.

Except that it's about twenty years old. Since then the federal budget has increased by about 2,000 percent. It has marched into the Mideast twice under the guise of "settling conflicts" that are a thousand years older than our whole country and that we can't possibly begin to understand. It thinks it can seal a border that marks the greatest disparity in prosperity between any two adjacent nations on earth.

There is nothing that this government does not think it can do. But worse, there is nothing that it does not think it has the right to do! And that's a big difference. With every passing year, the proportion of the government's actions that are in flagrant violation of the Constitution come closer to 100%.

Listen people, it's this simple: The government only has the authority to do those things that are set forth in the Constitution. Everything else is specifically denied to it! The whole purpose of that is to prevent what is currently happening, which is a democracy turning into a majoritarian despotism with people who are unpopular and relatively few being run roughshod over by the government in the name of the majority.

No matter how nice some of you, or even most of you, think it might be, the government does not have the legitimate authority to:

Take money from rich people and give it to poor people.
Choose who gets medical care, what kind, and who pays for it.
Decide what our children should be taught.
Prohibit people from using tobacco, alcohol, or any other drugs.
Prevent women from obtaining abortions.
Make up for thousands of years of racism and sexism by institutionalizing discrimination against white males.
And on... and on...

I love this country. I love its structure. The freedom. The democracy. All of which hinges on the limits on the power of government.

We've got three branches. Checks and balances. If the President tries to do something unconstitutional, Congress blocks it. If Congress passes an unconstitutional law, the courts nullify it. If the courts make stupid decisions, the President appoints wiser judges.

BUT IT'S NOT WORKING! The President does perfectly asinine things, Congress falls all over itself to support him, and the courts look the other way. IT'S NOT WORKING.

The reason it's not working is that NOBODY GIVES A DAMN. For all three branches of government to fail at the same time, in collusion, is more than just an accident of history, more than subversion by the corporate sector, more than a coup by a religious movement. It is the manifestation of a people who just aren't paying attention. People who have gotten so used to the comforts of freedom that they've forgotten that it comes with an obligation.

This isn't just the same-old same-old. No old-timer like me is going to pop up and dismiss these concerns by saying, "Oh pshaw, we went through the same crap back in my day and we muddled through okay." THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE. The reason is that THE GOVERNMENT HAS NEVER HAD THIS MUCH POWER BEFORE. Not even in wartime. Not even during the Cold War. NOT EVER! This is largely a manifestation of its sheer size and its share of the workforce and the GDP. But it's also a product of the frightening new kinds of technology that we all have at our disposal but should never be made available to a government.

Every one of us, no matter how noble, does things that are illegal. That's always been true, although it's even more true today because there are more laws and they conflict with each other so that in order to obey one you have to violate another. Don't believe me? Ask your tax accountant about the Internal Revenue Code. Today, it's all on videotape and audiotape. Or more likely on digital media that can be searched much more efficiently.

Everything about us, our entire identities, are now digitized. If the government decides it doesn't like me, it takes a few seconds to find evidence of laws I've broken, and a few seconds more to saturate the data infrastructure with curbs on my behavior and obstacles to living my life. Don't believe me? Ask the guy who lived at the same address as a convicted sex criminal, got on the wrong database "by accident," and was ostracized by an entire town. Ask the guy who has the same name, but different SSN, as a bank robber and carries a certified letter signed by a judge proclaiming that he is not the same person, yet everywhere he goes he gets his license number read, stopped by the cops, and detained for as long as 48 hours before the "mixup" is resolved.

"The measure of our freedom is not how well we protect that which we love. It is how well we protect that which we despise."

We're all too busy protecting the things we love. We don't care any more that there are other people who love those things that we don't, and that they're Americans too. We don't worry about some day being in the minority and having no one care about our rights being taken away by an out-of-control government. We don't worry about a government becoming so powerful that it will soon no longer need the support of a majority.

"Love my country, fear my government."

Hear, hear- Eloquent, Fraggle.

Technically, if you have a mortgage, the bank owns your house, but somehow you still expect privacy there, why is that? You don't own a public restroom, yet you expect not to be filmed in there either, strange. You didn't build and don't own the road, yet you expect to be able to speed if you want to, how odd.

The wiretapping is only what the government told us they are doing, therefore there is nothing "sensational" about it.

I'd really like to know what your problem with America is. What is it about American values that make you abandon them at the first sign of trouble?

Funny, but the material in my house (or the bank's if you wish) needs a warrant to be searched. Banks do not have resources or desire to physically make sure everything in my house is kept. Thusly, my presumed privacy rights. For two reasons, while it is true the ownership is in the bank's hands it is being transferred slowly with each payment Therefore, the bank owns what I have not paid for yet. Thusly, dual ownership. It is called a business transaction. They have something I want. I have something they want. Then, the furniture, etc within the house that I partially own is already my personal property.

Your public restroom point is trivial.

Your road argument is false, because you are presuming that the government owns it. Where did the government get the money????

And precisely what has the government told about what they are doing that has you so upset? As I recall, they are searching for leads on terrrorist activities.

I value personal freedom as much as anyone. I would be concerned if some of the government activity was happening during peacetime. But then therein lies the problem, you and others like do not see this time as a time of war.

I value personal freedom as much as anyone. I would be concerned if some of the government activity was happening during peacetime. But then therein lies the problem, you and others like do not see this time as a time of war.Therein lies the problem indeed. You and others like you may see this as a time of war, but only because you and others like you have been duped by that very same unconstitutional, un-American, too-big-for-its-britches government that strikes fear into my heart.

It's not a time of war by any legal definition because Congress has to declare war and they haven't done so.

It's not a time of war by any academic definition either. Terrorism is not war. No other country is making war on us. These attacks are being launched by civilians in small groups that don't even qualify as militias. Paramilitary, to put it generously, rather than military action. Paramilitary action cannot be countered with military action. There is a mismatch in scope, reaction time, and covertness that will always work to the advantage of the smaller force. Trying to "fight a war on terrorism" is like trying to "cure the disease of obesity." Repeating one's own ridiculously twisted semantics for so long that one comes to believe oneself is a proven formula for disaster.

It's not a time of war by any practical definition either. 9/11 was the worst act of terrorism ever performed, with the death toll an order of magnitude greater than any previous attack by any group. Yet in the cold, hard analysis of threats to the safety and security of the American people, an analysis that must be performed if we are to allocate our finite resources to do the most good, it was not in the same category as war, not even close. It's right down there with the really severe earthquakes and hurricanes that we're unable to prepare for. We let those things happen over and over and over and over again and people just build houses right back in the same stupid locations over and over and over and over again and the government finances them and the insurance companies cover them and they get knocked down over and over and over and over again and somehow we think that is just dandy.

Americans are hugely irrational when it comes to risk analysis and management. But I guess that's not surprising since we're hugely irrational about almost everything important. Personally I would rather see the resources go to New Orleans, given that we really are going to be stupid enough to build another city in the same preposterous location.

9/11 is used as an infinitely renewable excuse for the government to pull any kind of crap it wants to. Things it couldn't get away with in what you and others like you apparently refer to as "peacetime." At the risk of violating Godwin's Law because I can't think of a less offensive example off the top of my head, this reminds me of the Nazis rushing to complete the extermination of the Jews during WWII because, as memos found after the war revealed, they understood that they couldn't get away with crap like that in peacetime, even if they were the winners.

War is government's favorite environment, because a scared people are always willing to sacrifice their freedom for security. And as--um, was it Ben Franklin?--said, "Those who are willing to sacrifice their freedom for security are doomed to have neither, and they deserve it."

Do "you and others like you" honestly believe that any of this crap is going to prevent another 9/11? You can't be serious! Terrorists are going to get nailed by phone taps? By bank audits? By airport shoe-checks? By surveillance videos masquerading as red-light cameras? It sounds to me like the terrorists are smarter than we are.

If I were a terrorist I would ship my stuff into this country in a cargo container. Something like two percent of them get inspected, so 98% of my stuff would get in. You can even ship people in that way. People with paramilitary skills could easily survive an ocean voyage inside a container.

I'm not giving anything away. A lot of people are screaming about the lax state of seaborne cargo security. And the government doesn't give a damn. They don't really want to curb terrorism. It would take away their excuse to oppress us.

Therein lies the problem indeed. You and others like you may see this as a time of war, but only because you and others like you have been duped by that very same unconstitutional, un-American, too-big-for-its-britches government that strikes fear into my heart.

It's not a time of war by any legal definition because Congress has to declare war and they haven't done so.

It's not a time of war by any academic definition either. Terrorism is not war. No other country is making war on us. These attacks are being launched by civilians in small groups that don't even qualify as militias.

Exactly.

Where were people wanting to give up their freedoms for more security from people like Timmothy McVeigh when he blew up the Murrah Federal Building? Where were people wanting to give up their freedoms for more security from people like the D.C. Sniper? What about local gangs? What about drug dealers? What about jaywalkers? What about shoplifters? What about illegal parkers? What about the Atlanta Olympic Pipe Bomber? What about the Unibomber?

I don't recall anyone ever wanting to give up their freedoms for any of those illegal acting terrorists. Why? Probably because in the grand scheme of things, terrorism isn't much of a threat. Sure, I feel sorry for those that died, but it doesn't really affect me one bit other than having other people getting all scared making the terrorists win by having these so-called laws passed that infringe on my personal freedoms. I fear our people giving our government that type of power more than I do some terrorist. I feel just as equally sorry, no more and no less, about those that died during 9/11 than the 64,000 people that die each year in car accidents. It sucks that it happened just as it sucks those people in cars die, but I'm not quaking in fear over being run over by a car where I want the government to watch my every move to save me from wreckless drivers.

As Al Gore said in his speech in Constitution Hall in January:


President Eisenhower said this: "Any who act as if freedom's defenses are to be found in suppression and suspicion and fear confess a doctrine that is alien to America."

Fear drives out reason. Fear suppresses the politics of discourse and opens the door to the politics of destruction. Justice Brandeis once wrote, "Men feared witches and burnt women."

The founders of our country faced dire threats. If they failed in their endeavors, they would have been hung as traitors. The very existence of our country was at risk. Yet in the teeth of those dangers, they insisted on establishing the full Bill of Rights.

Is our Congress today in more danger than were their predecessors when the British army was marching on the Capitol?

Is the world more dangerous than when we faced an ideological enemy with tens of thousands of nuclear missiles ready to be launched on a moment's notice to completely annihilate the country?

Is America really in more danger now than when we faced worldwide fascism on the march, when the last generation had to fight and win two world wars simultaneously?

It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they did.

And yet they faithfully protected our freedom and now it's up to us to do the very same thing.

Talk about a complete slap in the face wanting to give up our freedoms in this "War on Terror".

- N

It's not a time of war by any legal definition because Congress has to declare war and they haven't done so.

It's not a time of war by any academic definition either.

It's not a time of war by any practical definition either.

Sept. 14, 2001, Congress passed a joint resolution which states, in part, that "the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States."

-Source "Wall Street Journal"

Trying to "fight a war on terrorism" is like trying to "cure the disease of obesity."

This I cannot entirely argue with, but I still would rather us fight back than not.

It's right down there with the really severe earthquakes and hurricanes that we're unable to prepare for.

That is real good there, Skippy. Comparing a planned terrorist attack to a natural disaster!!!

Do "you and others like you" honestly believe that any of this crap is going to prevent another 9/11? You can't be serious!

So I take this to mean you have a better plan?

"Those who are willing to sacrifice their freedom for security are doomed to have neither, and they deserve it."

This is the second time you have used this quote. It is too bad you don't apply to taxes, social security, welfare checks, government schools and jobs, subsidies, right to bear arms, freedom of religion not from, I could go on but you get the picture.

If I were a terrorist I would ship my stuff into this country in a cargo container. Something like two percent of them get inspected, so 98% of my stuff would get in.

Without ever asking, I am willing to bet you have no problem with illegals coming into the country.

Exactly.

Where were people wanting to give up their freedoms for more security from people like Timmothy McVeigh when he blew up the Murrah Federal Building? Where were people wanting to give up their freedoms for more security from people like the D.C. Sniper? What about local gangs? What about drug dealers? What about jaywalkers? What about shoplifters? What about illegal parkers? What about the Atlanta Olympic Pipe Bomber? What about the Unibomber?

I don't recall anyone ever wanting to give up their freedoms for any of those illegal acting terrorists. Why? Probably because in the grand scheme of things, terrorism isn't much of a threat. Sure, I feel sorry for those that died, but it doesn't really affect me one bit other than having other people getting all scared making the terrorists win by having these so-called laws passed that infringe on my personal freedoms. I fear our people giving our government that type of power more than I do some terrorist. I feel just as equally sorry, no more and no less, about those that died during 9/11 than the 64,000 people that die each year in car accidents. It sucks that it happened just as it sucks those people in cars die, but I'm not quaking in fear over being run over by a car where I want the government to watch my every move to save me from wreckless drivers.

As Al Gore said in his speech in Constitution Hall in January:



Talk about a complete slap in the face wanting to give up our freedoms in this "War on Terror".

- N

I defy you to find where I have ever said I was willing to give up (which is naturally impossible, if you understood the Declaration of Independence you would know this) my freedoms? A phone company handing over data that contains my phone call records is not me giving up my freedoms. It is a phone company assisting in finding nefarious activity.

A phone company handing over data that contains my phone call records is not me giving up my freedoms. It is a phone company assisting in finding nefarious activity.

Uh, when a subpoena is given to a phone company to trace calls to aid them in a court case, it's usually due to probable cause of a person being on trial, so that one person's records are handed over.

Since when have millions of people become suspects of terrorism? It's nice to see that instead of there being probable cause on a select few, we're all suspects and millions of phone records are handed over rather than the couple hundred phone records of suspected terrorists. Pretty ass-backwards if you ask me.

What next, when the police come by to raid a crack house, you won't mind if they raid every home in the neighborhood instead just to catch that one crack dealer? That's exactly what's going on with those phone records.

- N

Radicand seems to implicitly trust his government, while probably considering himself an American patriot. Which is both ironic and alarming, because he is speaking in opposition to the entire spirit of what the original American patriots strived to establish, and that was expressed both in our Constitution and the public admonishments of individual Founders.

Our political founders passionately strove to establish (and warned future generations to jealously guard) an intrinsic popular aversion to the creeping invasions that are an inevitable consequence of unfettered central authority. Authority-creep, the slow erosion of seemingly mundane privacies, the exponential growth of state apparatus, are the subtle but defining characteristic of terminal democratic decay into authoritarianism. We have been sternly warned for centuries now, to always pay close attention for this, and to rise together without delay in opposition to any such trends.

Radicand, like so many Americans, has failed to comprehend the most fundamental aspects of Revolutionary American thought. If such short and warped historic memories prevail, then the ideological efforts of the founding American patriots will continue to be diluted. Our founding democratic principles will thusly be progressively neutralized until they are for all public purposes harshly terminated: Which means back to Square One for us all, and an unecessary re-enactment of history to include violent revolution, kicked off by those who have learned from history.

Humanity will not get off the bloody merry-go-round until these hard lessons are learned. If there is a "life force" in the political realm, it has been consistently proven through history to rapidly corrupt, whenever democratic controls are neglected.

Radicand, please try reading the works of Thomas Paine. Examine how other democracies have degenerated into authoritarian states. Discover a more authentic and democratic patriotism.

1. Why do you find it necessary to constantly bash America, especially when a repub is in office? For some the bashing is consistent, so why? For others, it only happens when repubs are in office. And, yes there are some who bash when a dem is in office. Why?

1a. It doesn't matter if a republican or democrat is in office. It is our job to critize all what is wrong in the world.
1b. Ironically you think America may not be critized although you say to have democratic ideals, such as freedom of speech. Wouldn't you think that this is rather inconsistent?
1c. The US has self-elected herself to be the leader of the world. A coup d'etat. And is now trying to impose her will on the world. May we not critize the bully? Should we abandon our free will like so many americans did and not speak up? We are just upholding the original american ideal. The one you seem to have forgotten. You are Britain, we are America during the fight for indepence if you want to use an analogy. The bully of the world. Except in the rethoric you consider yourself the saviour of the world.



2. If you live in America, please state why you feel it appropriate to accept the services or freedoms enjoyed and then bash the hand that feeds you? And, no my position is not one of my country right or wrong. Nor, do I think it is as simple as invoking the right to free speech. In fact, if that is your only response. Please, do not participate.
The services of freedom are actually rather meager compared to those I have been used to. For instance, in Europe I was actually allowed to criticize the government. The government could also not wiretap me at random or imprison me without charges. Moreover I was more protected from greedy companies. I enjoyed a more diverse culture, for instance also politically. So I am not really enjoying your services of freedom. America feels like one big sweatshop. Not the land of the free. Hence I am leaving again.



3. If you do not live in America, do you apply the same standards to your country that you do America?
I actually lowered my standards since arriving in the US. If I would keep up the same standards I would go nuts.

I value personal freedom as much as anyone. I would be concerned if some of the government activity was happening during peacetime. But then therein lies the problem, you and others like do not see this time as a time of war.This is my problem with America. You believe this garbage.
FraggleRocker, Hyperwaders, Spurious Monkey and others have elegantly expressed the concerns. If I have a good friend who is fucking up and I try to explain this to them, but they reject it, after a while I can get really pissed off with them.

The bully of the world. Except in the rethoric you consider yourself the saviour of the world.
i had a friend that so eloquently put america's current state in perspective:
imagine a playground. america is the biggest, baddest kid around. another child comes over to him when he isnt looking, and pulls his pants down on september 11. now, that bully is running around the playground, redfaced, beating up all the kids from poor families to prove that he is still tough.



I enjoyed a more diverse culture, for instance also politically. So I am not really enjoying your services of freedom. America feels like one big sweatshop. Not the land of the free. Hence I am leaving again.
imagine my surprise when i, as an american, moved here to belgium. i was astonished by how much happier and free the people were. it isnt much different than your home in the netherlands, i am assuming.



I actually lowered my standards since arriving in the US. If I would keep up the same standards I would go nuts.
people dont believe me when i tell them about this. apparently, alot of people think we have gold toilets in america.

Sept. 14, 2001, Congress passed a joint resolution which states, in part, "the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States."Yes they did. And it was entirely unconstitutional. Congress does not get to do whatever the hell it wants any more than the President does. It's the judicial system's role to step in and clean up stuff like this and they're not doing their jobs.
"Trying to 'fight a war on terrorism' is like trying to 'cure the disease of obesity.

This I cannot entirely argue with, but I still would rather us fight back than not.Fight back? If you mean try to solve the problem, I have no objection. But doing something futile because you can't think of anything effective to do is a symptom of insanity.
"It's right down there with the really severe earthquakes and hurricanes that we're unable to prepare for."

That is real good there, Skippy. Comparing a planned terrorist attack to a natural disaster!!!They both kill people. The details matter but the impact matters more. Attacks by terrorists are a problem for the USA of the same order of magnitude as attacks by Mother Nature.
"Do 'you and others like you' honestly believe that any of this crap is going to prevent another 9/11? You can't be serious!"

So I take this to mean you have a better plan?I refer you to my previous comment. A bad plan is not better than no plan. In fact, it's worse, because it lulls people into thinking the problem has been dealt with when it hasn't.
"Those who are willing to sacrifice their freedom for security are doomed to have neither, and they deserve it."

This is the second time you have used this quote. It is too bad you don't apply to taxes, social security, welfare checks, government schools and jobs, subsidies, right to bear arms, freedom of religion not from, I could go on but you get the picture.Oh I do, Mister Skippy. I'm both a small-L philosophical libertarian and a capital-L member of the Libertarian party. I'm with you on everything except the religion part and my take on that is different only to the extent that I believe that freedom of religion must include the freedom to not be forced to choose one of the same ones as everybody else.
Without ever asking, I am willing to bet you have no problem with illegals coming into the country.One of the litmus tests of the libertarian philosophy is the statement: Peaceful people must have the right to immigrate and emigrate freely.

If we didn't have welfare checks and those other redistributions of our money by the government to which you have already objected, most of the objections to immigration would abate. Americans are the most outraged by seeing foreigners come here and as part of the deal they get free health care and their children get free education. (Welfare and social security are actually getting pretty difficult for them to qualify for but that's a topic for a different argument.) I find the education part amusing because so many Americans don't really take advantage of our educational system; they get the diplomas but not the learning. But still I appreciate the argument. As nice as it makes me feel to share my wealth with poor people, even the poor people in other countries, there just isn't enough of it to go around.

Immigration was never a big economic issue in the USA until recently, because immigrants had to work their butts off to make it here. It was always an issue of racism, first the Irish and Italians, then the east Asians, finally the Latinos. I'm working in the northeast and I observe first hand that the only illegal immigrant group that the Minutevermin care about are the Latinos. This place is full of Indians, Middle Easterners, and people from the former Soviet bloc who are just as poorly documented as the Salvadorians and Colombians, but nobody gives them a second look.

Tell me radilcand -
How many people in Ameirca have died by gun since 911
How many people in America have been killed in road 'accidents' since 911
How many people in America have died of alchohol abuse since 911
How many people in America have died of tobacco related illnesses since 911
How many people in America have died of drugs since 911
How many people in America have died because of an inadequate health system since 911

The implications of the terrorist attack of 911 in terms of number of fatalities is all but irrelevant. How come you are so concerned about it?

the t.v. says that it has to be this way
/end sarcasm

...I hear the word of the Lord. :D

edit: In case somebody didn't get it, it's a line from a popular american christian gospel.

"And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.' "

-1984 (http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/1/)

It's nice to see that instead of there being probable cause on a select few, we're all suspects and millions of phone records are handed over rather than the couple hundred phone records of suspected terrorists.

This does not mean we are all suspects. It is my understanding that itemized calls are asked for to determine if there is a need to take further action. Now if the government is taking action against me knowing that I do not have such contacts, then I have a problem.

What next, when the police come by to raid a crack house, you won't mind if they raid every home in the neighborhood instead just to catch that one crack dealer? That's exactly what's going on with those phone records.

Not really worth responding, because it is posturing and trivial. Why, because the cops would not do that and you know it. And obviously, yes I would have a problem if such a thing occurred. However, this is different from what we are talking about. My home is not public domain. My phone number is owned by the phone company. Totally different!!!!!

This is my problem with America. You believe this garbage.
FraggleRocker, Hyperwaders, Spurious Monkey and others have elegantly expressed the concerns. If I have a good friend who is fucking up and I try to explain this to them, but they reject it, after a while I can get really pissed off with them.

And I am supposed to care that you cannot handle the fact that I can differentiate what you can't?

Be mad!!!

Radicand seems to implicitly trust his government, while probably considering himself an American patriot. Which is both ironic and alarming, because he is speaking in opposition to the entire spirit of what the original American patriots strived to establish, and that was expressed both in our Constitution and the public admonishments of individual Founders.

Our political founders passionately strove to establish (and warned future generations to jealously guard) an intrinsic popular aversion to the creeping invasions that are an inevitable consequence of unfettered central authority. Authority-creep, the slow erosion of seemingly mundane privacies, the exponential growth of state apparatus, are the subtle but defining characteristic of terminal democratic decay into authoritarianism. We have been sternly warned for centuries now, to always pay close attention for this, and to rise together without delay in opposition to any such trends.

Radicand, like so many Americans, has failed to comprehend the most fundamental aspects of Revolutionary American thought. If such short and warped historic memories prevail, then the ideological efforts of the founding American patriots will continue to be diluted. Our founding democratic principles will thusly be progressively neutralized until they are for all public purposes harshly terminated: Which means back to Square One for us all, and an unecessary re-enactment of history to include violent revolution, kicked off by those who have learned from history.

Humanity will not get off the bloody merry-go-round until these hard lessons are learned. If there is a "life force" in the political realm, it has been consistently proven through history to rapidly corrupt, whenever democratic controls are neglected.

Radicand, please try reading the works of Thomas Paine. Examine how other democracies have degenerated into authoritarian states. Discover a more authentic and democratic patriotism.

Don't have time for a long response right now, but I can say this. The problem with what you posted is that you believe we live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic, a form of representative government not democracy. Although, I will grant that this an offspring of democracy. Therefore, I understand how DEMOCRACIES have denigrated into authoritarian states.

And congress pushed by the democrats gave the President the powers to remove Saddam by anymeans nessary in a 296 to 133 vote on Oct. 16h, 2002, that was a war declaration. So yes the President had authorization to go to war from Congress.

radicand,I have not claimed that the USA is an absolute democracy, or entered any discussion of the technical structure of US Government. When you have time and without strawmen, please do respond with more detail on present topic.

Correction BR, the President never received Constitutional (legal) authorization for war from Congress, because Congress never issued it. Congress let a meek trial-balloon fly, to see if the public is awake, or if incumbents can stay seated with necks retracted thanks to voter ignorance. Now Congress is learning the national "huh?" only lasts a while concerning momentous issues. Scandalously, most of Congress was way too uninformed at the time you point to, in order to make a politically "safe" educated guess how the occupation of Iraq would play out. They could have brought all this out in the sincere debate we pay them to fully carry out, but instead they hid in cowardice behind the flag, nd stayed mute behind the war-drums. Big Mistake: We and they are going to pay dearly for their criminal negligence.

Please refer to the US Constitution / War Powers Act of 1978, and the rise of the 3rd Reich for the legal and venal aspects (respectively) of this issue.

Finally, please don't pretend to care about your country if you have never dutifully studied her basic civics and history. That's pathetic.

However, this is different from what we are talking about. My home is not public domain. My phone number is owned by the phone company. Totally different!!!!!

What did you say earlier? Something about a business transaction? Both sides having something each other wants? I want the phone number and the phone company wants my money? Dual-ownership?

"Funny, but the material in my house (or the bank's if you wish) needs a warrant to be searched. Banks do not have resources or desire to physically make sure everything in my house is kept. Thusly, my presumed privacy rights. For two reasons, while it is true the ownership is in the bank's hands it is being transferred slowly with each payment Therefore, the bank owns what I have not paid for yet. Thusly, dual ownership. It is called a business transaction. They have something I want. I have something they want. Then, the furniture, etc within the house that I partially own is already my personal property."

Talk about symantics.


What next, when the police come by to raid a crack house, you won't mind if they raid every home in the neighborhood instead just to catch that one crack dealer? That's exactly what's going on with those phone records.

Not really worth responding, because it is posturing and trivial. Why, because the cops would not do that and you know it. And obviously, yes I would have a problem if such a thing occurred.

Okay, since that example doesn't fly with you, how about this example then?

Let's say a natural distaster occurs and leaves a city in ruins. A small group of people that are left without any food and water begin looting the place and start firing at police, aid workers, and the military. To combat that small group of renegades, the police decide to go door-to-door disarming all people, including innocent civilians trying to defend their homes, of their arms.

Don't believe that'll happen either? Well it happened in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina.

- N

This country is crazy.

Thats why I love it so.

Listen people, it's this simple: The government only has the authority to do those things that are set forth in the Constitution. Everything else is specifically denied to it!
You're one hundred percent correct. The problem is the modern concept of the "living, breathing constitution". If the constitution does not mean what it's authors intended, then it means nothing. Yet when Bork put forth the idea of original intent, he was vilified as a neanderthal and "Borked".

The Left twisted the Constitution beyond all recognition to achieve its own ends. Now we're all paying the price.

And congress pushed by the democrats gave the President the powers to remove Saddam by anymeans nessary in a 296 to 133 vote on Oct. 16h, 2002, that was a war declaration.

Hardly, it authorized the use of force against Iraq to resolve the WMD issue.

That congress authorized the president to use of force against terrorists is not a declaration of war, either.

On phone tapping:
This kind of profiling is an invasion of privacy. Who we talk to and how often we talk to them is as private as the contents of a telephone call. People should reasonably expect their associations to be private. They certainly shouldn't expect them to be scrutinized by the government.
The idea that because a phone company owns a number phone calls can be intercepted or logged is foolish. By that logic emails can legitimately be read/logged because they travel over the internet. I'm wary of using analogy where there is so much evasion, but to me it is analogous to renting a house: you don't own the house, but you have reasonable expectations of privacy when you are in that house. Phone lines are rented in much the same manner.

And I am supposed to care that you cannot handle the fact that I can differentiate what you can't?
You are not supposed to do anything. You have demonstrated that you ally yourself with the gullible, the foolish, the undiscerning, the self-righteous, the uneducated, the absolutists, the arrogant, the hypocritical.

Therefore you are not supposed to do anything.

You are expected to continue with pea brained ignorance supporting policies that detract from America's reputation, demean her greatness, diminish democracy, foment terrorism, embarass her friends, give succour to her enemies, and fly in the face of most of what the founding fathers stood for. It must take severe myopia to adopt such a position.

Fraggle Rocker:

I'm with you on everything except the religion part and my take on that is different only to the extent that I believe that freedom of religion must include the freedom to not be forced to choose one of the same ones as everybody else.

On this I agree.

Attacks by terrorists are a problem for the USA of the same order of magnitude as attacks by Mother Nature.

I cannot agree here. We can both realistically and theoretically stop a terrorist attack. Mother nature is what it is. The only thing we can do is prepare ourselves to limit the damage.

Immigration was never a big economic issue in the USA until recently, because immigrants had to work their butts off to make it here. It was always an issue of racism, first the Irish and Italians, then the east Asians, finally the Latinos.

It is not a issue of race. It is an issue of legality. Legal immigrants are always welcome, always.

If we didn't have welfare checks and those other redistributions of our money by the government to which you have already objected, most of the objections to immigration would abate.

Wrong, it would merely return to those who are abusing it. It really has nothing to do immigration, as far as I am concerned. It has to do with redistribution of wealth by forcing one to pay for the other.

I find the education part amusing because so many Americans don't really take advantage of our educational system; they get the diplomas but not the learning.

There is a reason. It is called dumbing down society. It is called worry over self-esteem. It is called having large amounts of psychologists on campus, instead of smaller classrooms and more teachers. It is called lack of corporal punishment, thus permitting disruptive behavior to continue in the classroom.

And precisely what has the government told about what they are doing that has you so upset? As I recall, they are searching for leads on terrrorist activities.
Since there is no oversight of this illegal program, you don't know what they are doing with the information. Remember Watergate? They might be doing what they say they are doing, and they might not. They might characterize you as a terrorist for recieving a call from someone connected with terrorism. That connection could be a simple mistake like a wrong number, however you get stuck for several years in a detention camp until they get it all sorted out, meanwhile you lose your job, wife, family, house, credit rating, right to vote, ect. That is a real danger.

It isn't consistent with the principles under which this nation was established. The government has no business recording who your friends are for no reason.

Neildo:

What did you say earlier? Something about a business transaction? Both sides having something each other wants? I want the phone number and the phone company wants my money? Dual-ownership?

Still different, I understand there are some similiar terms. If the government subpoenas itmeized phone calls and found something worth looking into, then they have to issue a warrant to trace calls. Okay, I understand that that is part of the problem. The government is saying that they can trace without a warrant. Believe me, I fully understand that and the problems with it. What I am saying is that such instances are happening with respect to those suspected of terrorist activities not innocent Americans. I would definitely be crying foul if there were a consistent abuse of this kind of action. I am not talking about mistakes, rather consistent abuse.

Okay, since that example doesn't fly with you, how about this example then?

Let's say a natural distaster occurs and leaves a city in ruins. A small group of people that are left without any food and water begin looting the place and start firing at police, aid workers, and the military. To combat that small group of renegades, the police decide to go door-to-door disarming all people, including innocent civilians trying to defend their homes, of their arms.

Don't believe that'll happen either? Well it happened in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina.

Prove it!!!!

V. child:

That congress authorized the president to use of force against terrorists is not a declaration of war, either.

I am sorry, but what is force if not war in this situation???

The idea that because a phone company owns a number phone calls can be intercepted or logged is foolish.

You are inferring, because I have never implied this.

spidergoat:

Since there is no oversight of this illegal program, you don't know what they are doing with the information.

I will grant you that statement, but then that was also an admission that you have no concrete evidence of wrongdoing. So therefore, you are complaining for the sakes of complaining.

They might characterize you as a terrorist for recieving a call from someone connected with terrorism. That connection could be a simple mistake like a wrong number, however you get stuck for several years in a detention camp until they get it all sorted out, meanwhile you lose your job, wife, family, house, credit rating, right to vote, ect. That is a real danger.

Again, I will grant this. However, again, I will also say that until there is an absolute honest case of this on a consistent basis. Everything is conjecture at this point.

The evidence of wrongdoing is the collection of the information in the first place without a warrant, which was admitted. Knowing who you call is wiretapping.

We are talking about the basic principles of a free society, the rule of law, and the slippery slope away from it. Republicans complain all the time about the nanny culture of Democrats, but they aren't like your Mom watching everything you do so you don't talk to strangers. It's hypocritical.

I guess you would have no problem with me standing on the edge of your property aiming a rifle at your windows? No harm done, right?

I am sorry, but what is force if not war in this situation???

1) It's not force, just the authorisation of force. Hence, not a declaration of war.

2) You can have the use of force without war. For example, when Clinton blew up that factory in Sudan.


The idea that because a phone company owns a number phone calls can be intercepted or logged is foolish.


The idea that because a phone company owns a number phone calls can be intercepted or logged is foolish.

You are inferring, because I have never implied this.

You said: "First, wiretapping does not effect my privacy (phone company owns my number it is not my private number)"

The reasonable inference here is that you think this goes some way to negating privacy concerns, isn't it?

"You can have the use of force without war. For example, when Clinton blew up that factory in Sudan. "

Raids are one thing, but a 3-year war is another, and completely illegal-

1973 War Powers Resolution (http://www.narsil.org/war_on_iraq/PL93-148.html), Sec 5 (b):
b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

Remember, the authorization to punish and remove the Hussein regime is a "mission accomplished".

Okay, since that example doesn't fly with you, how about this example then?

Let's say a natural distaster occurs and leaves a city in ruins. A small group of people that are left without any food and water begin looting the place and start firing at police, aid workers, and the military. To combat that small group of renegades, the police decide to go door-to-door disarming all people, including innocent civilians trying to defend their homes, of their arms.

Don't believe that'll happen either? Well it happened in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina.

Prove it!!!!

Um, it was all over the news when it happened. :rolleyes:

Anways, here are two quick articles found:


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/08/national/nationalspecial/08cnd-storm.html?ex=1148529600&en=5d3bdfe75ddce633&ei=5070

New Orleans Begins Confiscating Firearms as Water Recedes (go to www.bugmenot.com to obtain a password to read the article, it's a good site for all those stupid password required news sites)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1620587/posts

NOPD, NRA call truce over gun seizures (Katrina related lawsuit suspended, some weapons returned)

And here's a video clip on ABC news about it:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-368034430006732400&q=katrina+guns


- N

Voodoo Child:

You can have the use of force without war. For example, when Clinton blew up that factory in Sudan.

That, of course, is not an act of war because?

You said: "First, wiretapping does not effect my privacy (phone company owns my number it is not my private number)"

The reasonable inference here is that you think this goes some way to negating privacy concerns, isn't it?

You may infer, but I still have not implied.

Again, the collection of data is wiretapping. Anymore, then my reviewing your latest transaction at the grocery store.

Balls in your court,now. Surely, you will have something to respond with. I left it open for you.

The evidence of wrongdoing is the collection of the information in the first place without a warrant, which was admitted. Knowing who you call is wiretapping.

We are talking about the basic principles of a free society, the rule of law, and the slippery slope away from it. Republicans complain all the time about the nanny culture of Democrats, but they aren't like your Mom watching everything you do so you don't talk to strangers. It's hypocritical.

I guess you would have no problem with me standing on the edge of your property aiming a rifle at your windows? No harm done, right?

Please reread what you wrote, if you doi not understand the depth of ignorance, as well as hypocrisy, of your statement. Then, I submit to you the problems in America may be beyond repair.

What do you think I would do? And,if I did your response would be?

Hint: It has nothing to do with republkican and democrat.

hypewaders:

Raids are one thing, but a 3-year war is another, and completely illegal-

In short, as we continue to work towards Iraqi independence we have not right to respond to terrorist attacks while there.

Thank you for clarifying!

Anytime- By your twisting of the concept of law then, the world and all its people are already under the legal dominion of the USA, resistance is terrorism, and war is peace.

Only I want nothing to do with this insane scheme, because on this path lies our destruction at the hands of all those who will ever repudiate our self-annointed authority.

You can have the use of force without war. For example, when Clinton blew up that factory in Sudan.

That, of course, is not an act of war because?


Declaration of war, I believe the term was. A declaration of war is announcing the intent to engage in prolonged military fisticuffs. An attack, does not a declaration of war, make. And just who interpreted Clinton's actions as a declaration/act of war? Not even the Sudanese.
The authorisation of the use of force is not a declaration of war. A military blockade is the use of force. It is not necessarily a declaration of war. The secret abduction of a foreign national is the use of force. It is not necessarily a declaration of war.
There are many precedents that demonstrate this point: french bombing of rainbow warrior, assassinations of Hamas members and Reagan's bombing of Libya are a few examples.


You said: "First, wiretapping does not effect my privacy (phone company owns my number it is not my private number)"

The reasonable inference here is that you think this goes some way to negating privacy concerns, isn't it?

You may infer, but I still have not implied.

Is there another way to interpret this? Would you like to clarify your reasoning?




Again, the collection of data is wiretapping. Anymore, then my reviewing your latest transaction at the grocery store.

You think the collation and analysis of a person's telephone contacts by the government is analogous to you looking at my grocery list? That's not exactly analogy of the year. However, inspecting my groceries is a minor invasion of my privacy and for that reason is considered impolite.

"Attacks by terrorists are a problem for the USA of the same order of magnitude as attacks by Mother Nature."

I cannot agree here. We can both realistically and theoretically stop a terrorist attack. Mother nature is what it is. The only thing we can do is prepare ourselves to limit the damage.That's not what "order of magnitude" means. Risk management is part of my profession. There are several components to the process. Estimating or measuring the consequences of an event happening is only one of them, but it is an important one nonetheless. The fact remains that the likely consequences of a terrorist attack are similar to those of Mother Nature's temper tantrums, the difference being much less than a factor of ten, which is "one order of magnitude."

Estimating the probability of occurrence is another important part of risk analysis and management. 9/11 was a statistical outlier that is not reasonably likely to happen more than once in a lifetime, even in the Middle East where larger-scale terrorist attacks are more easily mounted. The worst of the typical terrorist attacks cause about as much death and destruction as the worst of the typical Florida hurricanes and California earthquakes. Nonetheless the typical terrorist attack occurs with much less statistical frequency than the typical Act of God, as insurance companies like to call them. The "expected value" of the negative consequences of these events is not equal. We will, in aggregate over the course of time, be much harder hit by meteorological and seismic disasters than by terrorism.

Therefore, objective risk analysis suggests that we will accomplish more by directing our attention to nature.

The other key task in risk management, for the purposes of this discussion, is risk avoidance or mitigation: either preventing the event from occurring or reducing its consequences. This is the issue you are addressing by suggesting that prevention is easier for terrorist attacks whereas minimization of damage works better for natural disasters. Yet this is precisely what we're doing with Jersey barriers, prohibitions against large pointed objects on airliners, and the relocation of high-profile government agencies to the Virginia and Maryland suburbs where they're not surrounded by hundreds of thousands of innocent bystanders.

But okay, I'll take the bait. What can we do to prevent terrorism? How about not sticking our nose into other nations' business. Our entire country is less than 250 years old. The conflicts in the Middle East have been brewing for five times that length of time. It is hubris to think that we have the wisdom to resolve them. Supporting members of one religious or ethnic group over another--and then changing our mind periodically--gives the whole population a meddlesome outsider upon whom to focus their hatred.

How about a sensible national telecommuting policy which would dramatically reduce our consumption of petroleum. At this point I don't think that protecting our supply of oil is our only reason for stomping around the Cradle of Civilization in our cowboy boots and shooting everything that moves, but it is one reason.

Out of sight, out of mind. If we weren't over there, they'd be less interested in coming over here. Yes, the Brits started the current chapter in this saga with their re-drawing of "national" boundaries to include fragments of groups who have nothing in common but their hatred for each other and their handling of the Jewish/Palestinian issue at the close of WWII, but no one denies that we're Britain's most loyal ally and in any case our chess-like machinations in the region during the Cold War put us in the same camp in the eyes of the people who live there.

Ceasing to make enemies in a part of the world whose culture and politics we clearly are incapable--and perhaps unwilling--to understand is a good long term mitigation strategy for terrorism. As for short term strategies, domestic surveillance cannot possibly be effective and it will have the major drawback of making enemies of many of our own citizens who think the government already went way too far in exceeding its Constitutional power in the 1930s.
"Immigration was never a big economic issue in the USA until recently, because immigrants had to work their butts off to make it here. It was always an issue of racism, first the Irish and Italians, then the east Asians, finally the Latinos. It is not a issue of race. It is an issue of legality."

Legal immigrants are always welcome, always.Poppycock. The definition of "legal" immigration wasn't even firmly established in the public consciousness when they were railing against the Irish and Italians. The Chinese railroad workers were brought over in conformance with the legal codes of the time, but they were the victims of harsh racism. A third or more of the Japanese-Americans who were tossed into "relocation" camps were citizens. The racism I witnessed against Latinos in the Southwest was entirely focused on their appearance and culture and was applied equally to people whose families had lived in this country since it was their country.
"If we didn't have welfare checks and those other redistributions of our money by the government to which you have already objected, most of the objections to immigration would abate."

Wrong, it would merely return to those who are abusing it. It really has nothing to do immigration, as far as I am concerned. It has to do with redistribution of wealth by forcing one to pay for the other.It doesn't seem like we're really disagreeing here.
"I find the education part amusing because so many Americans don't really take advantage of our educational system; they get the diplomas but not the learning."

There is a reason. It is called dumbing down society. It is called worry over self-esteem. It is called having large amounts of psychologists on campus, instead of smaller classrooms and more teachers. It is called lack of corporal punishment, thus permitting disruptive behavior to continue in the classroom.Everything in moderation and everything in balance, my friend. Children really do need to be instilled with self esteem. Starting with my generation, far too many Americans have grown up substituting swagger and rebelliousness for it. The fact that several generations of clueless and largely absent parents have not been doing their job raises the provocative question of who is going to do it. As a nation we have decided that the nation will try to bail us out of the epidemic of brattiness using the same arguable principles it used to justify bailing us out of the epidemic of polio. As a libertarian I am uncomfortable with this but as a practical American I must wonder what else we can do under the circumstances.

As for corporal punishment, again, everything in moderation and balance. Children absolutely must not grow up believing that they can do anything they feel like without worrying that they'll make somebody angry enough to hit them. They'll end up voting for politicians who don't worry about whether America is making the rest of the world angry and the rest of the world will start hitting America. Oh wait, that's already happening. But it's easy to overdo corporal punishment and it's far too well established that physically abused children become adults prone to violence. One empty-handed spanking and maybe one slap on the smart-mouth per year is plenty for most kids and it should be performed by the people who love them most rather than by government employees.

Fraggle Rocker, well said, mother naturer is mother nature, and the kids today think mouth substitutes for expiearence.

My problem with America is also one of puzzlement, or should I say dichotomy. There are just a shitload of interesting, intelligent, freethinking and amazing people in the US. However they do not seem to be the face of the US anymore. One day they were.

That's why I originally wanted to go to the US. It couldn't really all be as bad as people say. You have no clue, but all my friends said I shouldn't go. But I tried to convince them that it isn't so bad and you can only discover a country by living in it.

Then you arrive and discover the entire system is focussed on and around the narrow-minded, the greedy, the selfish, the hypocritical.

I'm quite sure the US could be a great nation (again). But at the moment there are just too many things wrong (see the ongoing discussion below). And the wrongs are seen as rights by those in charge and by a large portion of the population.

I am not sure where all these ideas are coming from with no examples, I hate it when people make assertions and don't back it up. How can the entire system of any nation be focuses on the narrow- minded, greedy, selfish, and hypocrites? This is similar to saying the entire nation of India is filled with spiritual people. Find an American you are fond of, perhaps even love, and forget about what others tell you. To be honest New York is sort of conniving and can be very racist on a bad day, but nonetheless at the end of the day it’s all about what you are looking for not what others present to you. In Africa intra-racism(Sudan) can be so bad that civil wars break out ever so often; makes New York racism look like central park now doesn't it? Americans are very influencial and it can be very easy to loose sight of yourself.

its a great nation for the rich, awful for the poor

anywhere you can be dying on the streets while people leave you is a bad place to be

Radicand, no response?


Okay, since that example doesn't fly with you, how about this example then?

Let's say a natural distaster occurs and leaves a city in ruins. A small group of people that are left without any food and water begin looting the place and start firing at police, aid workers, and the military. To combat that small group of renegades, the police decide to go door-to-door disarming all people, including innocent civilians trying to defend their homes, of their arms.

Don't believe that'll happen either? Well it happened in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina.

Prove it!!!!
”
Um, it was all over the news when it happened.

Anways, here are two quick articles found:
“
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/08/national/nationalspecial/08cnd-storm.html?ex=1148529600&en=5d3bdfe75ddce633&ei=5070

New Orleans Begins Confiscating Firearms as Water Recedes (go to www.bugmenot.com to obtain a password to read the article, it's a good site for all those stupid password required news sites)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1620587/posts

NOPD, NRA call truce over gun seizures (Katrina related lawsuit suspended, some weapons returned)
”
And here's a video clip on ABC news about it:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-368034430006732400&q=katrina+guns

- N

its a great nation for the rich, awful for the poor

anywhere you can be dying on the streets while people leave you is a bad place to beOh poppycock again! America is one of the best places in the world to be poor, particularly if you follow the crowd to L.A. where you can sleep outdoors comfortably most nights and the compulsively liberal locals are generous.

The most common nutritional problem among America's poor is obesity! Does one really need to say anything more about this issue?

In America unemployed people on welfare have microwave ovens and cars, something that the working poor don't have in a lot of countries.

As for dying in the street, you must be talking about violence because you have to be both crazy enough to want to and clever enough to avoid the authorities long enough to get away with it if you're talking about dying of illness or starvation. We take public health seriously in America and nobody would leave a sick or hungry person lying in the street long enough to expire from it. Violence takes its toll but you're still far better off being poor here than in Cairo or Rio de Janeiro.

The cases of people leaving someone who's been shot or stabbed lying in the street are so rare that absolutely every one of them makes the news. It's usually because they're afraid that whoever shot or stabbed them is still out there and will attack anyone who tries to help them survive. Most of those victims are not entirely "innocent." My heart goes out to the ones who are, but really now, get some perspective. In Africa more people are killed by lightning.

Anytime- By your twisting of the concept of law then, the world and all its people are already under the legal dominion of the USA, resistance is terrorism, and war is peace.

Only I want nothing to do with this insane scheme, because on this path lies our destruction at the hands of all those who will ever repudiate our self-annointed authority.

The only one doing any twisting is you. The war powers resolution is applicable when a president acts alone not when congress has granted authority. Because you say that congress granting the president war powers is unconstitutional (which it isn't it follows the constitution to a tee) does not mean their grant was unconstitutional.

Radicand, no response?



- N

Oh absolutely, it seems you did not read your own evidence. In fact, your evidence does rather well in proving my point.

Therefore, my response is thank you.

That's not what "order of magnitude" means. Risk management is part of my profession. There are several components to the process. Estimating or measuring the consequences of an event happening is only one of them, but it is an important one nonetheless. The fact remains that the likely consequences of a terrorist attack are similar to those of Mother Nature's temper tantrums, the difference being much less than a factor of ten, which is "one order of magnitude."

Estimating the probability of occurrence is another important part of risk analysis and management. 9/11 was a statistical outlier that is not reasonably likely to happen more than once in a lifetime, even in the Middle East where larger-scale terrorist attacks are more easily mounted. The worst of the typical terrorist attacks cause about as much death and destruction as the worst of the typical Florida hurricanes and California earthquakes. Nonetheless the typical terrorist attack occurs with much less statistical frequency than the typical Act of God, as insurance companies like to call them. The "expected value" of the negative consequences of these events is not equal. We will, in aggregate over the course of time, be much harder hit by meteorological and seismic disasters than by terrorism.

Therefore, objective risk analysis suggests that we will accomplish more by directing our attention to nature.

The other key task in risk management, for the purposes of this discussion, is risk avoidance or mitigation: either preventing the event from occurring or reducing its consequences. This is the issue you are addressing by suggesting that prevention is easier for terrorist attacks whereas minimization of damage works better for natural disasters. Yet this is precisely what we're doing with Jersey barriers, prohibitions against large pointed objects on airliners, and the relocation of high-profile government agencies to the Virginia and Maryland suburbs where they're not surrounded by hundreds of thousands of innocent bystanders.

But okay, I'll take the bait. What can we do to prevent terrorism? How about not sticking our nose into other nations' business. Our entire country is less than 250 years old. The conflicts in the Middle East have been brewing for five times that length of time. It is hubris to think that we have the wisdom to resolve them. Supporting members of one religious or ethnic group over another--and then changing our mind periodically--gives the whole population a meddlesome outsider upon whom to focus their hatred.

How about a sensible national telecommuting policy which would dramatically reduce our consumption of petroleum. At this point I don't think that protecting our supply of oil is our only reason for stomping around the Cradle of Civilization in our cowboy boots and shooting everything that moves, but it is one reason.

Out of sight, out of mind. If we weren't over there, they'd be less interested in coming over here. Yes, the Brits started the current chapter in this saga with their re-drawing of "national" boundaries to include fragments of groups who have nothing in common but their hatred for each other and their handling of the Jewish/Palestinian issue at the close of WWII, but no one denies that we're Britain's most loyal ally and in any case our chess-like machinations in the region during the Cold War put us in the same camp in the eyes of the people who live there.

Ceasing to make enemies in a part of the world whose culture and politics we clearly are incapable--and perhaps unwilling--to understand is a good long term mitigation strategy for terrorism. As for short term strategies, domestic surveillance cannot possibly be effective and it will have the major drawback of making enemies of many of our own citizens who think the government already went way too far in exceeding its Constitutional power in the 1930s.Poppycock. The definition of "legal" immigration wasn't even firmly established in the public consciousness when they were railing against the Irish and Italians. The Chinese railroad workers were brought over in conformance with the legal codes of the time, but they were the victims of harsh racism. A third or more of the Japanese-Americans who were tossed into "relocation" camps were citizens. The racism I witnessed against Latinos in the Southwest was entirely focused on their appearance and culture and was applied equally to people whose families had lived in this country since it was their country.It doesn't seem like we're really disagreeing here.Everything in moderation and everything in balance, my friend. Children really do need to be instilled with self esteem. Starting with my generation, far too many Americans have grown up substituting swagger and rebelliousness for it. The fact that several generations of clueless and largely absent parents have not been doing their job raises the provocative question of who is going to do it. As a nation we have decided that the nation will try to bail us out of the epidemic of brattiness using the same arguable principles it used to justify bailing us out of the epidemic of polio. As a libertarian I am uncomfortable with this but as a practical American I must wonder what else we can do under the circumstances.

As for corporal punishment, again, everything in moderation and balance. Children absolutely must not grow up believing that they can do anything they feel like without worrying that they'll make somebody angry enough to hit them. They'll end up voting for politicians who don't worry about whether America is making the rest of the world angry and the rest of the world will start hitting America. Oh wait, that's already happening. But it's easy to overdo corporal punishment and it's far too well established that physically abused children become adults prone to violence. One empty-handed spanking and maybe one slap on the smart-mouth per year is plenty for most kids and it should be performed by the people who love them most rather than by government employees.

There is no bait, but I am curious whose business were we in when 9-11 came? Furthermore, have you really thought that idea out.

By your rationale, then anyone has the right attack you simply because you are in their business. It does not matter how involved that is, simply being in someone else business is justificatiion for severe retaliatory measures. By your argument, our supporting a religion group is grounds enough!! That does not wash with me.

By the way, I think a solid argument against any action on Iraq can be made. I just do not think it can be made on the grounds that Bush is president, there were no wmds, no links to terrorists. That has been clearly established. Additional baseless arguements are the protection of oil ones, I am so glad we are fighting Iraq over control of oil. Those prices are really helping my wallet. However, I think there are better arguments against it.

Look I have no problem with your arguement logically, but the my problem with your thinking here is that you seem to be supporting the idea that we should never defend ourselves. I am thinking of your "orders" take. However, I will add that all the preparation in world for an attack by mother nature won't stop it. Of course, that argument can be made about terrorism.

As for your self-esteem argument, I wholeheartedly believe nothing could be further from the truth. The rebelliousness and swagger comes from too much focus onn self esteem and not enough focus on accomplishment.

"As for corporal punishment, again, everything in moderation and balance. Children absolutely must not grow up believing that they can do anything they feel like without worrying that they'll make somebody angry enough to hit them. They'll end up voting for politicians who don't worry about whether America is making the rest of the world angry and the rest of the world will start hitting America."

I have gained some respect for your responses from our discussions, but this is simply fallacious thinking. Being in the education field, I know how kids act in class today. This kind of equivocating is entirely unmerited.

These kids have nothing to fear, because there is no true discipline allowed to correct disruptive and aberrant behavior. Ligation, simplistic curriculums, modern teaching methods (in general) and a focus on everything but educatiing children has led to this sad downfall of American Education.

This has permeated throughout our society. We keep lowering and lowering our standards. Then, when the worst happened we wonder how we got there?

Radicand, no response?

Oh absolutely, it seems you did not read your own evidence. In fact, your evidence does rather well in proving my point.

Therefore, my response is thank you.

Huh? So you're saying that actions weren't taken to disarm the populace of New Orleans of their arms during a time of crisis when they needed that protection the most?

Here are the words I said that you asked for me to prove:


Let's say a natural distaster occurs and leaves a city in ruins. A small group of people that are left without any food and water begin looting the place and start firing at police, aid workers, and the military. To combat that small group of renegades, the police decide to go door-to-door disarming all people, including innocent civilians trying to defend their homes, of their arms.

Don't believe that'll happen either? Well it happened in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina.

Wow.

Where exactly am I wrong?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-368034430006732400&q=katrina+guns

It's nice of you to not even show how I was wrong, just for all of us to "trust" you much in the same way the Bush Administration says so, lol. Resorting to those tactics shows an automatic act of conceeding the point.

- N

Randicad:
Sorry for not getting back sooner.



Sorry not buying it, my freedoms are attacked every day on a more personal level. First, wiretapping does not effect my privacy (phone company owns my number it is not my private number). Second, I have yet to know anyone that has been sent to a "secret prison camp." By the way the fact that that was reported by the media is a direct assault on national security, the people involved should be tried for treason.

The fact that it's being allowed to happen is an assault on Americas freedoms. We do not have secret prison, that's a big no-no. Next stop: death camps.

If you do not have secret prisons, then where are all the top-prisoners located who's location doesn't know even the Red Cross (to which it is entitled to)?
Not to mention documented secret CIA flights all over Europe.

1. Why do you find it necessary to constantly bash America, especially when a repub is in office? For some the bashing is consistent, so why? For others, it only happens when repubs are in office. And, yes there are some who bash when a dem is in office. Why?

Well, I don't bash America, I bash its corrupt politicians. It takes money to campaign into office, if you don't have money then you rely on large corperations, and they always have agendas for anyone they put into office, especially when it is their money at work.


2. If you live in America, please state why you feel it appropriate to accept the services or freedoms enjoyed and then bash the hand that feeds you? And, no my position is not one of my country right or wrong. Nor, do I think it is as simple as invoking the right to free speech. In fact, if that is your only response. Please, do not participate.

You've taken this one a little bit too far, its the people that feeds the officials, government, the corperations, not the otherway around. I BITE the hand that pretends to feed me.


P. S. Yes, I understand that government is not the provider of freedom as question two seems to imply. I am merely saying that we are a country that holds freedom in high esteem.

Yes but you indicate that the government "feeds."(off of US) Yes, government is very much needed, but not big government. (which we now have, and its given us the largest number to burden humanity, the national debt)

If you do not have secret prisons, then where are all the top-prisoners located who's location doesn't know even the Red Cross (to which it is entitled to)?
Not to mention documented secret CIA flights all over Europe.

Exactly my point.

Not to mention, secret CIA flights transporting loads of cocaine for thier drug slaves and drug using agents.

Not to mention, secret CIA flights transporting loads of cocaine for thier drug slaves and drug using agents.

Shhh, baby steps..

- N

Not to mention, secret CIA flights transporting loads of cocaine for thier drug slaves and drug using agents.
Some one is on :m:. Those flights were for one thing, taking terrorists overseas for interegation. not to transport cocaine.. :rolleyes:

Huh? So you're saying that actions weren't taken to disarm the populace of New Orleans of their arms during a time of crisis when they needed that protection the most?

Here are the words I said that you asked for me to prove:



Wow.

Where exactly am I wrong?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-368034430006732400&q=katrina+guns

It's nice of you to not even show how I was wrong, just for all of us to "trust" you much in the same way the Bush Administration says so, lol. Resorting to those tactics shows an automatic act of conceeding the point.

- N


No, I am saying that given the situation the local government responded in a way to keep the peace. Once the peace was restored the action taken was stopped and action to return to normal was taken.

Read your own source. The Times sensationalized the seizures tremendously. The article verifies that the Times did so. The local police said that they took guns left in houses that were abandoned so that looters could not arm themselves. This was conveniently left out of the Times story.

Next, the NRA claims were also proven a bit unvalidated with the story the local police told. Furthermore, the NRA claimed that the police were not returning guns back to their owners. The police reported that people were just showing up to claim "their" guns without any proof. Now you would not want someone to claim something that was not theirs would you? Especially, something as dangerous as guns!!!!!

By the way, the NRA agreed with the police the claimant needs to provide proof.

"It's nice of you to not even show how I was wrong, just for all of us to "trust" you much in the same way the Bush Administration says so, lol. Resorting to those tactics shows an automatic act of conceeding the point."

I said nothing about trusting me. Thusly you speak with a forked tongue. Next, you dream about my conceding your point. Nothing could be further from the truth. I was actually hoping you would prove me wrong, but alas it was just more fear mongering.

Conversely, your tactics of claiming victory over something you clearly did read through reflects negatively on you.

You seem to totally miss my greater point of the necessity of action to protect the peace. Had your fear mongering articles happened without any need, then you are correct injustice has been done. But that was not the case was it?

Randicad:
Sorry for not getting back sooner.


The fact that it's being allowed to happen is an assault on Americas freedoms. We do not have secret prison, that's a big no-no. Next stop: death camps.

I admit I am failing to understand something.

We have secret prisons in foreign countries to house terrorists or suspected terrorists. And, this is an assault on my freedoms how?

Your death camp statement is entirely unwarranted.

Well, I don't bash America, I bash its corrupt politicians. It takes money to campaign into office, if you don't have money then you rely on large corperations, and they always have agendas for anyone they put into office, especially when it is their money at work.



You've taken this one a little bit too far, its the people that feeds the officials, government, the corperations, not the otherway around. I BITE the hand that pretends to feed me.



Yes but you indicate that the government "feeds."(off of US) Yes, government is very much needed, but not big government. (which we now have, and its given us the largest number to burden humanity, the national debt)

You clearly did not read the entire post. I submitted a disclaimer on the biting the hand statement.

I admit I am failing to understand something.

We have secret prisons in foreign countries to house terrorists or suspected terrorists. And, this is an assault on my freedoms how?

Your death camp statement is entirely unwarranted.
It subverts the rule of law. Why can't they be here? What are they doing there that must not follow the laws of the United States?

As long as they don't come for you, you seem to have little interest in what the government does, that makes you a leech, not a patriot.

No, I am saying that given the situation the local government responded in a way to keep the peace.

And their "keeping the peace" was still unconstitutional which is why when it was found out that the NOPD were seizing civilian weapons, they were immediately ordered to stop. And it hardly kept the peace, all it did was disarm innocent civilians trying to protect their homes from those people that are the ones causing trouble. A gun isn't required to cause trouble. A criminal still has many other means, not to menion those criminals most likely weren't disarmed in the first place as they weren't just sitting back in their homes waiting for police to come. All the seizures did was make innocent civilians bigger targets and easier victims for those criminals the police were trying to stop.


Read your own source. The Times sensationalized the seizures tremendously. The article verifies that the Times did so.The local police said that they took guns left in houses that were abandoned so that looters could not arm themselves.

Uh, no. They also took them from people. It seems you just read one article. Watch that news clip I posted also. It even has soldiers commenting on it and showing live coverage of them disarming people from their own homes.

And as I mentioned when I posted those two news articles, those were the first two that popped up. I've never even read those two "sensational" articles before as I read other sources but I couldn't find those ones in time for you. I can find numerous others that are better than those two "sensational" ones, but you wanted proof so I provided a quick link. The video is the better of em all. Did you bother to even watch that?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-368034430006732400&q=katrina+guns

Watch that video and tell me again that police only took weapons from abandoned homes. :rolleyes:


The police reported that people were just showing up to claim "their" guns without any proof.

Hard to have proof since the only guns that have to be registered are assault weapons. And this is just one of the many reasons why the guns shouldn't have been confiscated in the place! I know if my guns were seized, I'd be SOL.

- N

americas problem.
buncha bs if you ask me (
no one ever notices my bs thread
)
btw, it's all bs.
once again

existabrent

hypewaders

Anytime- By your twisting of the concept of law then, the world and all its people are already under the legal dominion of the USA, resistance is terrorism, and war is peace.

Only I want nothing to do with this insane scheme, because on this path lies our destruction at the hands of all those who will ever repudiate our self-annointed authority.

Radicand:

The only one doing any twisting is you. The war powers resolution is applicable when a president acts alone not when congress has granted authority. Because you say that congress granting the president war powers is unconstitutional (which it isn't it follows the constitution to a tee) does not mean their grant was unconstitutional.

Have you read the War Powers Act (http://www.civics-online.org/library/formatted/texts/war_powers.html)?

There is no bait, but I am curious whose business were we in when 9-11 came? Furthermore, have you really thought that idea out.Ask anyone from a Muslim country whose business we were in. Ever since the first Emperor of the Bush Dynasty sent soldiers from a Christian nation onto Muslim land, pretending that he could sort out the problems in a region that America absolutely does not understand at all, the Muslims have not been able to get out of their minds the idea that this is the revival of the Crusades. Air bases of Christian military forces within an hour's drive of the holiest Muslim shrines in Saudi Arabia. The US meddled in Afghanistan in Reagan's time. It was we who created what we now call the Taliban, in response to the rise of what we now call the Northern Alliance, that was supported by the USSR. (Remember them? Weren't those good times compared to now?) And don't forget our support of Israel, that has not endeared us to the Muslim peoples.

We have, as I said before, been stomping around the Cradle of Civilization in our cowboy boots, shooting everything that moves, for quite a long time now.
By your rationale, then anyone has the right attack you simply because you are in their business. It does not matter how involved that is, simply being in someone else business is justificatiion for severe retaliatory measures. By your argument, our supporting a religion group is grounds enough!! That does not wash with me.I am not talking about rights! I am talking about reality. Many things are not "right" or "wrong," they just are. If you spank your child more than rarely, no matter how "right" you think you are, he's going to grow up to be a dick. That's not right or wrong, it's just reality. If your country meddles in the affairs of people thousands of miles from your borders, no matter how right you think it is, they're going to think your country is a dick. The universe just works that way.
Look I have no problem with your arguement logically, but the my problem with your thinking here is that you seem to be supporting the idea that we should never defend ourselves.I'm not saying we should not defend ourselves. But anyone who thinks what we're doing in the Middle East is making us safer isn't looking at the whole planet. We might spend all of our children's inheritance and finally install a puppet government in Iraq that can stop Iraqi terrorists from attacking the USA. (Oh wait, they weren't doing that in the first place, it was those Saudis, President Bush's best buddies in the whole world.) And for good measure we can drop nuclear bombs on Iran and take them out of the picture. But spin your globe a little to the clockwise and look at some of those gigantic non-Arab, non-Persian, non-Turkic countries to the east of the Mideast. Pakistan? Bangla Desh? Indonesia? Malaysia? Half of the Philippines? Ever take a good look at them? There are more than ONE BILLION Muslims living in those countries! As far as those people are concerned, if you send Christian armies into one Muslim nation, you've insulted them all. Do we really expect to insult ONE BILLION Muslims and not have maybe just a teenie weenie problem afterward?

As I said, this is not "right" or "wrong" and there's absolutely no point in debating it on that level. It just is, and if we ignore it we are going to be so truly and irrevocably sorry that I weep for America.
As for your self-esteem argument, I wholeheartedly believe nothing could be further from the truth. The rebelliousness and swagger comes from too much focus onn self esteem and not enough focus on accomplishment.

These kids have nothing to fear, because there is no true discipline allowed to correct disruptive and aberrant behavior. Ligation, simplistic curriculums, modern teaching methods (in general) and a focus on everything but educatiing children has led to this sad downfall of American Education.

This has permeated throughout our society. We keep lowering and lowering our standards. Then, when the worst happened we wonder how we got there?Hitting people of any age occasionally will startle them, cause them pain of a level that they are totally unaccustomed to, and make them wonder how they got to that point in their life. Hitting people of any age on a regular basis will only make them want to hit you back. If they're children and they can't hit you, they'll save the revenge up inside them until it festers, and when they become adults they'll take it out on their own children. This cycle is far too well known to be disputed. Every single teenager I knew who was violent had a father who "punished" him physically.

I sympathize with everything you say about the sorry state of our educational system, and I suspect in your heart you don't disagree with my feeling that it's basically the fault of parents who are sending kids to school who are more suited for the zoo.

But violence is not and never will be the solution to any problem.

It seemed to work well in WWII?

And for good measure we can drop nuclear bombs on Iran and take them out of the picture. But spin your globe a little to the clockwise and look at some of those gigantic non-Arab, non-Persian, non-Turkic countries to the east of the Mideast. Pakistan? Bangla Desh? Indonesia? Malaysia? Half of the Philippines? Ever take a good look at them? There are more than ONE BILLION Muslims living in those countries! As far as those people are concerned, if you send Christian armies into one Muslim nation, you've insulted them all. Do we really expect to insult ONE BILLION Muslims and not have maybe just a teenie weenie problem afterward?

Not to mention those non-Iran countries are nuclear armed. Let's hope we don't piss off Pakistan with over half of it's population being radical Muslims where they just may succeed in their attempts of assassinating or overthrowing Pervez Musharraf.

This is why I say any military actions taken against Iran will be the straw that breaks the Muslim camel's back. I doubt they'll just sit back and take it any longer. Let's hope that our thousands of soldiers and contractors over there don't all of a sudden become hostages surrounded by the pissed off Muslim world. And ya'll thought the Iranian Embassy incident was bad. Psssh.. Let's hope Mahmoud Ahmadinejad doesn't outdo himself this time.

- N

It seemed to work well in WWII?Oh yeah, that really turned out great. In Europe, we got rid of Hitler and set up Stalin. In Asia, we got rid of Hirohito and set up Mao. Yes indeed, it was really all worth it.

Violence accomplishes NOTHING!

Stalin was already in power, and he close off eastern europe, and we didn't use force and honor our treaties with China and Chang Ki Chek, wich is why Mao came to power, a failing of the liberals in our goverment at the time, check your history and not the politicaly corrected one.

Well put spidergoat, the U.S. should obey the U.S. laws as well as foreign laws, while on foreign soil, and if both can't be done, the U.S. should leave that country in a swift movement.

Stalin was already in power, and he closed off eastern europe, and we didn't use force and honor our treaties with China and Chiang Kai-shek, wich is why Mao came to power, a failing of the liberals in our goverment at the time, check your history and not the politicaly corrected one.Well okay. Let's accept this statement for the sake of the argument. The question still remains: What exactly did we accomplish in WWII that was worth all that bloodshed and nuclear fallout? Hitler and Stalin might have held each other in check. Japan would have been no more successful at dominating China through military conquest than the Manchus and Mongols were; Japan might already be a Chinese province.

As for the liberals, I'm a libertarian with no more respect for leftists than for rightists. But it seems to me that a conservative American government might very well not have entered the war in the first place (on the European front) or provoked it (on the Pacific front).

Well okay. Let's accept this statement for the sake of the argument. The question still remains: What exactly did we accomplish in WWII that was worth all that bloodshed and nuclear fallout? Hitler and Stalin might have held each other in check. Japan would have been no more successful at dominating China through military conquest than the Manchus and Mongols were; Japan might already be a Chinese province.

As for the liberals, I'm a libertarian with no more respect for leftists than for rightists. But it seems to me that a conservative American government might very well not have entered the war in the first place (on the European front) or provoked it (on the Pacific front).
On the flip side every jew and non-arayan in europe and the middle east (and possibly all of africa) would be dead. So looking at the war in europe our violence stopped a massive genocide that possibly could have produced even more dead than the war.

RE: LordRuryl


"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic. - H.L. Mencken


"The great masses of the people... Will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one." - Adolph Hitler

Only the mob and the elite can be attracted by the momentum of totalitarianism itself. The masses have to be won by propaganda. - Hannah Arendt (1906-1975), German-born U.S. political philosopher. The Origins of Totalitarianism, ch. 3, sct. 11 (1951)


"Quite an experience, to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave." ~ replicant Roy Batty in Blade Runner

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. - Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

On the flip side every jew and non-arayan in europe and the middle east (and possibly all of africa) would be dead. So looking at the war in europe our violence stopped a massive genocide that possibly could have produced even more dead than the war.The Nazi administration was well aware of the fact that once the war was over they would not be able to continue their rampant genocide. Even winners have to make some deference to public opinion. That's why they were trying so hard to wipe out the Jews before the war ended. It's doubtful that they could have made a dent in the Arab and African populations before their fifteen minutes ran out in peacetime. Hitler's death would have taken the urgency out of the ethnic cleansing movement.

It was made clear by their extermination of Slavs and Gypsies--both Aryan peoples--that their talk of Aryan supremacy was hyperbolic oversimplification and not a reflection of their actual philosophy. It seems more likely that they simply wanted to kill everyone they hated and they hated everyone: A. Who was in their way, like the Slavs; B. Who they could easily blame for all their problems, like the Jews; or C. Who was already unpopular throughout Europe, like the Gypsies.

They probably would have appreciated the Muslims for the values they shared, in much the same way they declared the Japanese to be "honorary Aryans."

In any case, it seems unlikely that after winning WWII with much less bloodshed than actually occurred, due to America not joining in the fight and letting it end more quickly, the Germans could and would have mounted the incredible economic and logistical effort required to start annihilating people so far from home. After all, once the war was over and wartime sacrifices were no longer needed, their own constituents would expect them to start expending their resources on food, housing, transportation, entertainment, etc., again.

My artistic expression of the current political situation (http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewImage&friendID=7988830&imageID=771184954&MyToken=f777e77c-60ce-4e02-9e11-cf73e05d3323)

Check it out

Fraggel Rocker, quite a assumption, any proof beyond your politicaly correct thought process?, there seem to be a lot of imformation other wise.

hypewaders

Radicand:

Have you read the War Powers Act (http://www.civics-online.org/library/formatted/texts/war_powers.html)?

Okay, believe me I am trying to see your point. But alas, I am failing.

If you are trying to say that the president entered the war without informing congress, you are dead wrong.

If you are trying to say that the president should have pulled the troops out after sixty days due lack of congressional authority, you are dead wrong.

I stand by my original statement. The point of it is to limit a president from using the military carte blanche. In this case, the president is not doing so.

You can make a case against any military action on morals, but legalistically you cannot.

You keep asking if I have read the War Powers Act, because you are falsely under the assumption that congress has not given the president the power. But they have, whether or not, you think that we do not have an enemy or the power expressed is unconstitutional makes little difference.

Bottom line is you are denying reality.

And their "keeping the peace" was still unconstitutional which is why when it was found out that the NOPD were seizing civilian weapons, they were immediately ordered to stop. And it hardly kept the peace, all it did was disarm innocent civilians trying to protect their homes from those people that are the ones causing trouble. A gun isn't required to cause trouble. A criminal still has many other means, not to menion those criminals most likely weren't disarmed in the first place as they weren't just sitting back in their homes waiting for police to come. All the seizures did was make innocent civilians bigger targets and easier victims for those criminals the police were trying to stop.



Uh, no. They also took them from people. It seems you just read one article. Watch that news clip I posted also. It even has soldiers commenting on it and showing live coverage of them disarming people from their own homes.

And as I mentioned when I posted those two news articles, those were the first two that popped up. I've never even read those two "sensational" articles before as I read other sources but I couldn't find those ones in time for you. I can find numerous others that are better than those two "sensational" ones, but you wanted proof so I provided a quick link. The video is the better of em all. Did you bother to even watch that?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-368034430006732400&q=katrina+guns

Watch that video and tell me again that police only took weapons from abandoned homes. :rolleyes:



Hard to have proof since the only guns that have to be registered are assault weapons. And this is just one of the many reasons why the guns shouldn't have been confiscated in the place! I know if my guns were seized, I'd be SOL.

- N

Again, you are making a case of unconstitutional behavior based on actions taken under duress.

This is the crux of my argument. Under extreme circumstances, the government is charged with maintaining or restoring peace. Unfortunately, sometimes that does mean circumventing the Constitution to do so.

However, once the peace has been restored those actions should be discontinued.

You are going all over the place to feed into the hysteria. You cannot find anything that such unconstitutional measures were conducted for its own sakes.

And again, I would be agreeing with you if such situations were happening.

However, I am trying to differentiate situations.

Bottom line is you are denying reality.While you are merely adopting a narrow-minded, confrontational, bigoted, nationalistic stance. Excellent plan. :rolleyes:

Hitting people of any age occasionally will startle them, cause them pain of a level that they are totally unaccustomed to, and make them wonder how they got to that point in their life. Hitting people of any age on a regular basis will only make them want to hit you back. If they're children and they can't hit you, they'll save the revenge up inside them until it festers, and when they become adults they'll take it out on their own children. This cycle is far too well known to be disputed. Every single teenager I knew who was violent had a father who "punished" him physically.

I sympathize with everything you say about the sorry state of our educational system, and I suspect in your heart you don't disagree with my feeling that it's basically the fault of parents who are sending kids to school who are more suited for the zoo.

But violence is not and never will be the solution to any problem.

It is not a matter of hitting just the use of that word changes the meaning of the purpose, which is suspect is intentional on your part. The reason I say corporal punishment is necessary is not because I want harm a child, nor is it to exact revenge. Instead it is to serve as a disciplinary measure to teach a child that they need to be accountable for their actions.

Most likely the teenager you are referring to was abused, of course I could be wrong. At some time in a child's life, a parent is responsible for changing their method of discipline to a more adult level.

I do, however, agree that much of the problems are parents who do not discipline. When confronted with misbehavior of their child they turn to denial. So yes, I think a lot of fault lies with parents.

But as I have read your responses it has become clear where you stand. You are first a pacifist, except when it comes to actions against you or your country. In other words, you have not condemned any violent actions except those taken by the US.

I know you say are neither left nor right, but libertarian. However, much of your views have shown themselves to be considerably more leftist than libertarian, except your view on taxes that are very consistent with libertarians.

Your pacifism is in line with Rothbardianism, but your blame America first is flaty leftist Marxist.

Therefore you are either a psuedo libertarian that is more marxist, or just a confused libertarian. I love libertarianism. I love the idea of using no force to exchange in ideas, markets, and goods with our fellow humanity. But I draw the line when I have been attacked, and when action is held unaccountable.

While you are merely adopting a narrow-minded, confrontational, bigoted, nationalistic stance. Excellent plan. :rolleyes:

Though, of course, I was responding to someone else.

Your reply is stock and equally if not insurmountably more narrow- minded.

The bigotry and confrontational statements show this.

Under extreme circumstances, the government is charged with maintaining or restoring peace. Unfortunately, sometimes that does mean circumventing the Constitution to do so.

And that's complete BS. Bending the rules is for people that don't believe in them and find them a hinderance.

What a nice thing to do disarming people when they need their arms the most. You think disarming law-abiding civilians is going to help the situation? Do you even know what "law-abiding citizen" means? Do you know what the word "criminal" means? I betcha no criminals were disarmed during that whole time, only law abiding citizens, because they weren't sitting around in their homes guarding them, they were wanding around looting homes.

This is the same thinking the left does creating stupid anti-gun laws to hinder law-abiding citizens thinking it'll keep guns off the streets from the bad guys. All that does is hurt the regular citizen because criminals are a criminal for a reason, they break laws. So all taking law-abiding citizens arms away does is make them bigger targets and victims to those criminals the higher-ups are trying to stop when they decided to seize all arms.

Anyways, I still showed to you that those actions happened when you asked for me to prove it. Anything else you wanna know about that you think our dear ol' government or other high-ups would oh-so never do, but indeed do or have done?

- N

And that's complete BS. Bending the rules is for people that don't believe in them and find them a hinderance.

Really, then you have not been paying very much attention to
American History. I think of several instances where the Constitution has been circumvented during emergency situations.


What a nice thing to do disarming people when they need their arms the most. You think disarming law-abiding civilians is going to help the situation? Do you even know what "law-abiding citizen" means? Do you know what the word "criminal" means? I betcha no criminals were disarmed during that whole time, only law abiding citizens, because they weren't sitting around in their homes guarding them, they were wanding around looting homes.

Nothing I read confirms your first sentence (of your provided evidence). The rest of your paragraph confirms hysteria. I thought you knew whether or not "criminal" (though I admit to no knowledge of what that means)? Why the hell are asking me? I was not there. As far as your evidence as shown, legal guns taken were those left in abandoned houses.

This is the same thinking the left does creating stupid anti-gun laws to hinder law-abiding citizens thinking it'll keep guns off the streets from the bad guys. All that does is hurt the regular citizen because criminals are a criminal for a reason, they break laws. So all taking law-abiding citizens arms away does is make them bigger targets and victims to those criminals the higher-ups are trying to stop when they decided to seize all arms.

I totally agree with you here, totally. But we are not talking about this are we?

Anyways, I still showed to you that those actions happened when you asked for me to prove it. Anything else you wanna know about that you think our dear ol' government or other high-ups would oh-so never do, but indeed do or have done?

Okay here is where I get a little irritated, have you read what I have said? Hint: I included it again in this response. Have you simply responded to code words, or are you incapable of comprehending?

I do not think you are incapable of comprehending!!! I think you are deliberately ignoring my point.

Yes, I asked you for prove. And, you provided something that is not a normal situation. Do I agree with the action? Perhaps not in the long run, but I certainly understand their point of view. Again my point is not that the gvt has never acted capriciously towards the Constitution. Rather, my point is that usually such circumstances are extenuating. YOU PROVIDED AN EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCE!!!!!!!!!!

That is my point!!!!! - N

Take it for what its worth, if you disagree then we have reached in impasse. Thinking that I know how you will respond, we are there.

But as I have read your responses it has become clear where you stand. You are first a pacifist, except when it comes to actions against you or your country. In other words, you have not condemned any violent actions except those taken by the US.This thread is about the U.S. so that is what I'm commenting on. If you want my complete set of opinions about all the preposterous actions taken by the governments of other countries, I don't think I have enough time to write them down. Even if I limit my treatise to acts of violence that were unjustifiable or easily preventable through more responsible behavior like staying out of each other's business. Suffice it to say that I am opposed to the very institution of big government. The larger the government, the more levels there are, and the less likely it is that anyone will percolate up to the top through all those levels of competition except people whose only interest is in having power and doing anything they have to to get it, rather than in actually being wise rulers. I thought it was wonderful when the USSR broke up and I wish China and the USA would do the human race the same favor.
I know you say are neither left nor right, but libertarian. However, much of your views have shown themselves to be considerably more leftist than libertarian, except your view on taxes that are very consistent with libertarians.Most libertarians seem to be former conservatives and they still have many of the trappings of conservatism. The handful of us who came in from the other wing of American politics have a similar retention of some of our former ideology. Especially when it comes to issues on which the Libertarian Party has no position. Most libertarians support capital punishment, believe in a supreme being, think that thoughtful application of economic principles can solve all problems, and oppose abortion. I think that the death penalty is the ultimate usurpation of a citizen's rights and the worst possible party to entrust that responsibility to is the government. I think that fairy tales are for extremely young children. I think placing a dollar value on clean air, scenery, or life expectancy degrades us all. As for abortion I agree with my wife that we men have no right to have our opinions on the subject taken seriously until one of us gets pregnant.
Your pacifism is in line with Rothbardianism, but your blame America first is flaty leftist Marxist.I don't blame America first except in individual considered cases. The subject of anti-American terrorism by Muslims came up and in this individual considered case I believe that our government should have foreseen the consequences of its actions before it took them. I have nothing but the vilest contempt for the Abrahamic religions, as a random perusal of SciForums would quickly disclose, and the their adherents' consistent resort to violence of often genocidal scope as an expression of their presumed superiority is the main reason that I have to grit my teeth in order to be a good libertarian and support freedom of religion. Nonetheless it is a fact that this behavior pattern has existed for more than a thousand years. To pretend to be surprised when a bunch of Abrahamists knock down your buildings after you've been treating them like footnotes in the history of Greco-Roman civilization for several generations is criminally incompetent leadership.
Therefore you are either a psuedo libertarian that is more marxist, or just a confused libertarian. I love libertarianism. I love the idea of using no force to exchange in ideas, markets, and goods with our fellow humanity. But I draw the line when I have been attacked, and when action is held unaccountable.I'll say it again. I'm just as pissed off about 9/11 as the next American. But even our legal system recognizes the doctrine of contributory negligence and there's plenty to go around. Why, for example, does our President pose for publicity photos holding hands with his beloved Arabian prince when it was the Saudis who provided the finances, the planning, and most of the manpower for 9/11, and the Saudi citizenry who almost unanimously wish us all dead? If there is one country whose "democratization" at the hands of American forces even I might turn a blind eye to, it is Saudi Arabia. Not hapless, laughably impotent Iraq, the Middle East's most secular government, whose people suffered for years under the dictatorship of a leader we propped up because he hates Iran.

Fraggle Rocker for President!

Fraggle Rocks.

radicand:"Bottom line is you are denying reality."
In that case, you have read the War Powers Act (http://www.civics-online.org/library/formatted/texts/war_powers.html), and the authorizations for the Iraq War conform. Is this so?

As far as your evidence as shown, legal guns taken were those left in abandoned houses.

I see you still haven't watched the video clip I presented three times now in my posts to answer that question. Guns were taken from homes that had people in them as well. It's shown being done here in the ABC News clip:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-368034430006732400&q=katrina+guns

- N

Though, of course, I was responding to someone else.
This is quite typical of you. This is an open forum, where anyone may engage with anyone else. Your simplistic, egotistical mindset, evident from your first post, would be expected to have trouble with such a concept. I am not surprised you felt it necessary to make such an irrelevant remark.

In truth, you had no interest in what problems people have with America. You were seeking an opportunity to berate those who do. That is the close mindedness I object to. That is the same mindset that was contained within Bush's 'If you are not with us, you are against us' speech. That is the attitude that promotes delight in some quarters when America gets her nose bloodied. That is the position that makes me regret the fifty hours of high quality work I deliver every week in support of the American economy.

You and your ilk are dinosaurs. Move aside and let the future come through.

The times, they are (really) a-changin' (http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/times.html).

Harder!
Faster!
Yes!

This thread is about the U.S. so that is what I'm commenting on. If you want my complete set of opinions about all the preposterous actions taken by the governments of other countries, I don't think I have enough time to write them down. Even if I limit my treatise to acts of violence that were unjustifiable or easily preventable through more responsible behavior like staying out of each other's business.

The larger the government, the more levels there are, and the less likely it is that anyone will percolate up to the top through all those levels of competition except people whose only interest is in having power and doing anything they have to to get it, rather than in actually being wise rulers. Most libertarians seem to be former conservatives and they still have many of the trappings of conservatism. The handful of us who came in from the other wing of American politics have a similar retention of some of our former ideology. Especially when it comes to issues on which the Libertarian Party has no position. Most libertarians support capital punishment, believe in a supreme being, think that thoughtful application of economic principles can solve all problems, and oppose abortion. I think that the death penalty is the ultimate usurpation of a citizen's rights and the worst possible party to entrust that responsibility to is the government. I think that fairy tales are for extremely young children. I think placing a dollar value on clean air, scenery, or life expectancy degrades us all. As for abortion I agree with my wife that we men have no right to have our opinions on the subject taken seriously until one of us gets pregnant.I don't blame America first except in individual considered cases. The subject of anti-American terrorism by Muslims came up and in this individual considered case I believe that our government should have foreseen the consequences of its actions before it took them. I have nothing but the vilest contempt for the Abrahamic religions, as a random perusal of SciForums would quickly disclose, and the their adherents' consistent resort to violence of often genocidal scope as an expression of their presumed superiority is the main reason that I have to grit my teeth in order to be a good libertarian and support freedom of religion. Nonetheless it is a fact that this behavior pattern has existed for more than a thousand years. To pretend to be surprised when a bunch of Abrahamists knock down your buildings after you've been treating them like footnotes in the history of Greco-Roman civilization for several generations is criminally incompetent leadership.I'll say it again. I'm just as pissed off about 9/11 as the next American. But even our legal system recognizes the doctrine of contributory negligence and there's plenty to go around. Why, for example, does our President pose for publicity photos holding hands with his beloved Arabian prince when it was the Saudis who provided the finances, the planning, and most of the manpower for 9/11, and the Saudi citizenry who almost unanimously wish us all dead? If there is one country whose "democratization" at the hands of American forces even I might turn a blind eye to, it is Saudi Arabia. Not hapless, laughably impotent Iraq, the Middle East's most secular government, whose people suffered for years under the dictatorship of a leader we propped up because he hates Iran.

[Suffice it to say that I am opposed to the very institution of big government.}

And so am I!! This point seems lost on the other posters.


I thought it was wonderful when the USSR broke up and I wish China and the USA would do the human race the same favor.

An absolutely stunning statement. To think some of the posters here have actually exclaimed you for the presidency.

Really makes one think!!!

But I do thank you for responding.

Fraggle... need anyone say more..... i think you hit the nail on the head,

Fraggle Rocker:I thought it was wonderful when the USSR broke up and I wish China and the USA would do the human race the same favor.
An absolutely stunning statement. .What do you find stunning about this statement?
Why do you oppose the opportunity for democracy to function more effectively within smaller population groups?
What scares you about decentralisation?
How long have you had feelings of inadequacy that can only be assuaged by membership of a militarily powerful nation?
Yes, your reaction certainly makes on think. :rolleyes:

What do you find stunning about this statement?
Why do you oppose the opportunity for democracy to function more effectively within smaller population groups?
What scares you about decentralisation?
How long have you had feelings of inadequacy that can only be assuaged by membership of a militarily powerful nation?
Yes, your reaction certainly makes on think. :rolleyes:

I will see if this clarification helps, if not then I where the problem is.

The stunningness of the statement is that he wishes the US would break up like the USSR did.

That statement, though it is possible, does not come across as merely a decentralizing wish. I am for decentralizing, but I doubt seriously ithat you understand what that means.

What is your problem with America?
Obviously, certain Americans.

And certain American opinions.

Which exist outside the actionable scope of the delicate sensibilities of others.

http://indymedia.org.uk/images/2003/07/273995.gif ...my problem with america...

LOL! Good call, dragon!

Defense Exhibit A: A simple straight-edge easily determines projectile trajectory is away from actual (virtual) vehicle passengers.

Defense Exhibit B: The tank's main gun is not pointed at the vehicle, and the vehicle is closer to the tank than the range of its main gun -- both signifying the vehicle wasn't worth a crater in the road for its burning carcass under gravity to fall back into.

Liberal arts majors, right?

My problem with the US are from stats like these:

24% believe evolution
72% believe in angels
over 50% believe that atheists are in some way immoral
70% (correct me if I'm wrong with this one) think their president must be a devout Christian
48% think that humans were formed by God at some point in the last 10,000 years.

I could go on... but people who feel compelled to believe these things make up a society that is prone to arrogance, war and intolerance.

...a society that is prone to arrogance, war and intolerance.
I'm an Atheist. Darwinist. Arrogant. War-like. American.

You were saying?

My problem with the US ultimately is how wrapped up they are in themselves. Pull any average American individual off the street and ask them who was Mussolini, they wouldn't know. Ask them who was the first man in space they either wouldn't know or say Al Shepherd. Ask them who was Lafayette and surprisingly they wouldn't know.

Here down under we get alot of it. American tourists saying that Sydney is a pretty small city (i know thats a fact but its very narrow minded considering the size of the country). Lots of americans dissapointed because we don't keep Kangaroo's as pets. And many american tourists that just don't seem to understand the importance of certain things in Australia's History.

I mean yeah its good to know about ones country but don't let the education stop there. And finally don't let religion get in the way of education aswell. I was taught in a Catholic school but was taught about Evolution, The Big Bang (at the time i hoped it was an erotic film), and other non christian ideals. If you take the bible too literal then you end up with extremism, and we saw what happened with christian extremism back with the crusades.

I mean god, the US has some of the worlds top scientists, a large financial base to support them and the best facilities in the world. Why let them suffer because of Christian ideals, or narrow minds.

I know what i said was a bit wishy washy but if you can get through it all, i think you'll understand my point :p

My problem with the US ultimately is how wrapped up they are in themselves. Pull any average American individual off the street and ask them who was Mussolini, they wouldn't know. Ask them who was the first man in space they either wouldn't know or say Al Shepherd. Ask them who was Lafayette and surprisingly they wouldn't know.

That's because of the sheer size of the U.S. We have more states than all of Europe has countries! Just keeping up on national news is like Europe keeping up on their international news with our 50 states and their 46 (?) countries, yet they get to be called well-informed all because their tiny little countries are run independently instead of as a whole like the U.S. Well, due to the European Union solidifying, all their news now counts as national news like ours so they won't be as smart internationally unless they keep up with the on-goings of Asia, Africa, and South America.

Anyways, yes, I do agree that Europeans know more knowledgeable about international on-goings than the U.S. even aside from just the stuff happening in the EU, but please at least have some perspective on this.

- N

And most of the States are bigger than most of the European Countries.

When was the last time a US state claimed independence (it happened today in Europe), or a war broke out in one? Or other states put a ban on ones states governors to visit those states + economical sanctions?
There is much more and dynamical difference between European countries than between US states.
Compared to Europe, the USA is boring.

Size doesn't matter, but I'd just like to point out that the United States and Australia are approximately the same size, in terms of total land area. Australia has only 1/10 the population of the US, though...

When was the last time a US state claimed independence (it happened today in Europe), or a war broke out in one? Or other states put a ban on ones states governors to visit those states + economical sanctions?
There is much more and dynamical difference between European countries than between US states.

Yeah, and? If those things were happening in the U.S., we'd know about em too. However, we wouldn't know much about the on-goings in Africa just like most of you guys probably wouldn't, aside for the obvious conflicts down there.

The information you guys have to keep up with in Europe is the same as what we gotta keep up with here in the States, just, as you put it, yours is more exciting than ours.

- N

My problem with the US ultimately is how wrapped up they are in themselves.
Yet it hasn't lead us to nuke everyone else on the planet into non-existance so that we needn't suffer the distractions of making nice with others.

So maybe it's all about being ignored, because it ain't about being targeted. ;)

My only beef is with the US as a people, nothing else.. I mean there are alot of things that i am greatful because of the US, they contribute greatly to the Scientific and Medical communities and contribute somewhat to the Arts (I hate hippies tho :p ). But generally the population just couldn't care about anything else. You can't argue that having 50 states provides a problem, because thats just another case of being self centered. Why do you have to learn the history of every state? I know a basic history of 3 states in Australia, thats cause i was educated in 3 of them (had to move around a bit). I know how Australia was set up, i know the first PM, know a few of histories famous ones. I know a fair bit about Australia without compromising, dare i call it, memory for other bits of history that will make me a better international citizen.

However i do like the National Pride thing. Something to admire although the whole hands on hearts when singing the National Anthem... bit iffy on that.
USA and the Romans were the only ones to do that, so be very carefull... we all know what happened there :p

The US population is very lazy, fat, and really straight up DUMB.
I myself live in the USA, but sadly, what I say is true. Although the US is one of the worlds leading nations in Science and Medicine, only very few people in the USA actually know alot of science, etc.
Most only care about the TV, or all of that trash, but none give a though about the world, it's problems, and solutions.
That's the thing that make the US civilians just plain unintelligent. While true there are ALOT that are intelligent, everyone on this forum is, but still, there's not enough, mainly due to modern pop culture.

However, it is ironic because I myself am from the US, but I do watch the world and THINK.

1. Why do you find it necessary to constantly bash America, especially when a repub is in office? For some the bashing is consistent, so why? For others, it only happens when repubs are in office. And, yes there are some who bash when a dem is in office. Why?

2. If you live in America, please state why you feel it appropriate to accept the services or freedoms enjoyed and then bash the hand that feeds you? And, no my position is not one of my country right or wrong. Nor, do I think it is as simple as invoking the right to free speech. In fact, if that is your only response. Please, do not participate.

3. If you do not live in America, do you apply the same standards to your country that you do America?

If I think of other questions, I will post them.

Let it rip, I am sure some of the responses will be very entertaining!!!

P. S. Yes, I understand that government is not the provider of freedom as question two seems to imply. I am merely saying that we are a country that holds freedom in high esteem.



1. Well, my whole time as being into politics and political awareness has been with George W. Bush in office, so that's why all I'm doing is bashing America under a Republican, but I find Democrats to be almost as big of idiots as the Republicans.

2. America gives us limited freedom, but there are still many many many flaws. It's like having a house that provides shelter but it still has some holes in the roof, rodents, cockroaches, etc, so you complain. The United States is corrupt as fuck, so that's why I bash it.

Also, we hold ideas of false freedom in high esteem. The majority of Americans with big red white and blue FREEDOM signs are against abortion and gay marriage. Two major freedoms, so whatever. That's why I bash America.

True fuzzy logic, tragic proof of how our education system has failed, and he is not the only one.

True fuzzy logic, tragic proof of how our education system has failed, and he is not the only one.


Refering to me?

Really, my logic doesn't come from our shitty education system. They teach us to love America simply because we were born here.

What is your problem with America?
America is evil! EEEEEEEviiiiiillllllllll!!!!!!!! :eek: :bugeye:



:m:

I completely agree, truthseeker.

Although the American people (like me) are mostly good, the government is just plain EVIL!

It stole land from the Arabs, such as Isreal. Israel is a thief. It stole its land from Palestine, cuz it was originally Palestinian for thousands of years.
Also, the American government gives no care for anybody that is poor or needy. They just care for themselves, like fat pigs.

Yes, eventually the people of the United States and the world, will unite and over throw the current EVIL One World Corpocracy.

Yes! Eeeeeevil fat pigs... :mad:

Yeah, but I doubt that the American people would overthrow the government. Almost all governments in the world "control" their people. Governments lie all the time.
So, all of us that believe that the government is there to "look out" for us is basically getting fooled.

That just goes to show you how much the American government is evil.

Of course the american gouvernment i evil but remember we bash our own governments as well: Germany because thay elected Merkel, Switzerland for letting Blocher become part of the government, and so on...

But America (government) is the most Evil and deserves the most bashing ;-)

America is the MOST evil, then Israel is second.

America is a superpower (for now), but it doesn't use its power to help the world, but instead lie, cheat, steal, and cause war (like in Iraq).

It's not the people that are bad, but the government. The country needs a makeover.

Qualis rex, talis grex. ;)

Indeed....


.
.
.
:confused:

Hehe.. it's funny... I can tell the younger sciforumers from the old ones... :D
(I mean in age)

"The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue; and if this cannot be inspired into our people in a greater measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty. They will only exchange tyrants and tyrannies." John Adams

1. Why do you find it necessary to constantly bash America, especially when a repub is in office? For some the bashing is consistent, so why? For others, it only happens when repubs are in office. And, yes there are some who bash when a dem is in office. Why?

2. If you live in America, please state why you feel it appropriate to accept the services or freedoms enjoyed and then bash the hand that feeds you? And, no my position is not one of my country right or wrong. Nor, do I think it is as simple as invoking the right to free speech. In fact, if that is your only response. Please, do not participate.



Governments and the people who run them have a tendency to never be satisfied with the amount of power they have. They always reach for more power unless they fear that the reaching for more power will backfire on them and cost them there power. I don't blame the politicians; the are just following their unconscious human instincts when they find some way to convince themselves that they should aquire more power for themself and for the government and for (our side/tribe/nation {the modern human replacement for the chimpanzee band} ).

Our job as patriots is to scare our government and leaders into not reaching for more power. The politicians wrap themselves in the flag of our nation/tribe/tradionalism/and self group identity, in order to covince us to give them power. Our politicians also try to scare us into believeing that they are needed to protect us from the bad guys and protect us from the decay of the traditions and culture that helped our forefathers survive and make our culture what it is.

The dems scare me less than the Republicans do because when the dems claim to protect the weak against the abuse by the powerful the dems make it apear that they are not as willing to use power for selfish ends as the republicans are.

Republicans love tough talk and macho anger. Democrats do whiny hepless anger. I don't trust anybody who gets turned on by anger. I don't trust anybody who tries to manipulate my fellow Americans and who talks to them as if they were stupid. Americans and everybody else in the world may be stupid but if we expect the common people to take responsibility for self governing and to therefore take responsibility for the future well-being of humanity and the planet, then we need our leader to talk to the people as if they were mature adults. We the people should not tollerate government secrecy. We also should not tollerate our politicians attempts to manipulate our emotional triggers by apeals to our tradionalism and our clannish us verses them thinking.

I love America; that is why I don't like stereotypical patriots. Misguided patriots would let our leaders destroy America in the name of saving America.

Our foreign policy has never been what our leaders would have us believe it is. Special interests that help our leaders hold power have always warped the USA's foreign policy in order to enrich themselves or in the case of the Israel lobby in order to protect Israel.

Mossadegh was toppled in the name of fighting communism, but in truth toppling Mossadegh had nothing to do with fighting communism. Toppling Mossadegh helped communism and helped Islamic extremism and was a setback for the spread of democracy and prosperity throughout the world. I don't want the American people to continue allowing our government to make the kind of stupid mistakes that toppling Mossadegh, Arbenz, Sukarno were. Toppling Aristide seems to be part of that idiotic pattern.

The neocon/PNAC thinking seems to be unsound and corrupted by these macho geeks infatuation with power. Thinking that the USA should view the fall of the Soviet Union as a chance for America to wisely lead the world through the next century by dominating the world for the good of the world seems idiotic to me. It won't work. The world will not be doiminated and the USA's economy is not strong enough to finance the effort to dominate the world. But as I understand it this attempt at world domination for the good of the world is the philosophy of Rumsfeld/Cheney/Wolfowitz.

I think it is important to differentiate between the American people vs the American government.

I wish more people would vote though.

My problem with the US is that the Consttution is far too often treated as just another piece of parchment instead of the framework of the government. The Constitution really should be "the words we live by".

American citizens are entirely responsible for our government and its policies. Shaped as our opions may be by agendas we may not take the time to comprehend, our opinions (or lack of them) are the real personal responsibility of every American.

If there is one shred of righteous justification in a stereotypical terrorist's campaign, in a trade war or embargo, in a sudden foreign divestment from the US economy, or any other moral/amoral benign/malevolent effort to influence, then the kernel of all the crimes and sorrows that may swirl around all of this mess is this: All Americans, right down to the least influential among us, are entirely responsible for the conduct of our government. There are rationalizations all around for not taking responsibility in a democracy, but of course these are all counter-democratic arguments recycled by democratic cripples.

The American people will halt all lost causes in the instant we collectively recognize them as such. The occupation of Iraq is going to last just as long as the American public puts up with it- not one day less nor one day more.

Considering our general political isolation from the mideast, Americans are negotiating a very steep learning curve as we discover that the Bush adventures (Iraq and America's new international Gulag) have been complete disasters in terms of the interests of the American People as a whole in terms of both the present and the foreseeable future.

The present Bush Administration conceived and carried out their nation-building and espionage campaigns in defiance of what was well-established in so many disciplines (law, history, political science, ethnology, sociology, etc etc). As reality inevitably continues to reveal the complete and unavoidable folly of wildly unrealistic policy, there is going to be a momentous shift in American politics.

As with the early post-Nixon era, this may be played down in future, but nevertheless America is being groggily awoken, and we have the weirdest of days ahead.

We never profoundly reconsidered our place in the world after the fall of the Soviet Union. But the clock has been ticking. We're repulsed by national introspection, because it clashes with our cherished national confidence. But a dangerous flirtation with fascism is forcing events that will in turn force a historic national self-examination. The character of the USA is at a fork in the path: Now we choose, and now we realize that we will all face the future results of our national choice.

America is already turning on the Busheviks, but still habitually looking around for a savior that isn't coming. Stand up on your own feet, Americans- Our Founders clearly explained how.

1. Why do you find it necessary to constantly bash America, especially when a repub is in office? For some the bashing is consistent, so why? For others, it only happens when repubs are in office. And, yes there are some who bash when a dem is in office. Why?
\\
2. I am guessing that, in the American tradition, Americans have no idea what is happening outside their boarders.Possibly becaus3 CNN does not tell you.

Why “bash” America… where to begin?

America throws its weight around in an unseemly manner. I think the last “county” on Earth that has invaded more countries than the USA, was Rome, 2000 years ago. America has become an obvious bully. With the biggest guns.

Now, you may smile at that. But refer your question, above.

“Do what I say, or else”…. Works when your have the biggest (economic or otherwise) guns. But no one likes to be lorded over.

Especially when America shows no moral superiority to go with its nukes.

As an aside, you should know, for surely CNN will never tell you this. Most of Europe considers the USA to be a sociological basket-case, an object of ridicule, and something that must be endured until better times arrive.

By now you know that there are others who’s countries you’ve enslaved, think even less of you.

Just be greatful they can’t afford the weapons that you can.

The average American does not really care if the Europeans think we are "socialogical basket-case". Having spent the better part of the last century cleaning up messes of European origins most Americans do not place a high value European thoughts. The days of European colonialism and cultural domination have ended. Too bad the Europeans have not figured this out.

The days of European colonialism and cultural domination have ended.
And now America is culturally dominant.

Cultural domination is dead. Long live cultural domination.

Especially when America shows no moral superiority to go with its nukes.

Just so ya know, this morning I got to watch a new nuclear missle be fired off from Vandenberg AFB. :)

The arms race has once again begun..

- N

Just to add to the debate about the US government... If the US government is Evil then why not get rid of it? Its called Democracy. A government is the representation of the people so going by that logic the American people must be evil. Now i'm the first person to admit when a government gets in power and stays there for a long time it becomes a bit corrupt, but surely when the next election comes around you can vote for an alternative?

I'm just saying that don't be so harsh on the government when the majority of the people voted that government in. Yes i understand its not compulsory to vote there so it may not technically be majority, and yes i know that bush only won because of a court case.

The American system of government is a concern. I believe that a full democracy is not achieved unless you get a concensus of all the people. Here down under its compulsory to vote in all Elections, including the ones no-one cares about down here, local councils. Subsequently my argument back to people who want to have a whinge about the Australian government is "well technically 6/10 of the people here had to have voted for them so its your own fault"

I guess what i'm trying to get at is the Government is a reflection of the people, so when you abuse the government of its decisions, have a closer look at what democracy is.

P.S. Please don't beat me up on that last comment :p

Democracy is good because it enables a peaceful overthrow of bad governments. The problem is that the US government has been lying to the American people about the nature of US foreign policy. This lying has been going on at least since the 1950s. Perhaps the lying may go back farther than that. The use of the sinking of the Maine in 1898 as a pretext to aquire the colonies as far away as the Philippines indicates that the lying may predate the misuse of the cold war to service the corporate welfare state.

So, the American people and the American media bare the responibility for allowing themselves to be continuously lied to. If Bush been forced to admit the goal of invading Iraq was to implement Neocon/ PNAC theory rather than to make the USA and world safe from Saddam's WMDs, then congress never would have voted for the Iraq war because the American people would never have approved the committing billions of dollars and the lives of our service men to implement a Neocon/ PNAC theories that are probably incorrect theories.

We have never even have had a open debate on whether PNACs goals are sensible enough to make them the USA's national policy. Who should we blame for the American peoples failure to participate it the directing of the USA's foreign policy?

Yes, real Democracy is good, if it doesn't become corrupted, then its a false form of democracy, in our current case its called: Fascism

An educated populace is the cornerstone of democracy. I haven't got the attribution on that but it's an ancient quote. The American people have become ignorant, irrational, and gullible, and proud of it. Democracy isn't worth much under these conditions. We're slowly losing it by attrition.

I'm just saying that don't be so harsh on the government when the majority of the people voted that government in. :p


The majority of voters didn't vote for Bush, he lost the popular vote

That's true for the 2000 election. 2004 remains unclear, but in the wake of 9-11 we weren't (still aren't) as rational a voting populace as in other times. There still is no vocal American majority repudiating empire, K-Street, and trickle-down economics.

I'm not too sure what popular vote and a normal vote means... At the end of the day Bush got into power and he did so using the Democratic system of government that the US people are so in love with (and a court case :p). It is my argument that if there is anything wrong with the Government its the responsibility of the people that government represents to fix it.

I know that at this current stage its 2 yrs from an election, but having said that, i firmly believe that if people vote another george bush in, then its a reflection of the majority of the populace of the US... Ignorant and Stupid

At the end of the day Bush got into power and he did so using the Democratic system of government that the US people are so in love with.Some times you have to be precise with language because it makes an important difference. Our system of government really is a republic, not a democracy. The President is not elected directly by the people. He is elected by the Electoral College, and the members of the Electoral College are elected by the people. That two-tier system of delegating the power to choose to a body of people we elect is what makes the difference between a direct democracy and a republic. To bring the point home, remember that if the Electoral College vote turns out to be a tie, the House of Representatives then gets to choose--another body of people we elected.

We never get to elect the President ourselves. The potential disparity between the popular vote and the Electoral College vote has been well analyzed. Montana and Rhode Island each get three votes, which is way out of proportion to their populations. A state gets the same number of votes regardless of whether its citizens flock to the polls or just stay home on election day. If there's a hurricane in Rhode Island and most of the voters stay home, each of the ones who votes has far greater proportional power over the election than any voter in New York.

Worst of all, the people we send to the Electoral College are only bound by tradition and scruples to vote for the candidate they promised to vote for. Once they get there, they can vote for anybody they want. There have been 158 cases in which the Elector did not vote as expected. (They even have an official term for it: "Faithless Electors.") In almost half of the cases it was because their candidate died and they did their best to muddle through a choice of successor. (I'm surprised we didn't read about this in school, this is fascinating stuff.) But in the other cases they actually betrayed their constituents. Laws have been passed in many states since then mandating Electors to vote as ordered. Even the Supreme Court has ruled. But it's not clear what happens if they don't do it. Does their vote stand anyway and they just go to jail for it?

All true, Fraggle BUT

Like all major polls, the popular vote matters because in a particular form of national crisis confidence in the Executive is everything, the only blest tie that binds. In the moment that is lost, Americans will awaken in shock to learn the Union has passed into idyllic, affluent history. (sigh)

I am increasingly tempted to suggest we just close down this plantation. Plus there aren't enough NSA spiders in here yet, dontcha think?

Some times you have to be precise with language because it makes an important difference. Our system of government really is a republic, not a democracy.

No; it's an oligarchy controlled by oil and banking juntas, posing as a representative democracy.

Quite right Hannibal, that means its time for a peaceful revolution, and if that doesn't happen soon, we will all be gutted and eaten like the American Fish we are.

Fraggle:

Thanks for that, i had no idea what the electoral college was. So you've more or less cleared that up for me, however my argument still stands.

If you vote for someone who is going to vote for bush then you are effectively responsible for bush getting into power.

What is my problem with America?
1. The Bush Admin.
2. The Sheeple.
3. A Two Party System
4. Fake representation
5. The Media

We live in a time that I feel will decide the course of human survival as it is today. Greed has taken the place of reason. Men make up truth as they see fit. Those of us who see the world for what it has become are voiceless in a media whose main goal it to pass on the party line. Sure we rant and rave here and on other such boards but where does it get us? Does it change anything? Those who wish to change government are urged to seek respite through legal channels set up by the party hence giving no respite at all.

To fight the system is to be labeled a terrorist. To sit back and let the powers that be do as they wish is to invite destruction. So what is the answer to a bully run amok? Voting this admin out and replacing them with democrats will in no way change the course we are presently on. Our elected officials do not represent the will of the people. They voice the will of corporations over the objections of the people. What is my problem with America? It’s no longer America. America has been hijacked. It’s a dead concept. It’s been given over to a few who decide the course of many and the many seem to sit back and worry about that next paycheck and voice thoughts such as “well it doesn’t affect me so why worry about it?”


What’s my problem with America?

Born: 7/4/76

Died 9/11/02


All Hail the New Republic of Oceania!!!
Big Brother is Watching!!!

What’s my problem with America? Born: 7/4/76; Died 9/11/02The evil side of government and of the American psyche certainly got a big boost from 9/11. But America went through something very similar over the rise of Stalin and the USSR after World War Two ended. Civil rights were trampled. People were turning each other in for having had idealistic feelings about the Communist Party in their youth. The CIA didn't exist yet but the FBI was on a rampage and the House of Representatives had a committee with the outrageous name of "Un-American Activities" that was every bit as ugly and 1984-doublespeakish as the "Patriot Act." They investigated everybody they felt like, ruined a lot of people, and got away with it for the better part of a decade. (It was a TV journalist who brought down the movement's leader, Senator Joseph McCarthy. We're probably going to have to look for salvation from a different quarter this time. Oh wait, maybe it will be Jon Stewart. :))

When people are afraid, they are more willing to sacrifice their rights and freedoms for a little security. The government has indeed done a good job of making people afraid. Part of it is real; they definitely have goaded the one-sixth of the human race who are Muslims into wondering whether we're about to relaunch the Crusades, in an era when terrorists can bring the violence to your nearest shopping mall or subway station. But part of it is bogus; if there were a 9/11 every single year we'd all still be in vastly greater danger of being killed in a road accident and no one has suggested fighting a War on Traffic. (I think you can still drive legally from Miami to Seattle with an open bottle of whiskey in your cup holder.)

People were afraid during the Cold War and that's what sparked McCarthyism, the John Birch Society, and all the excesses of the 1950s and early 1960s.

Then suddenly it came to a screeching halt. A generation of kids grew up who just didn't find the threat of the Soviets shooting ICBMs at Chicago and Boston to be very disgruntling. Perhaps they were just inured to it because it was part of the ambience they grew up in. Perhaps they were doing intuitive risk analysis and realized that they, too, were in more danger of dying in a road accident, especially in the era before limited-access highways, safety belts, and anti-lock brakes. Or perhaps they thought the government way lying to them. I personally traveled through the Soviet Bloc in 1973 and didn't encounter a single person who did not absolutely love America and Americans. No one in their armed forces would have gone to battle against our country, no one. The end of the Vietnam War was pretty much the end of the Cold War, at least in the gut of the average American. We started rebelling against the constraints of the government and we won.

Government lies have a way of unraveling. What I personally am waiting for is the day that the entire American population wakes up and finally faces the fact that it is Saudi Arabia--the Bush Dynasty's personal hand-holding gay buddies--that is our enemy. It was Saudi money, Saudi planning, and predominantly Saudi manpower that made 9/11 happen. All of our fighting in Iraq, and most of our fighting in Afghanistan, and all of our sabre-rattling against Iran and all of our stern warnings to Pakistan and all of our implied bullying of the majority of the world's Muslim population in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Africa... all of that is a smoke screen and will have no effect on terrorism.

At some point people will calm down and figure out the truth, simply because it is not at all well hidden. (I just saw a definitive book about the Saudis' role in anti-American terrorism on the table in the middle of Costco.) When that happens, it will be "the sixties" all over again. The government will be overthrown in spirit, its excesses will be reined in, we'll send troops to overthrow the Saudi government and dismantle their worldwide network of terrorist training camps, and things will be fine again for two or three decades.

It's only been five years since 9/11. We probably have five more to go, but we can get through it. Then it all comes crashing down.

Fraggle:

I like what you just said, very compelling, should write a book about it :p

The Saudi Royal Family are business people, they love nothing more accumilating vast amounts of money for their LARGE family. Same with the Bin Ladens for that matter who have repeatedely denounced their wayward child Osama. I ultimately sense a bit of Innocence on their part because of this business reason. I cant find proof of innocence but i feel it...

However i will note that the popularity of the Saudi Royal Family has been declining since 9/11 because of its touchy feely hugging and kissing relationship with Bush and his family.

At some point people will calm down and figure out the truth, simply because it is not at all well hidden. (I just saw a definitive book about the Saudis' role in anti-American terrorism on the table in the middle of Costco.) When that happens, it will be "the sixties" all over again. The government will be overthrown in spirit, its excesses will be reined in, we'll send troops to overthrow the Saudi government and dismantle their worldwide network of terrorist training camps, and things will be fine again for two or three decades.

It's only been five years since 9/11. We probably have five more to go, but we can get through it. Then it all comes crashing down.


I was 10 in 1973 so my view of the world back then was pretty much Bruce Lee and what was playing at the Lowes Gate on Saturday [remember the days of the double features?]. I really hope your right. I'd love to live through a sixties type era. Flower Power, Free Love, minds coming alive and wanting to stick it to the man, Great music, etc...

I just hope we all as a country live another 5 years to realize the errors of our leaders and do something to change what they sowed.

I love it. Marxists fawning over each other's drivel!!! Notta one independent thinker among you!!

Ever heard of nuance??

Do any of you know how to differentiate?

BTW- I was unaware America was born on 7/4/76!! Why is this because Carter was about to be elected President? To think, I always thought our independence was declared in 1776. No wonder I am so stupid about the meaning about being an American and the purposes of government!! Thanks for the insight. I feel refreshed to know that now I can finally proceed with the same mind numbing thoughts the rest of you have.

Long live Marxism!!!!

Long live multiculturalism!!!!

Long live the welfare state!!!!

Long live tax hikes!!!!

Long live the demise of capitalism!!!!

Long live global warming!!!!

Long live racial quotas!!!!

Long live the UN!!!!

Long live Castro!!!!

Long live Chavez!!!!

Long live Saddam!!!!

Long live torts!!!!

I feel so....so....so liberated!!!!

WOAHHHHH CALM DOWN, SLOW DOWN....

You're crazy as all hell radicand

Not crazy, he's just busily slinging mud, so as not to appear slow to the rest of the class.

Fraggle:"It was Saudi money, Saudi planning, and predominantly Saudi manpower that made 9/11 happen."

I think that's unfair to Arabians, and unfair even to the very extended Saudi Royal Family.

Osama and al-Qaeda became complete pariahs to these patriarchs. The fortunes Bin Laden managed after leaving commercial construction business was assuredly from sources highly antagonistic to the Saudi monarchy. Although Bin Laden was himself the benefactor of Royal trickle-down riches, that inheritance ended when he began condemning the monarchy early in his mujaheddin career. He bit the hand that fed him juicy contracts, and found a new revenue stream, along with notoriety.

A large part of the problem Americans have understanding our situation is the disinformation. It's such a pity, when Bin Laden's career, and Arabian dissent are not difficult to learn about- but the many deliberately confusing plots swirling at the most superficial surface of politics and journalism can blunt the senses by sheer volume of drivel.

As a nation we are much too repeatedly failing to recognize the true sources and true nature of the terrorism we so frequently fret, equivocate, bluster, and wage war about.

spacemansteve hinted at what I'm talking about: "The Saudi Royal Family are business people, they love nothing more accumilating vast amounts of money for their LARGE family. Same with the Bin Ladens for that matter who have repeatedely denounced their wayward child Osama. I ultimately sense a bit of Innocence on their part because of this business reason."

We shouldn't need educating to know that Arabia is run by a mafia. I don't think anyone here needs reminding that the Sa'uds are close clients of Washington establishment, especially in terms of military and covert operations. We shouldn't need reminding that in spite of a cozy relationship (so cozy that it is only rivalled by Israel in the region) Arabia is in the process of going unstable. This is why all overt American forces were so graciously invited to quickly and entirely leave the Kingdom in 2003. Had we stayed, Riyadh would likely resemble Baghdad today.

But Baghdad isn't that far away. And the Blows we have struck in Iraq are splitting a Shi'a-Sunni fault line (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=17938) that runs right through the Gulf States, the Eastern Province, until the Gulf of Aden. The Royals know what's coming, and they are ready at the drop of a Gutra to retire to their estates and investments abroad. For those that get out with their heads attached, life will be good. But for everyone else, including their American friends, there will be a crisis that will rapidly exceed the traumas of 1973 Arab embargo and 1979 Islamic revolution all rolled into one.

1. Why do you find it necessary to constantly bash America, especially when a repub is in office? For some the bashing is consistent, so why? For others, it only happens when repubs are in office. And, yes there are some who bash when a dem is in office. Why?

2. If you live in America, please state why you feel it appropriate to accept the services or freedoms enjoyed and then bash the hand that feeds you? And, no my position is not one of my country right or wrong. Nor, do I think it is as simple as invoking the right to free speech. In fact, if that is your only response. Please, do not participate.

3. If you do not live in America, do you apply the same standards to your country that you do America?

If I think of other questions, I will post them.

Let it rip, I am sure some of the responses will be very entertaining!!!

P. S. Yes, I understand that government is not the provider of freedom as question two seems to imply. I am merely saying that we are a country that holds freedom in high esteem.
With the only republican or democrat haters, it probably has something to do with politcal affiliation. Why is there so much bashing no matter who is in office. Perhaps because we are so materialistic, or because as a whole, we are so stupid and fat. Maybe because we try to rule the world and impose our laws, way of life, and government syatem on them. Or it could be because of any other innumerable list of reasons, but I think those are the top 4.

I live in America. And I choose to "bite the hand that feeds me" because they make me think that I'm so smart, by making everyone around me so stupid. Then, if I go to any other free country, I am, at best, mediocore. Also, they impose their laws on me, and I do not accept that. Why should I
obey someone elses veiw of right and wrong. I can "protect" my own freedom, I have a gun, a damn good one.

3 doesn't apply to me.

WOAHHHHH CALM DOWN, SLOW DOWN....

You're crazy as all hell radicand

Just expressing my liberation!!!

Oniw17: "I can "protect" my own freedom, I have a gun, a damn good one."

Surely you're not serious. Do you really think that Iraqis who think and dress just like you can protect their freedoms with damn good guns?

If so, you probably think that life is going happily and well in Iraq for Iraqis who work and fight alongside Americans. Which is fucking amazing to me.

"Why should I
obey someone elses veiw of right and wrong?"

Because if you cannot live by that fundamental social contract, you will be branded a criminal, and persecuted- but it won't be a Hollywood lark. Life inevitably sucks when one really can't play nicely with other kids.

They themselves think they are the worldpolice but are perceived by the rest of the world as crazy warmongers. .The american people need to stand up against their government, but sadly they are too fat to move. :D

Fraggle:"It was Saudi money, Saudi planning, and predominantly Saudi manpower that made 9/11 happen."

I think that's unfair to Arabians, and unfair even to the very extended Saudi Royal Family.Everything you wrote under this heading was reasonable. Nonetheless, every poll consistently shows that the majority of the people of Saudi Arabia hate America and Americans. Every terrorist training camp for little boys throughout the Islamic world that masquerades as a "school" for parents with no other options is funded by Saudi money.

The Arabian people are our sworn enemies. Perhaps their dictators are more pragmatic, but considering that every year they show up on the Top Five of every list of the World's Most Despicable Despots, I don't see much reason to split hairs over them. They're a nasty bunch and if we're looking to establish democracy, freedom, and tolerance in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia is the cesspool that needs to be drained first.

A large part of the problem Americans have understanding our situation is the disinformation. It's such a pity, when Bin Laden's career, and Arabian dissent are not difficult to learn about- but the many deliberately confusing plots swirling at the most superficial surface of politics and journalism can blunt the senses by sheer volume of drivel.I'm not terribly disinformed or confused when random interviews with Arabian housewives reveal that they would be proud of their sons if they became suicide bombers, and that many of them dream of doing it themselves. Women have been the force for peace in almost every human culture. When a nation's women condone not just violence but violence without honor, there's nothing to be said about that society except that it is sick. When women wish for their sons to go out and kill other women's infants, the feminine side of that society has been suppressed for too many dozens of generations.

This is the result of thousands of years of patriarchal, monotheistic religions. Entire countries have the morality of frat houses.

And yes, as anyone familar with my posts knows, I paint Christianity, Judaism, and Islam with the same brush. They are noxious and the world would be a far better place without the lot of them.

My wife grew up in Arabia, and I have lived there, in Yemen, and in Lebanon. You are painting with a very broad brush indeed. As I already mentioned, the religious and violent trappings of dissent are not as profound or pervasive as they might seem.

Religion is typically the last refuge of political action within police states such as have taken a much-resented hold in far too much of the Mideast. Because we are thrown off by this, Americans and our government have wound up on the wrong side of popular movements for reform. As a whole we are failing to understand that it is only in a religious context that dissent can find a footing in such countries. If you study modern Iran, you can learn that Iran (especially urban Iran) is a secular, Western-leaning society dressed up in Islamic robes. Iraq is now putting on the same raimants largely because we have been making similar policy mistakes there.

"every poll consistently shows that the majority of the people of Saudi Arabia hate America and Americans."

That's not in the least bit credible to me, as a Westerner familiar with Arabia, who maintains contact with people living in the Kingdom. They hate the policies we allow our government to prosecute, but most have strong curiosity and affinity for Americans.

"They're a nasty bunch and if we're looking to establish democracy, freedom, and tolerance in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia is the cesspool that needs to be drained first."

No, this is a country whose aristocracy may be corrupt, but whose substantial middle class has been educated largely in the USA. They understand us. We don't understand them, because we confuse a terrorist minority and majority antagonism for our American government policies as being some form of backwardness or a religious radicalism exceeding what is found in the American heartland (for instance). Popular Arab rhetoric is spicier than ours, but they do a lot less random killing of us than the converse. Arabians certainly have the motive, knowledge, means and manpower to reduce us to an enraged police state with nothing more than a few dozen car bombs. Yet they have not. I understand why, but apparently you don't get it.

Should we attempt "draining the swamp" by any means as outsiders, the results will be identical as we are witnessing in Iraq. Remember too, that Arabia is not a culturally homogenous territory, but one ruled by a singular tribal elite among many others just as authentic, and deeply divided along Shi'a/Sunni lines.

"This is the result of thousands of years of patriarchal, monotheistic religions. Entire countries have the morality of frat houses."

In terms of havoc wreaked, you must admit that the USA has unleashed far more death and destruction than any Arabian crackpots. Just because everyday Arabs can recognize this does not mean that they are all living in the 12th Century.

"When women wish for their sons to go out and kill other women's infants, the feminine side of that society has been suppressed for too many dozens of generations."

This happens in American society- Although we may be more verbally tactful, the results in the streets of places like Fallujah, Ramadi, Haditha, and Baghdad are identical: Mothers "Support Our Troops", and as a result Iraqis watch their kids die in their own streets.

You don't need a religion to get pissed about this if it happens daily one border away, where there are many family ties. However, given that the mosques and madrasas are the only safe places for political organizing to occur in any tangible form in Arabia, that's where history is happening. I believe that there are atheists in foxholes, just as I believe that there are atheists in mosques.

"Christianity, Judaism, and Islam with the same brush. They are noxious and the world would be a far better place without the lot of them."

I personally am an atheist, and I can wholeheartedly agree just that far. However, these will not fade away as a result of foreign manipulations, but will instead always feed on, and ever be perpetuated by any outside meddling , shows of force, or violence.

In order for disparate cultures to coexist whatever their proximity, there has to be a line of respect when it comes to religious traditions. All major traditions have had to conform to a certain standard of pacifism in order to endure, and Islam is no exception. Islam is a religion forged in tribal warfare, but steeped in traditions of hospitality, mercy, and compromise that put standard American Christian practices to shame.

We need not fear the wrath of popular Islamic fervor. We need only be intelligent enough to step out of the way when local and regional injustices beyond our ethical jurisdiction precipitate an unstoppable turning of the tide. American policy is being directed by interests trying to hold an impossible status quo, and the sooner we realize this the greater will be our near and long-term security and prosperity in the United States.

For my answer to the question of this thread; See (in this forum) the new thread: "How DUMB can US voters be?

First posts of new question thread ends with: "What do you think?", so please comment.

That first post is also in the Business & Economics forum thread: "Alcohol fuel - The obvious answer, Yes or No?" as the focus is on the economic cost of US's current plans to use corn based alcohol.

Bush told the lie "they hate our freedom" because Bush did not want us hearing that "they hate US government foreign policy". Bush did not want us Americans second guessing our government's foreign policy.

nirakar:

You raised a very good point there, something that many people miss when they debate about this. I congratulate you on raising that. My opinion is still somewhat different but i like it none the less

My wife grew up in Arabia, and I have lived there, in Yemen, and in Lebanon. You are painting with a very broad brush indeed. As I already mentioned, the religious and violent trappings of dissent are not as profound or pervasive as they might seem.All right, I defer to your personal experience. But if it doesn't work out that way, I'll send you the bill. :)

And for the record, as I stated, I feel just as strongly about the religious roots of intolerance in the USA. The feminine has been pushed down into the dark side of all of Mesopotamian civilization including our Greco-Roman brand, since the advent of evangelical patriarchal monotheism. If ever there was a country that behaves like one giant frat house, it is 21st Century America.

Oniw17: "I can "protect" my own freedom, I have a gun, a damn good one."

Surely you're not serious. Do you really think that Iraqis who think and dress just like you can protect their freedoms with damn good guns?

If so, you probably think that life is going happily and well in Iraq for Iraqis who work and fight alongside Americans. Which is fucking amazing to me.

"Why should I
obey someone elses veiw of right and wrong?"

Because if you cannot live by that fundamental social contract, you will be branded a criminal, and persecuted- but it won't be a Hollywood lark. Life inevitably sucks when one really can't play nicely with other kids.
Well, if there's anything that I can't protect myself from with my damn good gun, then nobody else can protect me from it either. Thus, it is inevitable, and just nature. If you really believe any differently, you're only lying to yourself. My friend William Burner was killed at only 10 years old, in America, 2 houses down from me. And no, I don't think that life is going good over in Iraq, and I'm pretty sure that the U.S. bombing the fuck out of them when we first went over didn't help their lives much either.
When did I choose to be part of that social contract? And again you are shown to be a lier. My cousin has been ripping off houses for crack money since he was 15. He's now 22. He has disobeyed one of the only laws that have anything to do with protecting us, with no penalty. Willie's killer has never been found either. Now tell me, if a government serves no purpose, and I am forced to obey it, is it not oppression?

Nice to see you're one of the few "real Americans" left with some balls, Oniw.

- N

Oniw: "When did I choose to be part of that social contract?"

Each day you choose to live with other human beings you choose this. Consistently break the basic contract, and people will inevitably lock you up or kill you in the attempt- in any country. Anywhere.

"Now tell me, if a government serves no purpose..."

All governments serve a purpose, serve various purposes. That is why they arise whenever a significant number of people have interaction. Absent government, Willie would likely not be the only neighbor you know to have had his life and future stolen from him. For a simple explanation of the purpose of government, you could do worse than reading a little Rousseau (http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon_01.htm#006).

"...if a government serves no purpose, and I am forced to obey it, is it not oppression?"

You can perceive it this way if you want, but it will make your life very difficult. Unless you can contribute more profound thoughts than the greatest minds of the ages, it may be seen as a silly and senseless life. Similarly, you can live your life in repudiation of the laws of Physics- You can resent gravity if you like. Go ahead and detest the concept of equal and opposite reaction. Rage against thermodynamics. You have the free choice do deny all these popular conventions... but because of your foolishness, you will be treated as a fool.

There has never been a world where you can wave and shoot your gun to create a paradise for yourself. We have a powerful myth in America about strait-shootin' cowboys who won the West, but our actual history is not at all like a cheap Western movie. Most Europeans on the American Frontier didn't have guns, and among those who did possess such commodities before mass-production, not many knew how to use or maintain them well. I've lived in war, where nearly everyone of every demeanor has ready access to lethal gadgets like AK47s, M-16s, and endless ammo. It isn't a pleasant way to live. That's why conditions of war and anarchy do not last (because they suck), and rational humans always get back to the necessary task of rebuilding our imperfect families, and rebuilding the imperfect families of man we call government.


No man is an island, entire of itself
every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main
if a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were,
as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were
any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind
and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls
it tolls for thee. -- John Donne

BTW- I was unaware America was born on 7/4/76!! Why is this because Carter was about to be elected President? To think, I always thought our independence was declared in 1776. No wonder I am so stupid about the meaning about being an American and the purposes of government!! Thanks for the insight. I feel refreshed to know that now I can finally proceed with the same mind numbing thoughts the rest of you have.

I don't know - I thought that you might understand that 7/4/76 meant July 4, 1776. I'll spell it out for ya next time ok tuff guy? :bugeye:

Well, if there's anything that I can't protect myself from with my damn good gun, then nobody else can protect me from it either. ...If discriminated against, for example in appliction for a job or membership in a swimming club, etc I assume you just whip out your "good gun" and blast away - right? :rolleyes:

Your POV is insane! Get help.

If discriminated against, for example in appliction for a job or membership in a swimming club, etc I assume you just whip out your "good gun" and blast away - right?

Your POV is insane! Get help.

Your assumptions and drastic way of reading into things is insane! Get help.

- N

Your assumptions and drastic way of reading into things is insane!...If my reading is even slightly wrong, please tell me how I should read:

"if there's anything that I can't protect myself from with my damn good gun, then nobody else can protect me from it either."

I mentioned two things, very common discriminations and serious injustices, that guns are useless to prevent and yet laws do rather well at curbing. What is your interpretaion of his sick POV?

What is your interpretaion of his sick POV?

Pretty simple as to what he said. If there's nothing he can't protect himself from a gun, then nobody can protect him either. I don't see what he's saying as he's gonna point a gun into anyone's face who disagrees with him as you magnified that 10x. I see it as simple protection, usually from a physical or other similar dangerous threat, not over something petty.

- N

So the ability to get a job (and hence food, shelter and medicine) is "petty?"

Wow, you guys must suck at reading comprehension.

Let's wait for that other guy to respond to see if he meant what you guys are thinking on the extreme side of the spectrum. I mean, hey, doesn't everyone mean what you guys are thinking when if you want a job done right, you gotta do it yourself? :rolleyes:

- N

Look, I support the right to bear arms. Not because I own a gun myself, but because the credible threat of popular resistance a prerequisite for legitimate (and hence functional) government. Self-reliance and willingness to question authority are admirable attributes, all the more so because they contribute to an accountable, limited government. But this does not obviate the need for some form of government. As Billy T's example illustrates, the only rights one enjoys in an anarchist system are those one is willing to die for. With a government, on the other hand, the sacrifices of the few ensure the rights of multitides. As hypewaders has already pointed out, history has decisively favored government over anarchy.

Where does that guy talk about or support anarchy? You guys are reading way too much into his simple statement.

- N

The only thing curbed by laws are the honest people, and the only thing that the law dose is punish the offender after he has commited the crime and has been caught and tried, remember the reason they are called criminals is that they don't obey the law in the first place.

Ugh.. ick.. yuck.. ack.. shudder.. I'm agreeing with Buffalo Roam!

:p

- N

If discriminated against, I doubt that I would be told that's why I didn't get a job. If I was told, it probably wouldn't bother me at all, because I have an understanding of human nature and am pretty passive. If there was really no way that I could survive independently because of discriminations(which I doubt), I would just steal the food, or find food. This is in the said anarchic society. I do not believe that the oblitoration of governemnets is wise, or even possible, but I do know that western governments are flawed. Shouldn't you be willing to die for any of your rights? If not then will you except bondage? That is a "sick" idea of life.

If discriminated against, I doubt that I would be told that's why I didn't get a job. If I was told, it probably wouldn't bother me at all, because I have an understanding of human nature and am pretty passive. If there was really no way that I could survive independently because of discriminations(which I doubt), I would just steal the food, or find food. This is in the said anarchic society. I do not believe that the oblitoration of governemnets is wise, or even possible, but I do know that western governments are flawed. Shouldn't you be willing to die for any of your rights? If not then will you except bondage? That is a "sick" idea of life.

So then, how do you reconcile that western govs are flawed with the idea that we should be willing to die for our rights?