why aren't you a partisan sellout?

[$tinkle]

for me, i'm right leaning, but can't go hook, line & sinker for the RNC for these reasons:
capital punishment
environmental policy
energy policy
fiscal irresponsibility


what keeps you from being a sellout to DNC or RNC? (Plz pick party to which you're more closely aligned)

[Jorvik]

I lean to the right but I don't agree with the current administration for a few reasons which include:

*Abortion- I'm on the fence for this one, I believe it should be legal but also believe that people should be responsible about sex.

*Fiscal irresponsibility - If you spend more money, you need to raise taxes. If you spend less money, you can lower taxes. I really don't see how it is so confusing.

[Tenchiro]

Because I am a wishy washy fence sitter. :monkey:

Seriously though both parties have their good and bad points, and for the most part and I don't really feel like I should join one or the other. I always register as an independent, but if I was forced to choose a party I would have to go Libertarian.

[golgiaparatus]

Originally posted by Jorvik
*Fiscal irresponsibility - If you spend more money, you need to raise taxes. If you spend less money, you can lower taxes. I really don't see how it is so confusing.

;)

[ummbikes]

I'm a left leaning, pro-life, Libertarian. I vote Republican sometimes, mostly Lib. and sometimes Dem.

[Silver]

Economic moderate. Social libertine.

There ain't no party for people like me...

Edit: Doesn't really matter. I can't vote anyways. I'm just along for the ride.

[llkoolkeg]

I guess the party that most closely represents my political philosophy is the Libertarian Party. I lean right on most economic issues and left on most social ones with just enough exceptions to confuse the Hell out of anyone that knows me. I believe in judging issues as I judge candidates- individually.

[Westy]

I think we should nuke the French, all the Arabs, Hippies, people with accents, the fish, bugs and any other carbon based lifeform. I normally vote republican but anymore they are a bunch of commie pinko tree hugging liberals.


Really I am fically conservative and consider myself a social libertarian. I hate the Republicans current fiscal irresposibility and foreign policy driven by personal grudges. When the Republicans are not insane as they are now I normally disagree with the republicans on environmental issues. I disagree with Democrats on social programs like welfare and healthcare but these days with the geezer vote as strong as it is the Reps are even screwing up there.

[N8]

I'm a leftist/socialist/tree hugger/anti SUV owning/liberal...

[LordOpie]

I'm left leaning, but am concerned about Kerry cuz:

-- his foreign policy
-- he's a snowboarder

[manimal]

i'm right leaning but being my size i generally fall over when i lean that far:D

i'm still undecided about bush....think he did the right thing as far as having the balls to fight but am a bit skeptical as to his motives.

pro life "if it's not a baby, you're not pregnant"

pro guns. would you rob someone you knew was armed?

hate friggin hippies and tree huggers. if given the opportunity to be involved in the senseless flogging of either a politician or a high ranking member of PETA.....i'd choose the PETA freak.


i rarely vote as i'm usually not pleased with either candidate.

a little satire of my political beliefs :D

[Changleen]

As a European, it's nice to hear some Americans being honest about their veiws of Bush.. Generaly when a Euro talks to Americans then America can do no wrong and so on so forth..

Good stuff guys. :)

My general guidelines:

Abortion / Gay marriage etc: It has nothing to do with me if other people decide to have abortions or get married and it really won't affect me in any way. How could I possibly object? They're not hurting me or themselves.

Neo-Conservatives: Not a good thing. G.W. has caused America to be hated by the rest of the world more than any other Pres ever. He is such a hypocrite it is not hard to see why people feel this way. Criticising China and Russia over Democracy and Human rights whilst he runs Guantanomo? WTF? He is obviously destructive. And since when was it OK to practice revenge? Aren't we above that? Isn't that the point?
One thing I think the media (especially CNN + Fox ) pedal is that Bush's policies work and have a positive effect on things, whereas in reality all they cause is rage. This thing in Isreal is a great example. Also why does AMerica continue to support Isreal? If they just told Sharon to **** off then so many people in the world would be so much more behind you!

I dunno, I guess I just hope by some magic Clinton is re-elected pres. That would be brilliant. Why did you guys ever get rid of him?

[I Are Baboon]

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
I lean right on most economic issues and left on most social ones with just enough exceptions...

:stupid:

I don't know what the hell I am.

[llkoolkeg]

Originally posted by Changleen
As a European, it's nice to hear some Americans being honest about their veiws of Bush.. Generaly when a Euro talks to Americans then America can do no wrong and so on so forth..

Good stuff guys. :)

My general guidelines:

Abortion / Gay marriage etc: It has nothing to do with me if other people decide to have abortions or get married and it really won't affect me in any way. How could I possibly object? They're not hurting me or themselves.

Neo-Conservatives: Not a good thing. G.W. has caused America to be hated by the rest of the world more than any other Pres ever. He is such a hypocrite it is not hard to see why people feel this way. Criticising China and Russia over Democracy and Human rights whilst he runs Guantanomo? WTF? He is obviously destructive. And since when was it OK to practice revenge? Aren't we above that? Isn't that the point?
One thing I think the media (especially CNN + Fox ) pedal is that Bush's policies work and have a positive effect on things, whereas in reality all they cause is rage. This thing in Isreal is a great example. Also why does AMerica continue to support Isreal? If they just told Sharon to **** off then so many people in the world would be so much more behind you!

I dunno, I guess I just hope by some magic Clinton is re-elected pres. That would be brilliant. Why did you guys ever get rid of him?

:rolleyes: Why are so many Euros idealogically cloned? :rolleyes:

[Changleen]

We're not - we're just able to think for ourselves and realise foreigners are people too, more than some people apparantly...:rolleyes:

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Changleen
Abortion / Gay marriage etc: It has nothing to do with me if other people decide to have abortions or get married and it really won't affect me in any way. How could I possibly object? They're not hurting me or themselves. as a parent, i can tell you that having a child greatly affected my life. Perhaps that wasn't what you meant(?).
Originally posted by Changleen
Neo-Conservatives: Not a good thing. G.W. has caused America to be hated by the rest of the world more than any other Pres ever. He is such a hypocrite it is not hard to see why people feel this way. you don't lead by consensus
Originally posted by Changleen
Criticising China and Russia over Democracy and Human rights whilst he runs Guantanomo? WTF? do you have a bodycount handy for camp x-ray? I'm a little unsure what your understanding of human rights violations among china, russia, gitmo are. Please explain, if willing.
Originally posted by Changleen
He is obviously destructive. And since when was it OK to practice revenge? Aren't we above that? still bangin' that drum, eh?
Originally posted by Changleen
One thing I think the media (especially CNN + Fox ) pedal is that Bush's policies work and have a positive effect on things, whereas in reality all they cause is rage. why not both?
Originally posted by Changleen
This thing in Isreal is a great example. Also why does AMerica continue to support Isreal? If they just told Sharon to **** off then so many people in the world would be so much more behind you! but, with all the jews gone, we wouldn't have our media, wall street, florida tourism, & nation of islam. We need them.Originally posted by Changleen
I dunno, I guess I just hope by some magic Clinton is re-elected pres. That would be brilliant. Why did you guys ever get rid of him? clinton was a US president, not EU. To be sure, you may have him. Lock, stock & premoistened cigar.

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by $tinkle
but, with all the jews gone, we wouldn't have our media, wall street, florida tourism, & nation of islam. We need them.
Don't forget my favorite jew... Jon Stewart. I don't think the Daily Show would be quite as good without him.

[llkoolkeg]

Originally posted by Changleen
We're not - we're just able to think for ourselves and realise foreigners are people too, more than some people apparantly...:rolleyes:

I have no problem with "foreigners". Ich bin ein auslander, eh? My response was a tongue-in-cheek retort based on my observation that Europeans exhibit far more political solidarity, transcending international borders, than Americans. We debate everything and have a fairly even distribution of conservatives vs. liberals. On my fairly extensive travels in Europe over several months, I came across many more liberal types than did I conservatives. In fact, even your conservatives are liberal by our standards. Your statement that "we're just able to think for ourselves" seems to contradict my observations, however. Does this clarify my viewpoint?

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Changleen
We're not - we're just able to think for ourselves and realise foreigners are people too, more than some people apparantly...:rolleyes: so, your high minded opinions just happen to be the same ones i see on Deutche Welle, or read in Agence France Presse or the beeb?

i would never make the claim that my opinions are formed in a vacuum. Perhaps you mean you think as a "collective"?

if i seem curt, do not mistake that for dismissing what you say b/c of your euroness, but rather the manner in which you lean upon it for validation. We have folks here who do that, & i think you call them "cowboys", & rightly so.

[Changleen]

Originally posted by $tinkle
[B]as a parent, i can tell you that having a child greatly affected my life. Perhaps that wasn't what you meant(?).
Indeed. I meant I have no right to dictate what other people do with their lives, provided they don't hurt me.


you don't lead by consensus

'you' meaning the US President or me?


do you have a bodycount handy for camp x-ray? I'm a little unsure what your understanding of human rights violations among china, russia, gitmo are. Please explain, if willing.

Human rights isn't about body count. It's about basic freedoms. Like the right to a lawyer, like not being held for 2 years, in some cases in solitary confinement, with zero evidence against you. SO far everyone released from Guantanomo has had absolutely no connection with the Taliban, Al Quaida or any form of terrorism.
It's just a bit much for the US to criticise other nations about Human rights abuses (obviously the Chinese are a pretty long way from being perfect) but clean your own house first eh?
Like wise with Democracy. GW recently criticised the Russian elections as undemocratic, whereas in reality they were far more democratic than the US's last sham of an election.


still bangin' that drum, eh?

Well, I think it's quite an important one....


why not both?

Because they're mutually exclusive in anything other than the extremly short term?


but, with all the jews gone, we wouldn't have our media, wall street, florida tourism, & nation of islam. We need them.
Um, denouncing Isreal's position and illegal killings wouldn't make your Jews all suddenly vanish...

[Changleen]

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
I have no problem with "foreigners". Ich bin ein auslander, eh? My response was a tongue-in-cheek retort based on my observation that Europeans exhibit far more political solidarity, transcending international borders, than Americans. We debate everything and have a fairly even distribution of conservatives vs. liberals. On my fairly extensive travels in Europe over several months, I came across many more liberal types than did I conservatives. In fact, even your conservatives are liberal by our standards. Your statement that "we're just able to think for ourselves" seems to contradict my observations, however. Does this clarify my viewpoint?

Yes, I believe it does. I agree that the the European politcal spectrum is more 'liberal' (although that's not ideal word to describe it) than the US spectrum.

[Changleen]

Originally posted by $tinkle
so, your high minded opinions just happen to be the same ones i see on Deutche Welle, or read in Agence France Presse or the beeb?

i would never make the claim that my opinions are formed in a vacuum. Perhaps you mean you think as a "collective"?

if i seem curt, do not mistake that for dismissing what you say b/c of your euroness, but rather the manner in which you lean upon it for validation. We have folks here who do that, & i think you call them "cowboys", & rightly so.

Why do you percieve my ideas as 'high minded'? I just think they're logical. And yes, they probably do happen to be similar in some ways to the ones you may read in the more reasonable European press. That's probably because we largly experience things from the same veiwpoint, and with a high degree of shared culture and recent experience. We also are more exposed to the press and opinions of other countries, and are generally more sympathetic to them.

No opinion is formed in a vacuum. I don't presume to think you are incapable of rational thought or I wouldn't be here. Please don't think the same of me. In the end it's insulting to both of us.

Likewise, I don't feel I lean on my Euroness for validation, at least no more than you lean on you 'US'ness. Same as my last point really. Neither of us are incapable of forming our own decisions. At first glance we probably both appear to each other as somewhat stereotypical examples. It's important to look beyond that.

[charmin]

Originally posted by Changleen
...your Jews ...

Hmmm....

[Changleen]

Originally posted by charmin
Hmmm....

No, I didn't mean it like that....;)

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by Changleen
SO far everyone released from Guantanomo has had absolutely no connection with the Taliban, Al Quaida or any form of terrorism.
Thank G-d! I sure hope they don't release anyone with connections to terrorism.

Originally posted by Changleen
Um, denouncing Isreal's position...
And just what is Israel's position?

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Changleen
Indeed. I meant I have no right to dictate what other people do with their lives, provided they don't hurt me.agreed.Originally posted by Changleen
'you' meaning the US President or me?the US, for we didn't become & maintain our status as the global uberpower by sucking on the teet of the UN (although we certainly can be accused of it).Originally posted by Changleen
Human rights isn't about body count. It's about basic freedoms. Like the right to a lawyer, like not being held for 2 years, in some cases in solitary confinement, with zero evidence against you. SO far everyone released from Guantanomo has had absolutely no connection with the Taliban, Al Quaida or any form of terrorism.
Mohammed Ismail Agha, 15, who until last week was held at the US military base in Guantanamo Bay, said that he was treated very well and particularly enjoyed learning to speak English. His words will disappoint critics of the US policy of detaining "illegal combatants" in south-east Cuba indefinitely and without trial.
telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$JIFJI0XVBQW0DQFIQMFSFF4AVCBQ 0IV0?xml=/news/2004/02/08/wguan08.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/02/08/ixworld.html)NEW YORK: Prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay detention centre have provided interrogators with intelligence over the last two years, including details about Al Qaeda’s chemical and biological weapons efforts and its use of charities as false fund-raising fronts, The New York Times reported in its Sunday edition. sorry, i coudn't hear you over the roar of laughter. Could you repeat?
Originally posted by Changleen
Like wise with Democracy. GW recently criticised the Russian elections as undemocratic, whereas in reality they were far more democratic than the US's last sham of an election.with all the drivel you've spewed on this post alone, you're now officially on my fulloshiite listMOSCOW (AP) -- European observers said Monday that Russia's presidential election fell short of democratic standards, citing vote count flaws and biased news coverage that kept incumbent Vladimir Putin's rivals out of the spotlight.
.
.
.
President Bush spoke to Putin by telephone Monday, telling him his second term was an opportunity to "deepen Russian's commitment to reform - market-based reform and democratic reform," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said in Washington.
read the bloody thing yourself (http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/R/RUSSIA_ELECTION?SITE=NJHAC&SECTION=HOME)Originally posted by Changleen
Um, denouncing Isreal's position and illegal killings wouldn't make your Jews all suddenly vanish... so, if we no longer said "we got your back" & denounced israel's right to defend themselves, things would be more peaceful? that's a bit unrealistic & polyanna, no?

[fluff]

Originally posted by $tinkle
sorry, i coudn't hear you over the roar of laughter. Could you repeat?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3515502.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/3504034.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3506774.stm

[N8]

Originally posted by $tinkle
if we no longer said "we got your back" & denounced israel's right to defend themselves, things would be more peaceful? that's a bit unrealistic & polyanna, no?

If that happened, then kiss the lil' 3rd world muslim fiefdoms that border on Israel good bye cuz the Jews have the nukes... It's the US that keeps the Israelies in check (prolly not for their own good either)..

[fluff]

Originally posted by $tinkle
with all the drivel you've spewed on this post alone, you're now officially on my fulloshiite

http://www.mediachannel.org/views/dissector/stalemate.shtml

[N8]

Originally posted by fluff
http://www.mediachannel.org/views/dissector/stalemate.shtml

[Changleen]

you don't lead by consensus

Ah, I thought that Democracy meant you DID lead by consensus..Silly me.

we didn't become & maintain our status as the global uberpower by sucking on the teet of the UN (although we certainly can be accused of it).

But you should have, and would still be the superpower. And more people would respect you.

Mohammed Ismail Agha, 15, who until last week was held at the US military base in Guantanamo Bay, said that he was treated very well and particularly enjoyed learning to speak English.

Yes, I read that too, and wondered a)why you locked up at least two 13 year olds for two years, massive threats to the US they must have been eh? and b) how much information he provided in the war on terror. Missing the point a little?

Prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay detention centre have provided interrogators with intelligence over the last two years, including details about Al Qaeda’s chemical and biological weapons efforts and its use of charities as false fund-raising fronts, The New York Times reported in its Sunday edition.

Wow, Al Quaeda do that? Now that is NEWS! (Sarcasm if you didn't notice) but for every one of your news stroies there are others:
Look.. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3515502.stm)

Seriously, that's not the point. It is totally fine to capture POWs, it's totally fine to interogate them within the Geneva convention, I agree that Al Quaeda are wrong and need to be dealt with etc..
The thing people have an issue with is the way the US went about it. In the end it's gonna cause you as many new problems, if not more than it will ever solve. And your 'intelligence is now 2 years out of date! Declaring them 'Illegal combatants' - Hey, the US invaded their country, took them prisoner in some cases just for just being there, and totally flouted every international law in doing so. Don't you have even a little bit of a problem with that? or is the US above international law?

with all the drivel you've spewed on this post alone, you're now officially on my fulloshiite list

Wow, what a mature response! Good job you're so open minded to other peoples opinions!

so, if we no longer said "we got your back" & denounced israel's right to defend themselves, things would be more peaceful? that's a bit unrealistic & polyanna, no?

Actually no. I think that would help a hell of a lot. Although you would not need to denounce their right to defend themselves. Maybe you should suggest to both partys that retaliation never works, violence causes more violence, and that they're both humans after all. Oh and have a look at this: Link (http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=3326&CategoryId=4) The US is paying for most of the carnage! Great!

[fluff]

Originally posted by N8

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





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


http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/nov2000/elec-n13.shtml
http://www.guardian.co.uk/US_election_race/0,2759,376727,00.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/13/got.here/index.html (http://edition.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/13/got.here/index.html)

http://www.internationalism.org/wr/240_electioncircus2.htm

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by fluff
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3515502.stm
the headline reads: "Freed Afghans condemn Cuba prison", not "Dead Afghans Terrorists sent home in Pigskins", which is what i would have preferred. They didn't claim to have been buggered, which is surely what would have happened if they were in a US holding facility. Cry me a frappin river.
Washington says detainees at Guantanamo Bay are treated according to the Geneva Conventionso who should i believe? My gov't who has my interest in mind, or terrorists who want to kill my fellow citizens?
"They are all innocent people just like me - if I was a Taleban and al-Qaeda why did they release me? The others still in jail are just like me," he said. damn right he said that. When you roll over, you better give a strong stance when you get out. What's he going to say? He got out b/c he gave the US all the terrorist intelligence he knew?

next...
Originally posted by fluff
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/3504034.stm that's a damn shame.
can't make eggs w/o breaking a few shells.
this story, although tragically unfortunate, makes no case for Mr Udeen's stint as being the norm


and finally...
Originally posted by fluff

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3506774.stm echoes the previous.

2 questions need to be brought into the fold here:
is this not far better treatment than say, that of a missionary in china who passed out a bible to someone who asked for it? I mean, c'mon, at least the gitmo fellas got to go home. if this was the wrong way to go about it - and you're not too subtle about your position - they what, pray tell, is better (if not right)? Tag their ears w/ gps trackers? Convert them to christianity?

[Changleen]

Thank you, Fluff.

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by fluff
http://www.mediachannel.org/views/dissector/stalemate.shtml

I don't beleive either won.....how close can it be?

There was no one true winner in that election.

Which means the country as a whole didn't really want either one that bad. Who is a clear winner when it is 50/50ish?

I think Al G. was happy he didn't get the job after 9-11.

[Changleen]

the headline reads: "Freed Afghans condemn Cuba prison", not "Dead Afghans Terrorists sent home in Pigskins", which is what i would have preferred. They didn't claim to have been buggered, which is surely what would have happened if they were in a US holding facility. Cry me a frappin river.


Despite the fact that they weren't terrorists? Jeeze. Lucky they weren't buggered? WTF? You sound worse than them.

so who should i believe? My gov't who has my interest in mind, or terrorists who want to kill my fellow citizens?


Well, given that that your government lied about WMD, lied about the budget, lies about the environment and regularly bends peoples words to suit it's own ends, I'd be erring on the side of not believing them right away, no questions asked, don't you think? And I don't think the gov exactly has your interests in mind, I think it's more their own asses they're watching out for.

Stinkle, you whole post seems to stench of an attitude that the US is right, no matter what it does, who it rolls over in the process, and how it does it. Well I'm here to tell you it's f*cking not right. What goes around comes around, and if you keep treating the rest of the world like crap, like you're above any laws, then people are gonna hate you. Is that that hard to understand?

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Changleen
Ah, I thought that Democracy meant you DID lead by consensus..Silly me.not when the UN is toothless, all bluster no action, & too scared to follow through on their resolutionsOriginally posted by Changleen
But you should have, and would still be the superpower. And more people would respect you. but, these "more people" do not have our interest in mind. It sure would be nice if we could all have a coke & a smile, but i'm not waiting on it (see UN statement above). When terrorists are plotting & scheming (see: every terrorism related news article since pre-lockerbie), time is of the essence.
Just my opinion.
Shared by a few million or so american citizens.
And others around the world.
For starters.Originally posted by Changleen
Yes, I read that too, and wondered a)why you locked up at least two 13 year olds for two years, massive threats to the US they must have been eh? and b) how much information he provided in the war on terror. Missing the point a little?what can i say? they had fake IDs? Didn't realize we had a combat policy of age discrimination in a warzone. Do you think that al-queda has a min age standard for jihad? If so, how much older than able to steady a rifle & pull, or walk w/ a backpack fullo semtex?Originally posted by Changleen
Wow, Al Quaeda do that? Now that is NEWS! (Sarcasm if you didn't notice) but for every one of your news stroies there are others:
Look.. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3515502.stm)yes, there's also the 911 coverup stories as well. Wheat from the chaff dear lad.Originally posted by Changleen
Seriously, that's not the point. It is totally fine to capture POWs, it's totally fine to interogate them within the Geneva convention, I agree that Al Quaeda are wrong and need to be dealt with etc..
The thing people have an issue with is the way the US went about it. In the end it's gonna cause you as many new problems, if not more than it will ever solve. there's no such thing as wartime diplomacy.Originally posted by Changleen
And your 'intelligence is now 2 years out of date! Declaring them 'Illegal combatants' - Hey, the US invaded their country, took them prisoner in some cases just for just being there, and totally flouted every international law in doing so. Don't you have even a little bit of a problem with that? or is the US above international law? out of date, eh? Do you do duck & cover exercises preparing for pending doom, or go about your daily routine as normal? They were declared illegal combatants b/c they fit the definition. I don't see what's debatable about that. You may not like the def. Fine. Ummm, what every int'l law was totally flouted? My gov't has been rather successful in keeping this from my version of Internet. Since when does the US have to consult an international attorney in time of war? (hint: "time of war")
Originally posted by Changleen
Wow, what a mature response! Good job you're so open minded to other peoples opinions!when your "opinions" are laughable, unfounded, & otherwise defenseless, i have no apologies. Sorry.

(damn! i promised myself i wouldn't apologize!)
Originally posted by Changleen
Oh and have a look at this: Link (http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=3326&CategoryId=4) The US is paying for most of the carnage! Great! mitfah.org, "Your Key to Palestine"? this article alone has the phrase "occupied territories" 9 times. They use the name Israel only when it's convenient to make this "case" against the US. but go to their maps link, where they title some maps of israel with the phrase "zionist colonies in palestine", or once again invoking "Israeli occupation". Yeah, they're on balance.

glad to see you're "open minded" about the palestinian propog....errr....plight

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by fluff
http://www.mediachannel.org/views/dissector/stalemate.shtml i expect more from you.

the key facts - cough, cough (http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/elections/results.htm) page claims that black people are systematically removed from the voter pool. ("Florida permanently disenfranchises more than 400,000 ex-offenders" - wtf is an "ex-offender"?) Not that they have been convicted of crimes by a jury of their peers (when it goes to trial), & thusly have given up their priviledge to vote.

see the difference?

i found it difficult to read past this link, but if you feel the article has more merit, then press me & i'll have a peep.

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by $tinkle
They didn't claim to have been buggered, which is surely what would have happened if they were in a US holding facility.Originally posted by Changleen
Lucky they weren't buggered? WTF? You sound worse than them.well, if this isn't the most inconveniently damning evidence that you read what you want, i don't know what is.

go to bed.
Originally posted by Changleen
Well, given that that your government lied about WMD, lied about the budget, lies about the environment and regularly bends peoples words to suit it's own ends, I'd be erring on the side of not believing them right away, no questions asked, don't you think?i thought you liked clinton? i'm really confused as to your position du leur Originally posted by Changleen
And I don't think the gov exactly has your interests in mind, I think it's more their own asses they're watching out for.on the topic of nat'l security, it's as good as it gets. I"ll concede they are nothing more than politicians (read: damn liars) on all other non-mortal issues (If we're dead, we can't [re]elect them)Originally posted by Changleen
Stinkle, you whole post seems to stench of an attitude that the US is right, no matter what it does, who it rolls over in the process, and how it does it. Well I'm here to tell you it's f*cking not right. What goes around comes around, and if you keep treating the rest of the world like crap, like you're above any laws, then people are gonna hate you. Is that that hard to understand? this little spit-for-distance is only in the context of nat'l security, which has been long couched in terms of us v them, and as such, i know which team i'm on.

as far as treating the rest of the world like crap, please explain to me why billions of our dollars are flowing to europe, egypt, turkey, etc. And don't make a dumass statement like sen [sic] kennedy: "we bribed 'em!"


still waiting for the "international laws" that we broke.

having said that, don't let it be missed that i appreciate your desire to take a stand on these (obviously) divisive issues. Knowledge is power & all that crap.

[Changleen]

Originally posted by Changleen
Ah, I thought that Democracy meant you DID lead by consensus..Silly me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

not when the UN is toothless, all bluster no action, & too scared to follow through on their resolutions

Democracy when it suits you eh? Brilliant!

but, these "more people" do not have our interest in mind

That's all you have in mind isn't it? The American interest, nothing else. What about the rest of the world? It seems increasingly apparant that you don't give a :monkey: about anyone else. Why should we give a crap about you? That is so playground. Why don't you grow up and realise that unless the world can exist in peace then everyone is in a world of crap? It's pretty simple really!

what can i say? they had fake IDs? Didn't realize we had a combat policy of age discrimination in a warzone. Do you think that al-queda has a min age standard for jihad? If so, how much older than able to steady a rifle & pull, or walk w/ a backpack fullo semtex?

Again, THEY WERE NOT TERRORISTS! The US locked them up for 2 years because of where they were at the time. That's what I have a problem with.

there's no such thing as wartime diplomacy.

Actually there is. It starts with the Geneva convention.

They were declared illegal combatants b/c they fit the definition.

That's because the US made it up there and then! Again, that's the problem!

Ummm, what every int'l law was totally flouted? My gov't has been rather successful in keeping this from my version of Internet.

OK,
here (http://mondediplo.com/2002/04/08breach),
here (http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/03/08/afghan8073.htm),
here (http://www.thebostonchannel.com/helenthomas/2101990/detail.html) andhere (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jan2002/pows-j23.shtml) for starters! There's plenty more where that came from. Try Googling for it. I expect your government has been sucessful in keeping the truth from you.

mitfah.org, "Your Key to Palestine"? this article alone has the phrase "occupied territories" 9 times. They use the name Israel only when it's convenient to make this "case" against the US. but go to their maps link, where they title some maps of israel with the phrase "zionist colonies in palestine", or once again invoking "Israeli occupation". Yeah, they're on balance.


So? Does that make it out and out wrong? These people happen to have a different point of veiw to you and me. It doesn't mean we should discount what they're saying out of hand because of it! Actually the whole area was Palestine before the end of WWII at which point the US and UN decided to call bunch of it Isreal under pressure from the Jewish lobby.

Once again, all I'm trying to get across to you is that the US is not always right, not always just and is often hypocritical in its actions. Especially since GW got in. Is that that hard to accept for you?

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by Changleen

So? Does that make it out and out wrong? These people happen to have a different point of veiw to you and me. It doesn't mean we should discount what they're saying out of hand because of it!


This is true, Stinkle raises some good points about needing to defend our nation from hostile forces, you raise some good points about not stomping the world in the process.

There is a balance to be found.

Is Bush going to find that balance?

[llkoolkeg]

Originally posted by ummbikes
Is Bush going to find that balance?

Will Kerry???:confused:

Sometimes the devil you know is preferable to the devil you don't. Kerry appears to me an unquantifiable variable, most likely by his own design. A man that stands for nothing is not worth standing with, in my opinion.

[N8]

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
Will Kerry???:confused:

Sometimes the devil you know is preferable to the devil you don't. Kerry appears to me an unquantifiable variable, most likely by his own design. A man that stands for nothing is not worth standing with, in my opinion.

Vote for Kerry... he's not Bush!



:p

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
Will Kerry???:confused:

Sometimes the devil you know is preferable to the devil you don't. Kerry appears to me an unquantifiable variable, most likely by his own design. A man that stands for nothing is not worth standing with, in my opinion.

That remains the question. I'm not sure.

I do like that Kerry is willing to address the USA Patriot Act, he isn't going to just leave Iraq in a lurch, and he has better plan on education.

[Changleen]

I totally agree.

And can someone please kill Nader - not that I don't like his politics but he's probably just gonna stop Kerry winning. Or is Bush paying him to run?

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Changleen
Democracy when it suits you eh? Brilliant!we invoked democracy to defend our democracy. by now, i have loosened my grip on the hope you would understand.Originally posted by Changleen
That's all you have in mind isn't it? The American interest, nothing else. What about the rest of the world? It seems increasingly apparant that you don't give a :monkey: about anyone else. Why should we give a crap about you? That is so playground. Why don't you grow up and realise that unless the world can exist in peace then everyone is in a world of crap? It's pretty simple really!i see.
so we should have gone along with the indefensible & hypocritical Durban conference on racism.
or the kyoto treaty.

you ever heard of Victor Davis Hanson? he has poignantly said:it is irrelevant what grievances our enemy may believe it has against us; what matters is that we have been viciously attacked and that, for the sake of our survival, we must fight back.
Originally posted by Changleen
Again, THEY WERE NOT TERRORISTS! The US locked them up for 2 years because of where they were at the time. That's what I have a problem with.

Actually there is. It starts with the Geneva convention.

That's because the US made it up there and then! Again, that's the problem!

OK,
here (http://mondediplo.com/2002/04/08breach),
here (http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/03/08/afghan8073.htm),
here (http://www.thebostonchannel.com/helenthomas/2101990/detail.html) andhere (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jan2002/pows-j23.shtml) for starters! There's plenty more where that came from. Try Googling for it. I expect your government has been sucessful in keeping the truth from you.

post for our viewing pleasure the uniforms of the taleban &/| al-qaeda. Once you do this, you may be on your way to invoking the GC rules of engagement. Until then, you're being intellectually lazy.Originally posted by Changleen
So? Does that make it out and out wrong? These people happen to have a different point of veiw to you and me.Originally posted by Changleen
One thing I think the media (especially CNN + Fox ) pedal is that Bush's policies work and have a positive effect on things, whereas in reality all they cause is rage. having a short attention span day, are we?
Originally posted by Changleen
It doesn't mean we should discount what they're saying out of hand because of it! Actually the whole area was Palestine before the end of WWII at which point the US and UN decided to call bunch of it Isreal under pressure from the Jewish lobby. you're tilting at windmills if you think israel "invaded" a land incorrectly echoed by so many as "palestine", belonging to "palestinians". Bone up on thousands of years of history before you start parroting that israel belongs to anyone else but the jews.Originally posted by Changleen
Once again, all I'm trying to get across to you is that the US is not always right, not always just and is often hypocritical in its actions. Especially since GW got in. Is that that hard to accept for you? really? like having a plan for rooting out a viable & active terrorist threat named al-queda, but not acting on it like the clinton admininstration? You mean that hypocrisy?

[Changleen]

we invoked democracy to defend our democracy. by now, i have loosened my grip on the hope you would understand.

You just said you ignore democracy when it suits you...????


you ever heard of Victor Davis Hanson? he has poignantly said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it is irrelevant what grievances our enemy may believe it has against us; what matters is that we have been viciously attacked and that, for the sake of our survival, we must fight back.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If you seriously believe that, then you are a retard who is destined to spend the rest of his life in conflicts. Is that what you want? Try thinking ANYTHING through for just a little longer than you normally do.

i see.
so we should have gone along with the indefensible & hypocritical Durban conference on racism.
or the kyoto treaty.

I don't know about the Durban conference but Kyoto, even with it's flaws - YES! Instead Bush has ignored and repealed most of the decent environmental policy the US has ever created, started digging in Alaska, put the burden of cleaning up on the public purse rather than the people who cause the pollution and invested even more of America future in Fossil fuels. SENSIBLE!

you're tilting at windmills if you think israel "invaded" a land incorrectly echoed by so many as "palestine", belonging to "palestinians". Bone up on thousands of years of history before you start parroting that israel belongs to anyone else but the jews.

What because 'God' gave it to them? Whatever. Religious rhetoric aside, I was trying to make the point that there's more than one way to look at every issue. Although you have demonstrated again and again that you don't seem to be capable of doing this. This, like the rest of your 'retorts' are just ways to avoid the issues I have brought to your attention.

It seems to me that when faced with rational arguments from a variety of sources you continually avoid the points being made.
Why?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Changleen
Once again, all I'm trying to get across to you is that the US is not always right, not always just and is often hypocritical in its actions. Especially since GW got in. Is that that hard to accept for you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

really? like having a plan for rooting out a viable & active terrorist threat named al-queda, but not acting on it like the clinton admininstration? You mean that hypocrisy?


Apparantly it IS that hard for you to accept.

[fluff]

Originally posted by Changleen
It seems to me that when faced with rational arguments from a variety of sources you continually avoid the points being made.

Why?


You will never be told, but you can probably work it out.

[N8]

$tink.... don't waste your time with ultra-liberal, United States/Israel bashing, Greenie weenie party, Euro-trash...

They can't vote anyway...

:p:p:p

[RhinofromWA]

Thats it I am getting a yard stick for the pissing contest Stinkle and Changleen

Neither one of you can give an inch....that is cool. I do it too. :rolleyes: :)

BTW - welcome Changleen, I don't remember you posting in here before this)

Rhino"I am the one who doens't proofread"fromWA

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Changleen
If you seriously believe that, then you are a retard who is destined to spend the rest of his life in conflicts. Is that what you want? Try thinking ANYTHING through for just a little longer than you normally do.at least this retard can read. Are you too busy grazing on crumbs caught in your overalls? Maybe your prayer flag which you wear as a do-rag is a bit taut.

know this: when the fight is brought to me, i'm not going to seek my neighbor's approval to respond, or try & reason w/ someone who wants to kick - and is still kicking - my ass. (the preceding was a metaphor for the war on terror)
Originally posted by Changleen
I don't know about the Durban conference but Kyoto, even with it's flaws - YES! Instead Bush has ignored and repealed most of the decent environmental policy the US has ever created, started digging in Alaska, put the burden of cleaning up on the public purse rather than the people who cause the pollution and invested even more of America future in Fossil fuels. SENSIBLE!if you don't know about the durban conf, then why are you trying to argue your global village position? Please list (not assert) the decent environmental policy the US has ever created, then follow with what bush has ignored/repealed. I'm no fan of the current administrations env policy, but your statement smacks of partisan rhetoric. If by "digging in alaska" you mean taking soil & geo samples, so what? We can't get off the saudi teet & not drill in our own land for the short term. It's not possible unless you want to pay $5/litre for petrol. I assume you mean anwar, but am unsure. Please play your cards face up.
Originally posted by Changleen
What because 'God' gave it to them? Whatever. Religious rhetoric aside, I was trying to make the point that there's more than one way to look at every issue. Although you have demonstrated again and again that you don't seem to be capable of doing this. i was making the point that on this issue, the anti-semites have it wrong, and their positions are not supported by the facts. What's that snappy comeback you keep nattering? "is that so hard to accept?"Originally posted by Changleen
This, like the rest of your 'retorts' are just ways to avoid the issues I have brought to your attention. retorts? You mean the way i quote your inconsistency & hypocrisy in the same thread? Or maybe it's my distraction tactic of quoting "convenient parts" of the GC:In order for the distinction between combatants and civilians to be clear, combatants must wear uniforms and carry their weapons openly during military operations and during preparation for them.
global issues group (http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/history.html)still waiting on those uniforms.
Originally posted by Changleen
It seems to me that when faced with rational arguments from a variety of sources you continually avoid the points being made.
Why?

Apparantly it IS that hard for you to accept. See, this is the fundamental difference 'tween you & I. I demonstrate where your argument is flawed, & you gush at fluff for regurgitating one sided stories from the beeb.

[fluff]

Originally posted by $tinkle
one sided stories from the beeb

Please substantiate that claim.

[LordOpie]

Changleen, you're too new here to start slamming people. $tinkle's a respected member here, so if you wanna place to hang and debate, welcome, stick around, but if you start pissing people off on day one, you'll just get ignored.

And we already have someone to ignore, in a lovable way, so that position is filled.

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by fluff
Please substantiate that claim. Go to your room!

;)
:D
:devil:

[-BB-]

I like republican fiscal policy (not Bush's though) but I hate their stance on abortion, minority rights, and all of the social stuff.
Thus, the Dems are the lesser of 2 evils :devil:

[Silver]

Originally posted by LordOpie
$tinkle's a respected member here

What? I never got that memo...;)

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by Silver
What? I never got that memo...;)
why don't you and your snowboard go huck yourself off a very big mountain!

PS: yes, yes, you're a skier, that's part of the joke.

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by fluff
Please substantiate that claim. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3515502.stm
title: "Freed Afghans condemn Cuba prison"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/...ter/3504034.stm
title: "Guantanamo Briton 'was tortured'"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3506774.stm
title: "Guantanamo man condemns treatment"



i know, i know, the content may actually be fairly making claims for both sides. :rolleyes:

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by LordOpie
Changleen, you're too new here to start slamming people. $tinkle's a respected member here, so if you wanna place to hang and debate, welcome, stick around, but if you start pissing people off on day one, you'll just get ignored.

And we already have someone to ignore, in a lovable way, so that position is filled. i'm getting all verklempt...

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by $tinkle
i'm getting all verklempt... faeg

[Changleen]

Not exactly substantiating it is it?

[N8]

Originally posted by LordOpie


And we already have someone to ignore, in a lovable way, so that position is filled.


Wha...????


:monkey:

[ummbikes]

Stinkle is a member all right...:D :monkey:

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by Changleen
Not exactly substantiating it is it? yeah, like you've backed up your words :rolleyes: take a breather and find another thread.

Originally posted by N8
Wha...????


:monkey:
Whoa! Keep that ego in check... who said I was talking about you?! I was talking about ignoring ummbikes ;) :D Speaking of whom, has anyone seen him around lately?

[N8]

Originally posted by LordOpie
yeah, like you've backed up your words :rolleyes: take a breather and find another thread.


Whoa! Keep that ego in check... who said I was talking about you?! I was talking about ignoring ummbikes ;) :D Speaking of whom, has anyone seen him around lately?


HAHA!!!

:D

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by ummbikes
Stinkle is a member all right...:D :monkey: and a former member of the mile high club (or what i thought it was). Here's my initiation photo from the yearbook:

[N8]

$tink.....



WHAT THE HELL DID WE DO TO DESERVE SEEING THAT...????

:dead:

[Changleen]

at least this retard can read. Are you too busy grazing on crumbs caught in your overalls? Maybe your prayer flag which you wear as a do-rag is a bit taut.


Oh, nice, more personal insults as a comeback.

know this: when the fight is brought to me, i'm not going to seek my neighbor's approval to respond, or try & reason w/ someone who wants to kick - and is still kicking - my ass. (the preceding was a metaphor for the war on terror)

That's just great. Kill and destroy first, ask questions later. Brilliant. Well, good luck with that. I'm sure the war on terror will be over really soon...

if you don't know about the durban conf, then why are you trying to argue your global village position?

I meant, I'm not sure if it was right to be a part or not to be a part of it, not 'I've never heard of it'. Jeeze.

Please list (not assert) the decent environmental policy the US has ever created, then follow with what bush has ignored/repealed.

OK, I don't need to, plenty of other sensible people have been doing it for me... Just take a look at March for a start!
Have a read of this for a start (http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/2001.asp) It starts in 2001 and goeas all the way through to the present day.
Seriously, it's well known (you practically admit it yourself) that Bush has been the worst Pres. for the Environment pretty much ever! Alaska:
Click here (http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/2001_01.asp#474)

retorts? You mean the way i quote your inconsistency & hypocrisy in the same thread?

By 'cleverly' quoting from my point in different arguments? Hey look, If I cut and paste from what you've said I can make 'I am a sensible Libertarian' - which is clearly rubbish.

still waiting on those uniforms.

Dude, The Geneva convention was written to govern the conduct of warfare between civilized nations. I don't think the people who wrote it were anticipating that the most technologically advanced army in the world would be invading a country with a GDP lower than many of it's medium sized businesses.

Your argument is 'They didn't wear uniforms (they don't have a organised army or enough money to pay for them), so we don't have to obey the Geneva convention and can do what ever we like to them.' NICE! How utterly mature.

I could argue that the Geneva convention states that since they weren't wearing uniforms, they clearly weren't soldiers, so what were you doing fighting them in the first place?

This would obviously be ridiculous, though, so one would expect that as a civilized country you would attempt to apply the principles of the Geneva convention where possible, such as the rights of Prisoners of War. However, it seems as though the US ignored these principals (see all the links I posted above, if you bothered to read them) and despite being the invading force, acted like , well, however the hell they wanted.

See, this is the fundamental difference 'tween you & I. I demonstrate where your argument is flawed, & you gush at fluff for regurgitating one sided stories from the beeb.

Oh, you do? You demonstate your arguments? Is this some new meaning of demonstrate I am apparantly not familiar with? It seems to me I'm the one providing numerous independant sources to verify and back up my arguments, and rspond to your questions whereas all you do is avoid the argument and post a single link to the contents of the Geneva Convention, which you pick a single passage from, then attempt to use this one passage to justify your ignoring of all the rest of it and the principals on which it was founded. That is so full of sh*t I can't beleive it.

Please answer Yes or No to the following statements:

I believe that striking back at someone who has struck me is the correct way to proceed.

I really believe that if my enemy is not wearing a uniform I am within my rights to treat them however I like, ignoring all principals of international law.

I believe it is OK that my country consumes 25% of the world's resources, despite only having 2% of the worlds population.

I believe that my president labeling three countries and 107 million humans as 'Evil' over and over again is helpful and constructive in international affairs.

[N8]

Originally posted by Changleen
Blah, blah, *yawn* blahhh....

I believe it is OK that my country consumes 25% of the world's resources, despite only having 2% of the worlds population.



So give up all your conviences and move liberated self to Myazhutzastan...

[Changleen]

So give up all your conviences and move liberated self to Myazhutzastan...

Black, white...

Northern European countries have the worlds highest living standards and yet consume less than their 'fair percentage' of resources. It's not about 'giving up' conveniences, it's about sensible energy and environmental policy and not wasteful.

It would be easy for the US to drastically cut its guzzling of the worlds resources, but vested interests have power over your 'democracy', so nothing ever changes. The US continues to increase it's dependance on fossil fuels, create more non-biodegradable waste and frankly, not give a
:monkey: about it.

[Silver]

The US has some reasons for high energy consumption. Chiefly, the vast land area it sits on.

I'd like to see some stats comparing per capita energy usage between the US and Canada. That comparision makes a lot more sense to me than per capita use between the US and the Netherlands.

[Changleen]

Why is energy consumption size dependant? I presume you are talking about the need for transportation. As the largest and one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world, the US should be pioneering more effecient ways of environmentally friendly transportation, such as more trains and less reliance on fossil fuel.

Interesting Stats from here (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html) :

Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Marianne Lamont Horinko (Acting)
Total Energy Consumption (2001E): 96.2 quadrillion Btu (2002E): 97.9 quadrillion Btu (25% of world total energy consumption)
Energy-Related Carbon Emissions (2001E): 1,565 million metric tons of carbon (about 24% of world total carbon emissions)
Per Capita Energy Consumption (2001E): 341.8 million Btu
Per Capita Carbon Emissions (2001E): 5.5 metric tons of carbon
Energy Intensity (2002E): 10,805 Btu/$1995
Carbon Intensity (2002E): 0.17 metric tons of carbon/thousand $1995
Sectoral Share of Energy Consumption (2002E): Industrial (34%), Transportation (27%), Residential (21%), Commercial (18%)
Fuel Share of Energy Consumption (2002E): Oil (39%), Natural Gas (24%), Coal (22%), Nuclear (8%), Hydroelectricity (3%), Other "renewables" (3%)
Fuel Share of Carbon Emissions (2001E): Oil (44%), Coal (36%), Natural Gas (20%)
Renewable Energy Consumption (2002E): 5.9 quadrillion Btu (about 45% of which was conventional hydroelectric power)
Status in Climate Change Negotiations: Annex I country under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (ratified October 15th, 1992). Under the negotiated Kyoto Protocol (signed on November 12th, 1998 - not ratified), the United States agreed to reduce greenhouse gases 7% below 1990 levels by the 2008-2012 commitment period.
Major Environmental Issues: Air pollution resulting in acid rain in both the US and Canada; the US is the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels; water pollution from runoff of pesticides and fertilizers; very limited natural fresh water resources in much of the western part of the country require careful management; desertification.

This is 2001 Data, so it doesn't include Bush's dumping of Kyoto.

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by N8
$tink.....



WHAT THE HELL DID WE DO TO DESERVE SEEING THAT...????

:dead:
ditto!

I'm sorry for calling you a faeg... I love you too, please don't do that to us again. If we ever upset you again, we'll sacrafice Zod as an apology.



Changleen, if you dislike the USA so much, why are you here?

[N8]

Originally posted by Changleen
Why is energy consumption size dependant? I presume you are talking about the need for transportation. As the largest and one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world, the US should be pioneering more effecient ways of environmentally friendly transportation, such as more trains and less reliance on fossil fuel.

Interesting Stats from here (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html) :



Interesting...????

[Changleen]

Look Guys, don't get me wrong. I don't hate the USA. I actually quite like it!

I freaking live here for :monkey: sake. The US has some of the most beautiful and varied geography in the world. I've met loads of really cool people.

What bothers me SO MUCH though, is George Bush's IDIOT policies, his obvious disregard for logic and your country and the world. I don't know why some people find it so hard to see, but take from me as a citizen of the 'outside' world - at no point in your history has the US as a whole been more hated, ridiculed, despised and just seen a hinderance to world peace than ever before. Why should this happen just because of one Guy and his buddy's desire to get even richer than they already are at the expense of anything, even world peace?

I watch American news, and I know a lot of it is owned and controlled by a few huge multinationals, who with the possible exception of NBC are republican friendly. Please trust me when I say, most news you get here is very very one sided. During the latest Iraq conflict, whole episodes in which Europe and Asia got really pissed off with American troops tactics WERE NOT EVEN REPORTED in your mainstream media. I know because I looked for it.

Look, what really bothers me is that America could be the greatest thing to happen to Planet Earth for a long time, but instead, under GW, it's turning the whole thing to ****. Sometimes I feel like he's TRYING to make enemies. What I also hate is that some people just refuse to see it. It's fine to love your country, it's fine to feel aggreaved by 9/11, it was an outrage no question about it, but PLEASE try and see the reasons behind it. Those guys didn't attack you for no reason, and what GW is doing about it IS NOT helping!

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by Changleen
Look Guys, don't get me wrong. I don't hate the USA. I actually quite like it!

I freaking live

...

about it IS NOT helping!
simple fact is, we already had enemies, we will always have enemies... no matter what peace efforts we try. That's just human nature.

No one really likes the police, but they are necessary and the USA is the world's police, for better or worse. If not US, then who? The UN? France? China?

We may not always do the right thing for the right reason, but I believe that we do the right thing sometimes, even if by accident. And it's better to do something, than nothing.

[Changleen]

Compare the US's Stats on just about anything with otehr nations here:

http://www.nationmaster.com/

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by LordOpie
Whoa! Keep that ego in check... who said I was talking about you?! I was talking about ignoring ummbikes ;) :D Speaking of whom, has anyone seen him around lately?

Spring break man, I am at peace and spending time with my kids, working on my Heep, trying to chill before my last quarter of skool...:D :D :D

I'll be back with my witty banter and sophisticated political commentary in full by next week.

N8 take this time to learn some skillz so we can rumble next week. :devil:

[Silver]

Originally posted by Changleen
Why is energy consumption size dependant? I presume you are talking about the need for transportation. As the largest and one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world, the US should be pioneering more effecient ways of environmentally friendly transportation, such as more trains and less reliance on fossil fuel.


It's dependent on size for the same reason cell service sucks in the US compared to Japan or Europe.

People really are scattered in North America. I work with some guys from Japan who after being here for 2 years still cannot wrap their heads around the size of the country. Shipping something cross county in Europe or Japan is like shipping from LA to San Francisco. I'll have to look at those stats when I get a chance.

Interestingly enough, the US and Canada are #4 and #5 for per capita oil consumption.

#1? Singapore...that surprised me, by a vast amout too...

[Changleen]

simple fact is, we already had enemies, we will always have enemies... no matter what peace efforts we try. That's just human nature.

I agree, but there's having enemies and then there's what seems like going out of your way to make more.

No one really likes the police, but they are necessary and the USA is the world's police, for better or worse. If not US, then who? The UN? France? China?


Yes, some sort of world 'police' force as you put it is necassary, but a police force cannot be effective without the mandate of those it polices. Currently the US does not have this mandate in the vast majority of the world, especially in the areas that need to be 'policed'. This is again, largely the fault of one GW. In that case it has to be the UN.

I believe that we do the right thing sometimes, even if by accident.

Yes, getting rid of Saddam was the right thing to do, although for entirely the wrong reasons.

And it's better to do something, than nothing.

Not always, although helping out with the various genocides in Africa, and removing some of the worlds other nasty dictators would be great though! :D

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Changleen
Oh, nice, more personal insults as a comeback. kumbayaOriginally posted by Changleen
That's just great. Kill and destroy first, ask questions later. Brilliant. Well, good luck with that. I'm sure the war on terror will be over really soon...you do know you're allowed to peek at my quotes, right? If you did, you would see that "kill & destroy first" has no bearing upon what i typed.Originally posted by Changleen
OK, I don't need to, plenty of other sensible people have been doing it for me... Just take a look at March for a start!
Have a read of this for a start (http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/2001.asp) It starts in 2001 and goeas all the way through to the present day.this doesn't support the first claim you made previously:Originally posted by Changleen
"Instead Bush has ignored and repealed most of the decent environmental policy the US has ever created..."your NRDC link is a red herring. You think you can bury me links? You think i won't ferret you out? You've sorely misjudged me. I like these bush "rollbacks" (from your provided link): EPA upholds Clinton decision to clean up diesel pollution EPA delays, then upholds, new rule protecting wetlands Sierra Nevada plan limits logging, grazing activities in California national forests Forest Service won't allow drilling in New York's Finger Lakes NRDC lauds EPA's rejection of efforts to scale back Hudson River cleanup EPA issues an arsenic-in-tap-water standard higher than that recommended by public health advocates DOE to fund biomass research Bush administration wants farm policy overhaul ...ok, that's from just part of '01, and from a site which has an obvious agenda in mind. I thought that was supposed to help w/ your implied open & shut case. A case you made that he was going to gut a discrete set of "decent environmental policy the US has ever created". And what i want the most out of this - or any future - administration is to increase CAFE standards, not to reward exceeding them with a credit, or to categorize SUV's as light trucks.Originally posted by Changleen
Seriously, it's well known (you practically admit it yourself) that Bush has been the worst Pres. for the Environment pretty much ever! Alaska:
Click here (http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/2001_01.asp#474) anything that anyone writes which starts with "it's well known that..." raises a red flag w/ me.Originally posted by Changleen
By 'cleverly' quoting from my point in different arguments? Hey look, If I cut and paste from what you've said I can make 'I am a sensible Libertarian' - which is clearly rubbish.so, there is no hypocrisy in saying we should give equal merit (my interpretation of your point), except when you disagree & care to point out bias. I see. It's something like, "i voted for the 87 billion dollars, just before i voted against it". I guess it depends on the meaning of the word "is".Originally posted by Changleen
Dude, The Geneva convention was written to govern the conduct of warfare between civilized nations. I don't think the people who wrote it were anticipating that the most technologically advanced army in the world would be invading a country with a GDP lower than many of it's medium sized businesses.i see: the GC applies only between nations lacking troglodytes of GDPs within the same order. I never realised there was an evolutionary or fiscal rider to Protocol I (http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/protocol1.html) of the geneva convention.Originally posted by Changleen
Your argument is 'They didn't wear uniforms (they don't have a organised army or enough money to pay for them), so we don't have to obey the Geneva convention and can do what ever we like to them.' NICE! How utterly mature. or, as i said before:In order for the distinction between combatants and civilians to be clear, combatants must wear uniforms did the placement of the prepositional phrase at the beginning throw you off? Let's try this (look ma, no hands):combatants must wear uniforms in order for the distinction between combatants and civilians to be clearisn't that clever of me? And what's this about lacking organization? And funding? You cannot be serious.Originally posted by Changleen
I could argue that the Geneva convention states that since they weren't wearing uniforms, they clearly weren't soldiers, so what were you doing fighting them in the first place? i would certainly love to see that tortured logic. Go on then.Originally posted by Changleen
This would obviously be ridiculous, though, so one would expect that as a civilized country you would attempt to apply the principles of the Geneva convention where possible, such as the rights of Prisoners of War. However, it seems as though the US ignored these principals (see all the links I posted above, if you bothered to read them) and despite being the invading force, acted like , well, however the hell they wanted.so all my specific replies to your links happen at random? Why are you wasting this LSD trip on the internet? Shouldn't you be whispering at horses or digging for more shrooms?Originally posted by Changleen
...whereas all you do is avoid the argument and post a single link to the contents of the Geneva Convention, which you pick a single passage from, then attempt to use this one passage to justify your ignoring of all the rest of it and the principals on which it was founded. That is so full of sh*t I can't beleive it.consider it doing you a favor to reduce to what's pertinent to the argument. It's your style to bury & hand wave, not mine.Originally posted by Changleen
Please answer Yes or No to the following statements:

I believe that striking back at someone who has struck me is the correct way to proceed.not yes, but hell yes. If you disagree, walk up to someone & try out your philosophy.
Originally posted by Changleen
I really believe that if my enemy is not wearing a uniform I am within my rights to treat them however I like, ignoring all principals of international law.yet another red herring. How's about: "If i am seeking to prevent another attack, I would attempt to apply the principles of the Geneva convention where possible". Hmmm, looks a lot like something you posted.Originally posted by Changleen
I believe it is OK that my country consumes 25% of the world's resources, despite only having 2% of the worlds population.ahhh, i think we're getting to the root cause of it all: to each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities. Can't wait to see your avatar 20 posts from now. You know the phrase "useful idiots" & who coined it, ya?Originally posted by Changleen
I believe that my president labeling three countries and 107 million humans as 'Evil' over and over again is helpful and constructive in international affairs. i'll use my modus operandi by constructing your response, all from the whitehouse press release (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html):
North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.

Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.

This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead childrenwait for it...wait for it....States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the worlddid you see a theme in the build-up? Evil government inflicting harm on its own people? I don't have the team roster for the AoE, but i'm sure it's far less (at the time of the SOTU) than 107 million.

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by LordOpie
ditto!

I'm sorry for calling you a faeg... I love you too, please don't do that to us again. If we ever upset you again, we'll sacrafice Zod as an apology.you know you're supposed to sacrifice the unspoiled, yes? and who's to say that isn't Zod in the pic? You know, "humpty dumpty was pushed" & all.

[Silver]

You guys have to narrow the scope of your arguments a bit.

I have a fairly good attention span, but damn....

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Silver
You guys have to narrow the scope of your arguments a bit.

I have a fairly good attention span, but damn.... she started it.

[Silver]

Originally posted by $tinkle
she started it.

Why I don't I start another gay marriage thread, and I'll smack you around there for a while? :D

[RhinofromWA]

Holy crap :eek:

Uh when did you guys stop making sense? On both sides? :D

Anyway I brought the stick for the PISSING CONTEST.

:D

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by Silver
You guys have to narrow the scope of your arguments a bit.

I have a fairly good attention span, but damn....
ditto

Originally posted by $tinkle
she started it.
haha... reminds me of my ex :D

[Changleen]

Originally posted by $tinkle
she started it.

The retort of a 4 year old...

Stinkle you really are a right wing idiot. You also seem to have selective vision.

your NRDC link is a red herring. You think you can bury me links? You think i won't ferret you out? You've sorely misjudged me. I like these bush "rollbacks" (from your provided link):

(posted about 7 items, most which are Environmental Protection Agency decisions, NOT Bush's and one which was later largley backtracked on, especially in regard to international access. Nice list, Dufus.)



How about:

USFS guts protections for undeveloped forest lands
NRDC sues Department of Energy to expose Cheney energy task force secrets
Bush administration shutting down Everglades restoration office
EPA may lift ban on human testing of pesticides
Bush backing away from pledge to clean up federal facilities
Bush administration considers disposing of radioactive waste in consumer products
Bush administration appeals federal judge's decision to ban drilling off California's coast
Bush seeking to weaken federal environmental enforcement
Bush outlines an 'all talk, no action' approach to global warming
Bush will open Gulf tract to offshore drilling; NRDC says drilling would threaten waters and beaches
Bush seeks to relax requirements of Endangered Species Act
Bush administration suspends the "contractor responsibility rule"
Bush administration rejects Kyoto Protocol
Bush administration delays hard-rock mining regulations that protect watersheds
Bush administration seeks to roll back Roadless Area Conservation Plan
Bush retreats from campaign promise to reduce carbon pollution
Bush seeks to open Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil development

So the link is a red herring is it? Bush has done nothing to harm the environment?

And you appear to still be maintaining that the US's treatment of prisoner it captured in Afghanistan was OK?

I'd love to go on, but frankly, since you are clearly so sure that your beloved leader is so righteous and benevolent, and won't even consider that maybe he might have made a few mistakes in foreign and homeland policy, I can't be arsed to talk to your dumb ass any more.

I will leave you with some suggestions:

Try watching news from other countries sometime.
Try considering the repercusions of your country's foreign policies beyond the next five minutes.

That's all. I'm going home now. Goodnight.

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by Changleen
Stinkle you really are a right wing idiot.
:rolleyes:

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by Changleen
I'd love to go on, but frankly, since you are clearly so sure that your beloved leader is so righteous and benevolent, and won't even consider that maybe he might have made a few mistakes in foreign and homeland policy, I can't be arsed to talk to your dumb ass any more.
You're new here, why not try to take some time to get to know people before jumping to conclusions. $tinkle doesn't think Bush is perfect, in fact, did you look at who started this thread and the first post?

Stop being a jackass and if you didn't come swinging about how our country is so fvcked up, maybe, just maybe $tinkle, et al. would share how we think our country is NOT perfect and how we'd like to make it better. But nooooooo, you have to continue with your garbage.

Well, ya know what Chang, you're mother's fat and needs a dental cleaning!

Makes ya a bit defensive, doesn't it? Perhaps when you return tomorrow, you can take a different approach?

[ummbikes]

Meow, hiss.

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Changleen

Bush administration seeks to roll back Roadless Area Conservation Plan


Best thing he's ever done. That plan was wrong from the get go. Clinton tried to slide it through on his way out of office.

I spent quite a few nights in focus groups and informational meetings regarding that issue and I stand before you now and say:

"Thank You Mr Bush (and his lackies) For Challenging This Poor Law."

All it did was dissallow recreation other than hiking and remove any chance of forest maintenance (against fires etc) When this proposal sprouted, I sat on the motorcyclist side of the table. The plan would also eliminate all access to the wilderness. Allow dry tinder to build up and lay awaiting a spark (much like the plan being practiced now) This summer was pretty bad for large fires. North/Central WA had a nasty fire that burnt all summer. :( CA was hit real bad. I am sure there are many others. Now close down forest roads and let them wash out and decay so there is no infrastructure and the problem escalates because you can't get to it to fight it.

The Wilderness act was a good idea that had a poor/ special interest constructed plan. I am all for protecting the national forrests. Don't build house on it......but leave/maintain the roads, do spot burns (been doing them in WA since I remember), allow motorcycles horses hikers MTBr's on the land for recreation. A forrest unchecked will explode like they did this year....and probably more so next year.

Sorry that issue is personal to me. So I can get passionate about it.

I am for multi-use/access of the land....with proper management of the land. The wilderness act was Clinton's way of putting a upswing on exit from office and the Greenies way of getting mass exclusion for everyone but themselves.

Rhino

[charmin]

Originally posted by LordOpie
...you're mother's fat and needs a dental cleaning!

It's funny, I was sitting here thinking, I'm going to have to enter into the fray precisely because I thought the President was being insulted. Being President is not the easiest of all jobs and it is very difficult to please everyone.

However, what I think we all can accept as a given is that he is trying his best, and trying to do what is best for the country.

You don't have to like all his policies, and, in fact, there are ways you can influence said policies. It's easy to be a Monday morning quaterback (I *love* the Brett Farve commercial, where he's walking around saying how, if he was doing it he wouldn't have hit the water main, he would've double bagged it, etc.).

And I welcome and applaud Chang's willingness to discuss the issues, but would agree that the issues can be discussed in a respectful manner. So, that way, I don't have to be put in the horrible position of trying to find some defense for drilling in Alaska (if in fact they're doing that).

[N8]

Originally posted by Changleen


What bothers me SO MUCH though, is George Bush's IDIOT policies, his obvious disregard for logic and your country and the world.

Look, what really bothers me is that America could be the greatest thing to happen to Planet Earth for a long time, but instead, under GW, it's turning the whole thing to ****. Sometimes I feel like he's TRYING to make enemies. What I also hate is that some people just refuse to see it. It's fine to love your country, it's fine to feel aggreaved by 9/11, it was an outrage no question about it, but PLEASE try and see the reasons behind it. Those guys didn't attack you for no reason, and what GW is doing about it IS NOT helping!


Ah... you ARE a hater... a hater, hater, hater...

You will be welcomed into the lib/Dim fold now...

Luckily for natives of this land, Algore couldn't manage to steal the election back in 2000.

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by N8
Ah... you ARE a hater... a hater, hater, hater...

You will be welcomed into the lib/Dim fold now...



Pot, meet Kettle.

:monkey:

[valve bouncer]

Tinkle remove your photo mate....not cool at all:eek: :rolleyes:

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by valve bouncer
Tinkle remove your photo mate....not cool at all:eek: :rolleyes: smudged it out.
sorry to offend.

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by $tinkle
smudged it out.
sorry to offend.
didn't offend me, I've got a strong stomach, just the old NSFW thing.:)

[$tinkle]

top 'o the morn to ya, clancy!Originally posted by Changleen
So the link is a red herring is it? Bush has done nothing to harm the environment?at the risk of mollifying you, recall that my 1st post, and a couple subsequent posts specified my annoyance w/ current administration on the environment. i was not letting your blanket claims go unchecked.Originally posted by Changleen
And you appear to still be maintaining that the US's treatment of prisoner it captured in Afghanistan was OK? unequivocallyOriginally posted by Changleen
I'd love to go on, but frankly, since you are clearly so sure that your beloved leader is so righteous and benevolent, and won't even consider that maybe he might have made a few mistakes in foreign and homeland policy, I can't be arsed to talk to your dumb ass any more. again, evidence that you either cannot read or understand what i opened this thread with.
Originally posted by Changleen
I will leave you with some suggestions:

Try watching news from other countries sometime. i like that one channel where they strip during the news.
do you have that?

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by $tinkle

i like that one channel where they strip during the news.
do you have that?

Mollifying?

Subsequent?

Unequivically?

Don't be bringin' yer fancy talkin' up in here.

I saw something on HBO about the Russian news show that is broadcast with naked people. It was quite revealing!

HAHAHAHA:rolleyes:

Hmmm. I'm bored with vacation.

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by $tinkle
i like that one channel where they strip during the news.
do you have that?
i get all my news from 'em and Daily Show.

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Ummbikes
Don't be bringin' yer fancy talkin' up in here.you're the one about to gradimate - i'm 2 yrs off, jejunely languishing in mediocrity.

Originally posted by LordOpie
i get all my news from 'em and Daily Show. then you are well rounded - rubenesque even (not as much as your mom, though)

[ALEXIS_DH]

Originally posted by manimal
pro guns. would you rob someone you knew was armed?



yeah!, i'll shoot first by surprise, take all the stuff later!. way easier.
just like they do in venezuela for example. venezuelans use to think that everybody having guns, would mean a safer place. WRONG, in caracas you get shot, before you get robbed nowadays. a few years ago, you were kindly asked to surrender with a gun, but not shot. i think i'd rather keep my life than a watch or going to jail for shooting a lowlife.

that everybody is armed had happened in other coutries before. all you get is more people dead and the same stealing-kidnapping rates. or robbers get AKMs, FALs or granade launchers. I know cuz we had a level 4 armored car 15 years ago, then robbers and kidnappers got military stuff and we were back to same point.
if in the first place, guns were more controlled, then we could have still roden a regular car, not worried about guys with AKM or elephant hunting rifles, but about guys with knifes of pistols.

in the attack-defense of cat and mouse game. the thief is always gonna have the edge. because if you get a knife, and the thief knows, the thief is gonna attack you with a pistol.
if you get a pistol, he is gonna have a rifle,
if you get a rifle, he is gonna get a rocket launcher plus 2 other guys.

[Changleen]

OK, I've had a weekend break now - I've been Dirt Jumping, calmed down a little. Sorry If I offended anyone last week, I was getting really stressed and pissed off by a lot of thinks at work, and a few news articles, and Stinkle provided a great service to me by allowing me to vent, repeatedly.

OK, New foot. Maybe we should get back to the point of this thread...

I am (as Stinkle described) a Euro-style 'centerist' - this doesn't mean I'm totally extremly leftist compared to you lot however, although it does seem I may be a little. Example:

One of the problems we have in the UK is the seperation and co-ordination of our public and prvate sectors. As you might know we have a public health service (The NHS) which is funded by our taxes and (basically) managed by the private sector. This really doesn't work. We have a similiar situation with public transport. The outcome of a public workforce being managed by private interests seems to be that the workforce gets sh*t on from a great height, and the whole system becomes innefficient, slow and problematic.

Therefore I am against public/private partnerships (PPPs) of this type, as they always seem to end up favouring the management and doing over the little guy. I favour the separation of Government and Business. I also favour 'small' government.

How does this relate to the US I hear you ask? Well, in my opinion your (I actually wrote 'our' then) current pres is almost totally in the pocket of Private concerns, making the US the biggest PPP ever heard of - and it seems to be having the same effect. Huge corporations are getting their way at the expense of your 'free market' (the US now has the 10th (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115481,00.html) freeist market in the world, behind most of W. Europe and some ex. Sov countries inc. Estonia) and the values of your Pres seem to me to resemble very closely the vested interests of our time - Oil companies for one - a bad way to be especially in an area that so obviously requires extreme reform for the good of the planet.

Secondly, the welfare state - In my opinion most welfare state systems have become way to liberal. In the UK it is easier for some people not to have a job and sponge off the rest of us than it is to go out and work. I have no time for slackers, and would favour extreme reform of most of these systems.

OK...

Stinkle?

:)

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by Changleen
...current pres is almost totally in the pocket of Private concerns...
He's not that much worse than any other recent president and frankly, it's not any individual politician, but the lobby system as a whole that needs looking at.

[Changleen]

Originally posted by LordOpie
He's not that much worse than any other recent president and frankly,

Maybe not that much worse in terms of numbers, (but he is the most lobbied pres ever I think I read somewhere?) but it's also who he's in the pockets of - it's just so destructive.

it's not any individual politician, but the lobby system as a whole that needs looking at.

100% Agreed! I seems pretty obvious to me that anyone who wants to exert a few million dollars worth of influence over the political process should not be allowed to do so.

Actually someone once said that anyone who wants political office should not be allowed it by default...

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Changleen
OK, I've had a weekend break now - I've been Dirt Jumping, calmed down a little. DJ: the new anti-drug.

Originally posted by Changleen
Sorry If I offended anyone last week, I was getting really stressed and pissed off by a lot of thinks at work, <snip>no worries mate.

Originally posted by Changleen
Secondly, the welfare state - In my opinion most welfare state systems have become way to liberal. In the UK it is easier for some people not to have a job and sponge off the rest of us than it is to go out and work. I have no time for slackers, and would favour extreme reform of most of these systems.

OK...

Stinkle?

:) if only everyone were raised "if you want to eat, you have to work"

....if only