[Ironsight]

Because I wanted to start at least one ****storm on here.

So Obama closed Guantanamo?

[Toasty]

So where are all the prisoners gonna go?


And on top of that, last I remember he supported off-shore drilling. And now he doesn't? What's up with that?

[Ironsight]

Toasty, on Jan 25 2009, 02:08 AM, said:

So where are all the prisoners gonna go?

I was wondering the same thing. I heard some where they were going to be put in American prisons, and was forced to wonder how anyone could think this was a good idea.

Quote

And on top of that, last I remember he supported off-shore drilling. And now he doesn't? What's up with that?

He's all about change, remember?

[Toasty]

Miley Cyrus, on Jan 25 2009, 02:25 AM, said:

I was wondering the same thing. I heard some where they were going to be put in American prisons, and was forced to wonder how anyone could think this was a good idea.

Throw 'em in Alcatraz.

Miley Cyrus, on Jan 25 2009, 02:25 AM, said:

He's all about change, remember?

Meh, I've only heard it as a rumor for now, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and stay sceptical. Wouldn't really surprise me though.

[Golden Legacy]

The only executive orders Obama has signed thus far are for the closure of Guantanamo within a year, the banning of coercive torture, and the temporary freezing of salaries for those involved with lobbyists.

It's a challenge to figure out what to do with the 250+ people in Guantanamo, that will fall into the hands of the judicial process.

And we already have the first strike into the tribal areas between Pakistan and Afghanistan. 22+ people killed, another 18 in Afghanistan, the USA insists they were insurgents, the locals say they were all civilians. Absolutely appalling.

[Ironsight]

Wait, so you're saying he closed the place without having any idea of where he's going to put those people? That sounds pretty half-assed.

[Golden Legacy]

He signed the order for it, with the understanding that the process will include being tried in the USA, that they will be detained either on American soil, or perhaps open up agreements with European countries who are willing to take the transfer.

That's the general plan and the fine details are to be worked out on a case by case basis with top lawyers in the timespan of a year. That's why there is the Attorney General, the Supreme Court, etc.

[Split Infinity]

The order was to have it closed within the year, that's more than enough time to find new accomodation for the inmates.

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Jan 25 2009, 08:48 AM, said:

And we already have the first strike into the tribal areas between Pakistan and Afghanistan. 22+ people killed, another 18 in Afghanistan, the USA insists they were insurgents, the locals say they were all civilians. Absolutely appalling.

Who's to say that the locals didn't support the insurgents?

Just because they say that the insurgents were civilians, doesn't mean that they weren't civilians.

Obviously, innocent 'till proven guilty, but when you're dealing with terrorists who follow no laws but their own, and even have the support of local residents (in some cases at least), it becomes increasingly hard to deal with the situation. Let alone find the truth.

Golden Legacy, on Jan 25 2009, 05:54 PM, said:

He signed the order for it, with the understanding that the process will include being tried in the USA, that they will be detained either on American soil, or perhaps open up agreements with European countries who are willing to take the transfer.

That's the general plan and the fine details are to be worked out on a case by case basis with top lawyers in the timespan of a year. That's why there is the Attorney General, the Supreme Court, etc.

All at the expense of taxpayer dollars. Yay for more debt.

Though I can't say I'm entirely against getting them all properly convicted or set free. It's just that we really don't have the money to pay for all of the trials.

[Split Infinity]

The United States government can't afford to pay for a few trials. Riiight...

[Toasty]

Oh, we can pay for trials.

.....at the benefit of recieving more debt.

[Ironsight]

State Penitentiary's are already over-flowing with prisoners. I don't think it's a very good idea to be dropping off terrorists into them.
And why in the world would any other nations want to take them? What incentive do they have? Money? Is Obama going to pay them to get rid of his problems?

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Jan 26 2009, 12:42 AM, said:

Who's to say that the locals didn't support the insurgents?

Just because they say that the insurgents were civilians, doesn't mean that they weren't civilians.

Obviously, innocent 'till proven guilty, but when you're dealing with terrorists who follow no laws but their own, and even have the support of local residents (in some cases at least), it becomes increasingly hard to deal with the situation. Let alone find the truth.

Repeatedly violating the sovereignty of a country is itself bad enough. And what you fail to understand is that coalition forces have repeatedly killed locals and done so "in the name of fighting terror". I will take the word of the local population, where entire families have been murdered in their sleep, than what the government says.

Further, just being "around" supposed insurgents doesn't mean that civilian lives are suddenly worthless.

Quote

All at the expense of taxpayer dollars. Yay for more debt.

Though I can't say I'm entirely against getting them all properly convicted or set free. It's just that we really don't have the money to pay for all of the trials.

Money is an issue certainly, but hardly a deal breaker. If the USA was willing to run up a trillion dollar deficit on "liberation missions" throughout the world, then they should be willing to pay a fraction of that to actually charge the people held in Guantanamo with a crime instead of detaining them indefinitely.

Miley Cyrus, on Jan 26 2009, 03:28 AM, said:

State Penitentiary's are already over-flowing with prisoners. I don't think it's a very good idea to be dropping off terrorists into them.
And why in the world would any other nations want to take them? What incentive do they have? Money? Is Obama going to pay them to get rid of his problems?

As has been said, we don't know for certain yet how the detainees at Guantanamo will be handled and where they will be held. There runs into issues where many people can't return to their home countries for their own security reasons.

It is a legal mess, certainly, but it eventually has to be done. The details will be forthcoming, this will not be an overnight affair.

In other news:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/26/oba...ions/index.html

President Obama signed a memorandum Monday requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider an application by California to set more stringent auto emissions and fuel efficiency standards than required by federal law.
California and 13 other states would be permitted to set their emission standards under President Obama's plan.

California and 13 other states would be permitted to set their emission standards under President Obama's plan.

If the EPA grants a waiver allowing California to set its own emissions standards, the nation's largest state will be allowed to require automakers to produce trucks and cars that get better mileage than what is required under the current national standard.

Thirteen other states could take similar action.

"It will be the policy of my administration to reverse our dependence on foreign oil," Obama said.

Higher fuel and efficiency standards.

[Saturos S.]

Golden Legacy, on Jan 26 2009, 02:54 AM, said:

He signed the order for it, with the understanding that the process will include being tried in the USA, that they will be detained either on American soil, or perhaps open up agreements with European countries who are willing to take the transfer.

That's the general plan and the fine details are to be worked out on a case by case basis with top lawyers in the timespan of a year. That's why there is the Attorney General, the Supreme Court, etc.

A few European countries already made it clear they didn't want to take any people in. But that was for permenant staying. Some prisoners would probably be killed if they went back to their own countries so I think that this was concerning them.

The Netherlands will probably take some in. With the fricking muslim-loving, boneless, ****assed government we have now. Seriously, the only political party I respect at the moment (that's in the government) is the one I dislike the most per definition. Being the PvdA (sort of Labour Party)

Secondly, we have the international court here. So yeah, probably.

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Jan 26 2009, 10:40 AM, said:

Repeatedly violating the sovereignty of a country is itself bad enough. And what you fail to understand is that coalition forces have repeatedly killed locals and done so "in the name of fighting terror". I will take the word of the local population, where entire families have been murdered in their sleep, than what the government says.

Further, just being "around" supposed insurgents doesn't mean that civilian lives are suddenly worthless.

No, you're actually taking whatever information your news source decides to give out.

Either a) Most/majority of the citizens are actually glad we got rid of some insurgents in their area, and the news is (yet again) not putting that part out, or :D the citizens are actually supporting the insurgents.

And GL, for christ's sake, there's such a thing as "collateral damage" when you're at war. In no way are those citizens targeted. You're news sources are trying to make it look like our troops are over there killing innocent people on purpose. I know that, because I know what kind of sources you listen to, and what kind of "information" they put out.

When you're fighting the kind of enemy we're fighting, innocent people are definately going to be killed, because the enemy is almost always hiding among innocents. Coalition forces do their best to strike when they can achieve the lowest civilian casualty rate possible. We can't just wait until no one else is around, because that's simply not an option. The chances of getting a terrorist when he isn't surrounded by innocent people is very slim at best.

The point is, casualties are a given. They aren't wanted, and they are in no way killed on purpose.

What they mean by "in the name of fighting terror" is that they can't fight terrorists without killing innocents. That's something that you don't seem to understand, because all you listen to are liberal opinions. Even most of your "unbiased sources" are still liberal.

So quit looking for neutral sources, and listen with an open mind what both sides have to say. Because that's the only "neutral source" there is.

Golden Legacy, on Jan 26 2009, 10:40 AM, said:

Money is an issue certainly, but hardly a deal breaker. If the USA was willing to run up a trillion dollar deficit on "liberation missions" throughout the world, then they should be willing to pay a fraction of that to actually charge the people held in Guantanamo with a crime instead of detaining them indefinitely.

I'm not going to condone spending money on giving people who were caught on the battlefield trials, when my country is in a recession.

Pass some laws to increase the living conditions of the detainees or something. I can at least swallow that. But don't start adding even more debt to what we have for the sake of people who are suspected of conspiring/being terrorists, and aren't even American citizens.

And by the way, they are in no way required by law to recieve a proper hearing in a U.S. court of justice, correct me if I'm wrong.


You can go ahead and spend all the money you want making the world perfect and fair once the U.S. is out of debt, as long as it doesn't bring us back into the red again.

[less right-wing biased opinion]
Do it when we have money. It'll be good to set any innocents free, but we've got other priorities right now. [/less right-wing biased opinion]

Golden Legacy, on Jan 26 2009, 10:40 AM, said:

As has been said, we don't know for certain yet how the detainees at Guantanamo will be handled and where they will be held. There runs into issues where many people can't return to their home countries for their own security reasons.

It is a legal mess, certainly, but it eventually has to be done. The details will be forthcoming, this will not be an overnight affair.

Innocents can be deported. Doesn't matter where, but they're not staying here. Send 'em back home, or send them somewhere else.

As for the guilty parties, chances are Obama will end up condoning another "Guantanamo Bay" behind the back of the rest of the world. They're not going to be held in federal prisons.

Golden Legacy, on Jan 26 2009, 10:40 AM, said:

In other news:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/26/oba...ions/index.html

President Obama signed a memorandum Monday requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider an application by California to set more stringent auto emissions and fuel efficiency standards than required by federal law.
California and 13 other states would be permitted to set their emission standards under President Obama's plan.

California and 13 other states would be permitted to set their emission standards under President Obama's plan.

If the EPA grants a waiver allowing California to set its own emissions standards, the nation's largest state will be allowed to require automakers to produce trucks and cars that get better mileage than what is required under the current national standard.

Thirteen other states could take similar action.

"It will be the policy of my administration to reverse our dependence on foreign oil," Obama said.

Higher fuel and efficiency standards.

At a higher cost that would take roughly 5 years to justify, in terms of the gas money you'd save.

The reason why this is complete bull**** is because California will be able to tell car manufacturers from states other than California what kind of emissions their cars will be allowed to produce.

That's unconstitutional. Period.

Besides that, putting these restrictions will make the cars cost more (as stated above), and forcing current semi-truck fleets to retro-fit their current rigs to meet these standards could put many of them out of buisness.

That's even more people out of a job, and fewer trucks on the roadways transporting our goods. But I'm sure environmentalists are happy to hear that.





The thing is GL, most Liberal ideals stem from the belief that it's possible to create a fair and perfect world. One where no one has to suffer a hardship, where everyone succeeds, and one where everyone can be happy. At least, ideals from non-corrupt liberals stem from that. There's some other liberal ideas that pretty much only give liberals/democrats more power at the cost of the american citizens.

But the thing is, life is not, and will never be fair. Most people have to fail from time to time to figure things out, because most people aren't wise enough to learn from other people's mistakes. Bush's "no child left behind" act was actually pretty socialist. It acted as a safety net, so many children have actually never experinced academic failure.

Failure allows people to realise that what they were doing just won't cut it, and that they need to try something else. Many liberal/socialist (they're on the same end of the spectrum, might I remind you. That's why I'm putting them together like that) ideas prevent failure.



I will take a step back and say that sometimes there needs to be safety nets. Sometimes, in the most extreme cases, failure means that you learn, but are so far gone that you can't even do anything to change it. But usually, things like that only happen later in life, and often times it's due to poor judgement. Something that could have been fixed if the person was allowed to fail when they could still recover from it.

If the young adults who worked hard enough to obtain decent jobs didn't have to give part of their salary to socialist programs like healthcare, they'd be able to save up enough money tp pay for their own healthcare when they were older. Putting full responsibility on them, and not someone else. That way in the end, they reap what they sow. Not what the government gives them.

That my friend, a world where everyone is fully responsible for themselves, is a "fair" world. You only get out of it what you put into it.


But again, life can take it's turns, and unpredictable things can happen. That's why we still need safety nets. Albeit a very limited amount of them.

If you decide to invest in the stock of a company and it takes a turn for the worse, the government should in no way bail you out. Stocks may not be entirely predicatable, but they aren't entirely random or out of control either. An exception would be if the country was in a depression and a stimulus package was needed to save the country from impending collapse.

If your house happened to be in the path of a hurricane, then that's not exactly in your control. You probably could have chosen a different place to live, but that's about it. In that case, the government should swoop in and take care of things to an extent (because you should have insurance, unless you're just stupid). I.E. clearing away debris, rebuilding levees if need be, etc. But you should have insurance to pay for the damages to your house.

That's how the government should work.

Bad things will still happen, but chances are that if they're 100% out of your control, you'll recieve some kind of help (and you really should have insurance, or have some money stashed away, because that's the smart thing to do). If it's you're own fault and you should've seen it comming. Too bad. Learn from your mistakes and try again.




I'm not saying we should get rid of healthcare, because really, that would be imposible at this point without bringing severe stress upon those who are currently reliant upon it.

[Split Infinity]

Toasty's essays make me remember why I don't take part in political threads. :x

[Toasty]

Darn straight. *nods head*

[Saturos S.]

I've said it a thousand times, but I'm going to say it again.

Screw the American constitution, it really isn't perfect. It has flaws, so it isn't a valid reason for something being labeled good/bad.

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, you just had to bring up the long partisan debate? We were most happy talking of the events in the world.

Now, accusing me of bias. You accuse me of my "news sources" - which are primarily BBC, Reuters, Der Spiegel, The Economist, Haar'etz, alternative and freelance journalists, Human Rights Watch, IRC, Amnesty International - and yet this is the same person who attests to the words of FOX News, MSN, American media, and racists like Rush Limbaugh.

Toasty, you fail to see that the American media in general is one-sided and pro-war. I stopped relying on American news networks for this reason, it is all biased towards a persistence of war and keeping the minds of the average citizen in perpetual resistence. Look up the military-industrial complex, and Toasty you are yet another victim in being disillusioned by it.

Toasty, on Jan 27 2009, 03:48 AM, said:

And GL, for christ's sake, there's such a thing as "collateral damage" when you're at war. In no way are those citizens targeted. You're news sources are trying to make it look like our troops are over there killing innocent people on purpose. I know that, because I know what kind of sources you listen to, and what kind of "information" they put out.

BBC, Reuters, Spiegel, The Economist, Human Rights Watch/human rights organizations, Haar'etz, alternative/freelance journalism > FOX News, racists Hannity and Limbaugh, CNN, MSN, NBC.

I assure you my sources have more credibility than any of the nonsense that spews out of American media. You aren't seriously trying to tell me that FOX News has more credibility than the BBC? You aren't seriously trying to tell me that you are open-minded?

Quote

When you're fighting the kind of enemy we're fighting, innocent people are definately going to be killed, because the enemy is almost always hiding among innocents. Coalition forces do their best to strike when they can achieve the lowest civilian casualty rate possible. We can't just wait until no one else is around, because that's simply not an option. The chances of getting a terrorist when he isn't surrounded by innocent people is very slim at best.

The point is, casualties are a given. They aren't wanted, and they are in no way killed on purpose.

Ahh, so here we go with the usual mindset of people like Toasty. Toasty, who is pro-life and believes in the sanctity of human beings in front of God, refuses to acknowledge the equality of life of people in Afghanistan and Iraq.

When the ratio of innocent civilians to terrorists is 40:1, you are doing something wrong. And no, this does not mean you can curtail the rights of innocent men, women, and children and justify their slaughter just because you think your own cause is "worth it".

Quote

What they mean by "in the name of fighting terror" is that they can't fight terrorists without killing innocents. That's something that you don't seem to understand, because all you listen to are liberal opinions. Even most of your "unbiased sources" are still liberal.

LOL, here we go again with Toasty professing that his "sources" are better. Quit it with this nonsense, international sources and human rights organizations have more credibility than the American junk you believe in. I notice the symptoms of too much FOX and MSN stuffed in your mind.

Quote

I'm not going to condone spending money on giving people who were caught on the battlefield trials, when my country is in a recession.

Then I am certain you won't mind the fact that the USA has the most domestic prisoners in the world, something like 2.9 million people in the USA are in prisons and/or on trial at any one point. And you fail to notice that those battlefields are a major contribute to the nation's recession in the first place.

Quote

Pass some laws to increase the living conditions of the detainees or something. I can at least swallow that. But don't start adding even more debt to what we have for the sake of people who are suspected of conspiring/being terrorists, and aren't even American citizens.

It becomes a problem when you start throwing 14 and 15 year old teenagers into prisons. And it becomes a human rights violations when you don't charge people with a crime - the vast majority of people in Guantanamo have been held for 6-8 years without being charged with anything.

Quote

And by the way, they are in no way required by law to recieve a proper hearing in a U.S. court of justice, correct me if I'm wrong.

If you hold them on your soil, you are obligated to. Technically, Guantanamo Bay should be returned to Cuba as it belongs to them.

Quote

As for the guilty parties, chances are Obama will end up condoning another "Guantanamo Bay" behind the back of the rest of the world. They're not going to be held in federal prisons.

He certainly might and if Obama does he will be as much a war-mongerer as Bush.

Quote

The reason why this is complete bull**** is because California will be able to tell car manufacturers from states other than California what kind of emissions their cars will be allowed to produce.

That's unconstitutional. Period.

No... it gives the individual states the right to set emissions to their own standards. Other states might emulate their neighbors if they choose too, but California itself has always been environmentally-conscious and will require cars sold in their state to meet their own standards. This is to give the states the right to include their own efficiency standards in addition to the national level.

Quote

Besides that, putting these restrictions will make the cars cost more (as stated above), and forcing current semi-truck fleets to retro-fit their current rigs to meet these standards could put many of them out of buisness.

Which is better, for GM, Ford, and Chrysler to continue producing cars with low standards that people are no longer buying, or to embrace the efficiency and build of Honda, Toyota, Mercedes, etc.?

For the record, most "conservatives" favoured letting the USA automakers go bankrupt so they could restructure, and surprise surprise, update their cars to new standards.

Quote

The thing is GL, most Liberal ideals stem from the belief that it's possible to create a fair and perfect world. One where no one has to suffer a hardship, where everyone succeeds, and one where everyone can be happy. At least, ideals from non-corrupt liberals stem from that. There's some other liberal ideas

<snip>

I'm not saying we should get rid of healthcare, because really, that would be imposible at this point without bringing severe stress upon those who are currently reliant upon it.

This is the usual garbage coming from someone who labels his opponent as one ideology, rants about why it's wrong, and can't even distinguish between the various issues at hand.

What you don't seem to understand is that there is no difference between the left and right debate in the USA. All of them ultimately cater to the interests of war, to the interests of big business, to the surrendering of civil liberties. This left-right divide is just a senseless argument to keep people looking away from the bigger issues.

Stop reciting the endless talking points. It does little to accomplish anything, on either side. The big interests in government, the power-elite business, media, and military have done a fine job of forcing the people into these endless, cyclical issues that ultimately accomplish little.

[Mallick]

Toasty, on Jan 25 2009, 02:08 AM, said:

So where are all the prisoners gonna go?

They'll walk.

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Jan 27 2009, 12:42 PM, said:

Toasty, you just had to bring up the long partisan debate? We were most happy talking of the events in the world.

I suppose it wouldn't be a bad idea to move the discusion to it's own topic.

Golden Legacy, on Jan 27 2009, 12:42 PM, said:

Now, accusing me of bias. You accuse me of my "news sources" - which are primarily BBC, Reuters, Der Spiegel, The Economist, Haar'etz, alternative and freelance journalists, Human Rights Watch, IRC, Amnesty International - and yet this is the same person who attests to the words of FOX News, MSN, American media, and racists like Rush Limbaugh.

Toasty, you fail to see that the American media in general is one-sided and pro-war. I stopped relying on American news networks for this reason, it is all biased towards a persistence of war and keeping the minds of the average citizen in perpetual resistence. Look up the military-industrial complex, and Toasty you are yet another victim in being disillusioned by it.
BBC, Reuters, Spiegel, The Economist, Human Rights Watch/human rights organizations, Haar'etz, alternative/freelance journalism > FOX News, racists Hannity and Limbaugh, CNN, MSN, NBC.

I assure you my sources have more credibility than any of the nonsense that spews out of American media. You aren't seriously trying to tell me that FOX News has more credibility than the BBC? You aren't seriously trying to tell me that you are open-minded?
Ahh, so here we go with the usual mindset of people like Toasty. Toasty, who is pro-life and believes in the sanctity of human beings in front of God, refuses to acknowledge the equality of life of people in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I don't only listen to conservative media. It may be my primary source, I admit, but I always listen to what's being said with a liberal viewpoint in mind. If I hear Bill O'Reilly or someone start talking about how Obama's policies are going to be the death of us all, I'll hear him out and listen to what he has to say, but I'll also think about how Obama's policies might be useful/helpful.

I can't say for sure, but from the sounds of it, you're more biased than I am, and you don't do anything like that very often, if at all. But, I could be wrong. Feel free to call me a liar on that one.

BBC is liberal, most human rights sources tend to be liberal, and I believe Reuters is pretty left wing (might be wrong, I'll have to read through some more of their articles). I can't comment much on the rest.

As for Limbaugh amf Hannity being racist, I guarantee that you have herad very little of either of their live broadcasts. Only the clips that the liberal media spits back out. And absolutely every single one of Rush's clips that the liberal media spits back out, are cut up. You don't get to hear everything he's saying. Just because he hates Obama and his old pastor, doesn't mean he's racist. As for Sean Hannity, I definately wouldn't be surprised to see clips of his show taken out of context.

CNN is still full of liberal reporters. I assure you.



And I'll say it again. You can not get the whole picture without listening to both sides, or at least trying to see things from both viewpoints.

You can claim that American media is complete bull****, but media outlets elsewhere aren't much better, and you won't be getting the other side of the argument unless you listen to what American media has to say as well.



As far as humant rights/etc. goes, I only do what every other country on the planet does (unless they're incredibly left wing). Put my country and its citizens before the citizens of the rest of the world.

If I were put in a situation where I had to choose between the lives of good American citizens and good British/Iraqi/Israeli/Russian/etc. citizens, you can sure as hell bet I'll choose the Americans. That's how other governments operate. They operate (or at least should) under the premisis that it's their job to protect the people of their country. At the very least, that holds true as long as the government isn't corrupted.

I'm not going to go out and kill innocent people from other countries, but I won't put their well being above the well being of my country's citizens.

Golden Legacy, on Jan 27 2009, 12:42 PM, said:

When the ratio of innocent civilians to terrorists is 40:1, you are doing something wrong. And no, this does not mean you can curtail the rights of innocent men, women, and children and justify their slaughter just because you think your own cause is "worth it".
LOL, here we go again with Toasty professing that his "sources" are better. Quit it with this nonsense, international sources and human rights organizations have more credibility than the American junk you believe in. I notice the symptoms of too much FOX and MSN stuffed in your mind.
Then I am certain you won't mind the fact that the USA has the most domestic prisoners in the world, something like 2.9 million people in the USA are in prisons and/or on trial at any one point. And you fail to notice that those battlefields are a major contribute to the nation's recession in the first place.
It becomes a problem when you start throwing 14 and 15 year old teenagers into prisons. And it becomes a human rights violations when you don't charge people with a crime - the vast majority of people in Guantanamo have been held for 6-8 years without being charged with anything.
If you hold them on your soil, you are obligated to. Technically, Guantanamo Bay should be returned to Cuba as it belongs to them.

Show me proof that the ratio is that high. It wouldn't really surprise me if that were true in some cases, but the average is likely much lower.

Besides that GL, it's our safety or their safety. And to be perfectly honest, a lot of the people there aren't really safe as long as terrorists are occupying their terroritory. Regardless of their ethnicity.

And I notice the symptoms of too much liberal bias stuffed in your mind. I'm by no means in neutral teritory, but you're a lot farther from neutral than I am.

Golden Legacy, on Jan 27 2009, 12:42 PM, said:

He certainly might and if Obama does he will be as much a war-mongerer as Bush.

You seem to have mis heard me.

Prisoners from Guantanamo who have been found guilty in a court of law will likely be put into another guantanamo.

That, GL, does not make Obama a warmonger. It makes him a good President for keeping convicted terrorists locked up somewhere off of American soil.

If they are found guilty of conspiring/being terrorists, then they have no rights period. They lost them when they became terrorists. And you won't be able to claim that most of them are innocent, because anyone who was sent there would have had a fair trial.

Golden Legacy, on Jan 27 2009, 12:42 PM, said:

No... it gives the individual states the right to set emissions to their own standards. Other states might emulate their neighbors if they choose too, but California itself has always been environmentally-conscious and will require cars sold in their state to meet their own standards. This is to give the states the right to include their own efficiency standards in addition to the national level.
Which is better, for GM, Ford, and Chrysler to continue producing cars with low standards that people are no longer buying, or to embrace the efficiency and build of Honda, Toyota, Mercedes, etc.?

You seem to mis understand this.

California won't be able to impose regulations on the States themselves. That much is true. But they WILL be able to impose these regulations on the car maufacturers, regardless of what state they're based in.

I'm all for more efficient cars, but our cars could easily be made much more efficient for the same price, even, if some of the current regulations were just taken off.

We don't need more regulations, we need less. It's bad for American consumers and the car undustry alike.

Golden Legacy, on Jan 27 2009, 12:42 PM, said:

For the record, most "conservatives" favoured letting the USA automakers go bankrupt so they could restructure, and surprise surprise, update their cars to new standards.

Golden Legacy, on Jan 27 2009, 12:42 PM, said:

This is the usual garbage coming from someone who labels his opponent as one ideology, rants about why it's wrong, and can't even distinguish between the various issues at hand.

What you don't seem to understand is that there is no difference between the left and right debate in the USA. All of them ultimately cater to the interests of war, to the interests of big business, to the surrendering of civil liberties. This left-right divide is just a senseless argument to keep people looking away from the bigger issues.

Stop reciting the endless talking points. It does little to accomplish anything, on either side. The big interests in government, the power-elite business, media, and military have done a fine job of forcing the people into these endless, cyclical issues that ultimately accomplish little.

Prove that any of your viewpoints or ideals are even remotely conservative, and I'll quit labeling you like that.

If you didn't notice, most of Obama's policies, which are left-wing based, might I add, are not in the interests of big buisness or war. They do however reduce our civil liberties.

On the other hand, conservative viewpoints tend to be pro security (which leads to pro-war), pro big buisness (to an extent), and tend to give more power to the people.


And these debates only accomplish little becuase neither side wants to compromise to get any where. If both sides do some compromising, then we could get something done.

How about splitting up the stimulus package between the republicans and democrats in congress, and let them both take a stab at making things better? At least in the end we might be able to figure out what works and what doesn't so that we can better recover in the future.



Anyway GL, you rely too much on your "non-American" news outlets. Try getting you news from as many different viewpoints as possible, or at least look at everything you see from an opposing viewpoint. You can't hope to get the full picture unless you do.

And I myself will find some non-American liberal news sources to counteract my American conservative ones.

[Split Infinity]

Toasty, on Jan 28 2009, 03:45 PM, said:

Anyway GL, you rely too much on your "non-American" news outlets. Try getting you news from as many different viewpoints as possible, or at least look at everything you see from an opposing viewpoint. You can't hope to get the full picture unless you do.

This paragraph is an oxymoron.

[Toasty]

The point is split, American or non-American, there are still many opposing viewpoints.

[Legolastom]

...*twitch*

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Jan 28 2009, 12:45 AM, said:

I don't only listen to conservative media. It may be my primary source, I admit, but I always listen to what's being said with a liberal viewpoint in mind. If I hear Bill O'Reilly or someone start talking about how Obama's policies are going to be the death of us all, I'll hear him out and listen to what he has to say, but I'll also think about how Obama's policies might be useful/helpful.

Your rant against liberals is something I would expect to hear directly from Limbaugh's mouth. The absurdity of you invoking the same American "red scare" tactics against things like socialism, etc., the sort of propaganda you would have seen during the Cold War, is beyond silly.

Quote

I can't say for sure, but from the sounds of it, you're more biased than I am, and you don't do anything like that very often, if at all. But, I could be wrong. Feel free to call me a liar on that one.

No one can ever be free from subjective ideas. Your entire post was one large logical fallacy, and here's how it went:

1) I accuse my opponent of bias.
2) By accusing my opponent of bias, I have successfully proven myself to be open-minded and neutral.
3) Therefore, I am open-minded and neutral.

Quote

BBC is liberal, most human rights sources tend to be liberal, and I believe Reuters is pretty left wing (might be wrong, I'll have to read through some more of their articles). I can't comment much on the rest.

What is this absurdity about human rights sources "being liberal"? If you aren't going to trust the word of the Red Cross, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, B'Tselem, etc., who are you going to listen to? I would think they would be more honest and give a better perspective of global conflicts than media coprorations.

That said, what is this junk about "bias" in the first place? Is this all you can think of saying? You only call it a bias because you don't agree with the facts.

Quote

CNN is still full of liberal reporters. I assure you.

Do you watch it? Because I don't, and I never said I did in my post.

Quote

And I'll say it again. You can not get the whole picture without listening to both sides, or at least trying to see things from both viewpoints.

I direct this comment to you.

Quote

You can claim that American media is complete bull****, but media outlets elsewhere aren't much better, and you won't be getting the other side of the argument unless you listen to what American media has to say as well.

I actually had the perfect opportunity to compare sources in the USA and outside, with the build-up to the Iraq War, the Israel/Palestine conflict, the conflict in Darfur, etc., and I got more of the story from BBC alone than FOX, CNN, NBC, etc. all combined. American media networks are nothing less than mass entertainment with news items sprinkled throughout. They rely on "sensational" stories and spins, and it's backward minded as hell.

I've mentioned this before, but it's one reason I have a lot of respect for people all over the world. In 2003 there was a 1-2 million strong demonstration in London against the Iraq War, there are and were worldwide protests against the former Apartheid era in South Africa, the Darfur genocide, the policies of the WTO, Israel's slaughter in Gaza last month, etc., I wish there was that sort of activism here in the States.

Quote

If I were put in a situation where I had to choose between the lives of good American citizens and good British/Iraqi/Israeli/Russian/etc. citizens, you can sure as hell bet I'll choose the Americans. That's how other governments operate. They operate (or at least should) under the premisis that it's their job to protect the people of their country. At the very least, that holds true as long as the government isn't corrupted.

I'm not going to go out and kill innocent people from other countries, but I won't put their well being above the well being of my country's citizens

Besides that GL, it's our safety or their safety. And to be perfectly honest, a lot of the people there aren't really safe as long as terrorists are occupying their terroritory. Regardless of their ethnicity.

How on earth is bombing a wedding in Afghanistan or Iraq risking the well-being of people in your country?

This is the same chauvinistic American arrogance of finding a justification for their slaughter that makes the USA hated by many people. If an insurgent had committed this act in the USA, you'd be sobbing to death and invoking God's will.

Quote

Prisoners from Guantanamo who have been found guilty in a court of law will likely be put into another guantanamo.

That, GL, does not make Obama a warmonger. It makes him a good President for keeping convicted terrorists locked up somewhere off of American soil.

If they are found guilty of conspiring/being terrorists, then they have no rights period. They lost them when they became terrorists. And you won't be able to claim that most of them are innocent, because anyone who was sent there would have had a fair trial.

You can't find people guilty if you don't charge people with a crime in the first place.

The government can claim what it wants, but when there are children in Guantanamo, this is a sickening violation of human rights. The government can claim of "conspiring" all it wants, these are the same bastards who lied to the world about Iraq, so you'll excuse me if I take the side of international standards of human rights over what the former Bush administration says.

And I won't compromise my beliefs. If Obama opens up another Guantanamo, I will see him no differently than I do Bush on foreign policy.

Quote

California won't be able to impose regulations on the States themselves. That much is true. But they WILL be able to impose these regulations on the car maufacturers, regardless of what state they're based in.

I'm all for more efficient cars, but our cars could easily be made much more efficient for the same price, even, if some of the current regulations were just taken off.

We don't need more regulations, we need less. It's bad for American consumers and the car undustry alike.

The car manufacturers are NOT obligated to sell anywhere. If California raises its standards of fuel efficiency and the automakers don't want to keep up, fine by them.

And Toasty, the whole reason the American auto industry had to be bailed out - by none other than Saint Conservative Bush - was that left on their own they refused to upgrade their cars. This is all moot anyway, because Japanese models ****ing rock.

Quote

<snip>

You don't seem to understand. The power elite controls so much. You missed my point about the military-industrial complex, that war always benefits certain people, certain interests. It's the people who fall for it, and believe that their debates over issues ever changes anything.

The Bush administration is not the only example, but it's a good one. The war on terror mindset gave people the idea to surrender their civil liberties - to give the government the powers of a pseudo-police state. The Patriot Act, being able to tap into your everyday lives, this is a sickening violation of the most basic aspects of supposed "freedom", but people were willing to do so.

Look up Habeus Corpus, the right to be given a trial and to only be detained when you are charged with a crime. The Bush administration overrode this and allowed to violate this most fundamental notion of freedom, the suspension of it gave the government the right to detain people indefinitely without bringing any charges against them.

That is the curtailing of civil liberties, and it is the most flagrant example ever in American history. We'll see how it gets with Obama, I'm hoping he will reimpose these liberties, but he might continue this policy in the name of the perpetual never-to-end "war on terror".

Quote

Anyway GL, you rely too much on your "non-American" news outlets. Try getting you news from as many different viewpoints as possible, or at least look at everything you see from an opposing viewpoint. You can't hope to get the full picture unless you do.

Split answered this for me, how contradictory this statement is, you've got to be ****ing kidding me.

Do me a favour and shut up about this bias nonsense. I always address your viewpoints, I've never seen anyone pay so much attention to this and make a big deal out of it.

[Caael]

Toasty, YOU and Americans that think like you are the problem with the world. Unable to admit defeat, unable to admit flaw in their arguements, and constantly. Even when you've been proven wrong you still try and prove your innocence.

If we didn't have people like you in the world, Russia would have won the cold war, Capitalism would have collapsed and everybody would be equal. I'm not going to explain why because this will take too long, but it's there in short. You fuel the American stereotypes and you're possibly the most right-wing person I've ever had the misfortune to talk to. Please stop posting and we'll all be better off.

[Legolastom]

Caael, on Jan 28 2009, 10:43 PM, said:

If we didn't have people like you in the world, Russia would have won the cold war, Capitalism would have collapsed and everybody would be equal. I'm not going to explain why because this will take too long, but it's there in short. You fuel the American stereotypes and you're possibly the most right-wing person I've ever had the misfortune to talk to. Please stop posting and we'll all be better off.

Er Tim while I agree with you on the first paragraph WTF kind of bull**** is the second one? One of the main reasons the USSR "Lost" the cold war was an economic one and if the USSR did "win" the cold war we most certainly wouldn't be living in a world were everyone was equal heck the USSR never had equality in the first place.

But that's another topic er...

Toasty did you ever stop to think that hypocrisy and double standards was a bad thing? And bad things are not good!(Basic logic there for ya) and saying things like "I would rather someone from another country die than one from this country die" is a very bad mind set to have.

And as for the MIC yeah that... I built that in Civilisation Revolution. Also as a Christian Toasty do you think God would support America? I mean its such a big part of your country but even someone with a basic understanding of Christianity and the state of America today would think that if anything Americans like yourself would conflict with the teachings of Jesus and Christianity.

But hey why would my opinion count? You believe all Americans are superior to everyone else so why would you care about our opinions?

Edit: Oh **** now im involved with this topic.

[Caael]

Did you not notice the blatant exaggerations in the second paragraph? Lololol

[Toasty]

I would rather have nobody die. But telling me that I should sacrifice my own people to save people of another country is just bull****. If given the chance to save both my people and the people form the other country, I would hole-heartedly choose that.

Most people from other countries would say the same thing, especially if it came down to their citizens or American citizens.


As a whole, I believe God is disgusted with America. I also think he's disgusted with the entire rest of the world, save for the christians who eagerly follow his teachings and seek out his word. Personally, I'd be surprised if he was pleased by my actions and presonality.

I don't think he's glad at all to see the fighting going on in the middle east. But he isn't pleased that there are terrorists out there trying to kill innocent people either.

There is no way to take out the terrorists without innocent people dieing in the process. Either we kill them in the middle east while they're surrounded by civilians, or we wait until they're on our soil and hiding amongst our citizens. Or worse yet, in complete control of a plane.

The absolute worst thing we can do is sit around and let them do as they please. If we just gave in to them and did what they wanted, the United States of America would be wiped off the face of the planet. It would no longer exist in any and every sense of the word.


Give me another option of irradicating the terrorists that doesn't involve killing innocent people of any country, and I'll support that method instead. Until then, it's either us or them. The best we can do is to plan our attacks in such a way as to reduce the number of civilian casualties as much as possible.

Caael, on Jan 28 2009, 02:43 PM, said:

Toasty, YOU and Americans that think like you are the problem with the world. Unable to admit defeat, unable to admit flaw in their arguements, and constantly. Even when you've been proven wrong you still try and prove your innocence.

If we didn't have people like you in the world, Russia would have won the cold war, Capitalism would have collapsed and everybody would be equal. I'm not going to explain why because this will take too long, but it's there in short. You fuel the American stereotypes and you're possibly the most right-wing person I've ever had the misfortune to talk to. Please stop posting and we'll all be better off.

People like me are the problem?

In a perfect world, everyone would be a socialist, everyone would get aong with eachother, and everyone would be happy.

Sadly, that isn't going to happen. It's not just a matter of my opinion, it's a matter of fact.

I will not admit defeat as long as I feel I am in the right. You, GL, and Lego are the same as me in that fact. We all think we're right, and we won't admit defeat because of it. A good politician finds every possible way (within reason) to support their opinions.

And as far as I'm concerned, I haven't been proven wrong. In your eyes, and the eyes of anyone who agrees with you, I've been made an idiot of several times. In the eyes of me and anyone who thinks like me, that isn't quite so true. I've been proven wrong, but not on every subject we've debated so far. As far as I can remember, I was only proven wrong once.

And innocence of what? I've nothing to be ashamed of.


As for your last paragraph, now you're thinking like a radical.

As for me being the most right-winged person you've ever met, all I have to say is that you haven't followed politics enough if that's what you think. I only seem extreme because you're far more left than I am right. Compared to a lot of people on both sides of the isle, I might as well be an independant.

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Jan 28 2009, 02:17 PM, said:

Your rant against liberals is something I would expect to hear directly from Limbaugh's mouth. The absurdity of you invoking the same American "red scare" tactics against things like socialism, etc., the sort of propaganda you would have seen during the Cold War, is beyond silly.

"Red scare" tactics? It's the truth. Socialism doesn't work. At the very least, it doesn't work in the way the American government is trying to impliment it.

Government is not the solution. It's the problem. Less government means more freedoms.

What the government is trying to do now, is make itself even bigger. Claiming that it'll solve the problems.

Golden Legacy, on Jan 28 2009, 02:17 PM, said:

No one can ever be free from subjective ideas. Your entire post was one large logical fallacy, and here's how it went:

1) I accuse my opponent of bias.
2) By accusing my opponent of bias, I have successfully proven myself to be open-minded and neutral.
3) Therefore, I am open-minded and neutral.

GL, that's the most half-assed logic I've ever seen.

I am not neutral to begin with. I'm far closer to it than you are, but I still lean to the right.

What makes me neutral is not that I call you biased. Because you are, and whether you are or aren't has no effect on whether I am neutral or not.

I'm closer to being independant than you are, because you claim that absolutely everything even remotely related to conservatism is of the devil, and must be burned and shunned.

On the other hand, while I disagree with many liberal ideas, I do not shun them entirely. I can see how a flat tax would make everything a whole lot simpler, and it'd get rid of the IRS (finally), but it's not entirely feasable because it would put proportinally more stress on the citizens the farther you travel down on the income bracket. People who make 30k a year don't always have as much money to spare as people who make 60k. Therefore, even though both people are paying the same percentage of their income, the poorer people are feeling more pressure.

I'd like to see a system that worked like a flat tax system (i.e., the government takes a certain percentage of your salary off the top before you get it, and there's no other taxes after that), but increased in rate as you got higher in income. For instance, someone who made 30k would pay 5% off the top to the government, while someone who made 60k paide 7% or something.

You'd make the tax system significantly simpler, it'd be harder to cheat on your taxes, it'd be easier to do your taxes, and the IRS, while it would likely still exist, would be significantly downsized.


Now GL, name one conservative idea that you support. You can even give it a liberal twist like I did to the above scenario if you want.

Golden Legacy, on Jan 28 2009, 02:17 PM, said:

What is this absurdity about human rights sources "being liberal"? If you aren't going to trust the word of the Red Cross, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, B'Tselem, etc., who are you going to listen to? I would think they would be more honest and give a better perspective of global conflicts than media coprorations.

That said, what is this junk about "bias" in the first place? Is this all you can think of saying? You only call it a bias because you don't agree with the facts.

Most human rights groups have traditionally leaned left, because most human rights activists agree with liberal ideals. You're far more likely to see a liberal speaking out about the atrocities brought upon citizens of the middle east by the Iraq war than a conservative.

I call it biased for the reason stated above. I'm not saying that nothing they put out is true, I'm just saying that most of the time it should be taken with a grain of salt, as the data may be 100% accurate, but it's interpretation will be wildly out of proportion.

Golden Legacy, on Jan 28 2009, 02:17 PM, said:

Do you watch it? Because I don't, and I never said I did in my post.

Sometimes. And I never said you did watch it. You claimed that it was conservative (unless I'm mistaken), and I pointed out that the majority of people working there are liberal.

Golden Legacy, on Jan 28 2009, 02:17 PM, said:

I direct this comment to you.

The thing is GL, I actually try to think like a liberal from time to time so I can understand where they're comming from, and better asses whether or not I think what they're doing is going to be good for the country or not.

You have yet to convince me, or even state that you ever do anything like that.

Golden Legacy, on Jan 28 2009, 02:17 PM, said:

I actually had the perfect opportunity to compare sources in the USA and outside, with the build-up to the Iraq War, the Israel/Palestine conflict, the conflict in Darfur, etc., and I got more of the story from BBC alone than FOX, CNN, NBC, etc. all combined. American media networks are nothing less than mass entertainment with news items sprinkled throughout. They rely on "sensational" stories and spins, and it's backward minded as hell.

I've mentioned this before, but it's one reason I have a lot of respect for people all over the world. In 2003 there was a 1-2 million strong demonstration in London against the Iraq War, there are and were worldwide protests against the former Apartheid era in South Africa, the Darfur genocide, the policies of the WTO, Israel's slaughter in Gaza last month, etc., I wish there was that sort of activism here in the States.

That may be true, but did BBC give opinions from two viewpoints? Even if the other networks still covered some of the same material, it's only not worth watching if they both give a similar opinion.

If BBC explains only how the Iraq war is bad, but doesn't give another opinion, than you still can't rely solely on them as a source.

Even if you're absolutely disgusted by what Rush says, you should still listen to what he has to say, and listen to it from a conservative mindset so you can better grasp the point he's trying to get accross. But you have to think like a real conservative, not some far right extremeist.

Golden Legacy, on Jan 28 2009, 02:17 PM, said:

How on earth is bombing a wedding in Afghanistan or Iraq risking the well-being of people in your country?

This is the same chauvinistic American arrogance of finding a justification for their slaughter that makes the USA hated by many people. If an insurgent had committed this act in the USA, you'd be sobbing to death and invoking God's will.

Read this:

Quote

A spokesman for US forces confirmed there had been civilian casualties and expressed sorrow for what had happened.

It means it wasn't done on purpose. The article even states that it was an accident, so quit making it sound like the wedding in particular was targeted.

A member of the Taleban who was apparently on a hill nearby, started shooting at US troops. The US troops called in air support, and one of the missles accidentally struck the wedding.


It seems to me as if air strikes should be only used as a last resort because of accidents like this. If possible, ground troops should be the only ones involved.

I'm not glad to hear that a wedding was blown up, especially since it sounds like it could have been avoided. But there are many other cases where you'll get casualties even if you inly use ground troops, and those are what I'm talking about.


As for the last part of your response, an insurgent would have specifically targeted the wedding. That makes it entirely different from what happened here.

Golden Legacy, on Jan 28 2009, 02:17 PM, said:

You can't find people guilty if you don't charge people with a crime in the first place.

The government can claim what it wants, but when there are children in Guantanamo, this is a sickening violation of human rights. The government can claim of "conspiring" all it wants, these are the same bastards who lied to the world about Iraq, so you'll excuse me if I take the side of international standards of human rights over what the former Bush administration says.

And I won't compromise my beliefs. If Obama opens up another Guantanamo, I will see him no differently than I do Bush on foreign policy.

Do you honestly believe that all terrorists are adults? As for the 17 year-old, he probably would have hung himself if he wasn't from a terrorist organisation. The terrorists we're dealing with are willing to commit suicide. While it's possible that he was torutred to the point where he wanted to commit suicide, I still find that unlikely.

And GL, the people who were held without reason will still be tried in court. The court will ask for any reasons why the person should be detained, and if there aren't enough, or non are good enough, the person will be released.

I can guarantee that the people who will be thrown back into a new gunatanamo will be deserving of it, and will not be innocent. At the very least, you'll be able to say that about the people who are going to be tried in court.

There is no reason for why you should be against a new gunatanamo, besides the possibility that innocent people (who were not tried in court) could be thrown in there. And that's only a possibility if Obama doesn't put any regulations on it, such as a minimum requirement of evidence needed to throw someone in there.

Golden Legacy, on Jan 28 2009, 02:17 PM, said:

The car manufacturers are NOT obligated to sell anywhere. If California raises its standards of fuel efficiency and the automakers don't want to keep up, fine by them.

And Toasty, the whole reason the American auto industry had to be bailed out - by none other than Saint Conservative Bush - was that left on their own they refused to upgrade their cars. This is all moot anyway, because Japanese models ****ing rock.

You don't seem to understand. It doesn't matter whether the manufacturers are obligated to sell anywhere. This new bill will give control over their regulation to California.

"Upgrade" and "low emissions" do not go hand in hand. I would like to see more fuel efficient cars, and usre, I'd like cleaner air to breath too. But you don't need all of these restrictions on the pollution. Some are required, obviously. I'm not against haveing a few in there. But most of them are only put in there out of fear of global warming (which has been denounced worldwide by more than 500 respected scientists, if I remember correctly).

Golden Legacy, on Jan 28 2009, 02:17 PM, said:

You don't seem to understand. The power elite controls so much. You missed my point about the military-industrial complex, that war always benefits certain people, certain interests. It's the people who fall for it, and believe that their debates over issues ever changes anything.

The Bush administration is not the only example, but it's a good one. The war on terror mindset gave people the idea to surrender their civil liberties - to give the government the powers of a pseudo-police state. The Patriot Act, being able to tap into your everyday lives, this is a sickening violation of the most basic aspects of supposed "freedom", but people were willing to do so.

Look up Habeus Corpus, the right to be given a trial and to only be detained when you are charged with a crime. The Bush administration overrode this and allowed to violate this most fundamental notion of freedom, the suspension of it gave the government the right to detain people indefinitely without bringing any charges against them.

That is the curtailing of civil liberties, and it is the most flagrant example ever in American history. We'll see how it gets with Obama, I'm hoping he will reimpose these liberties, but he might continue this policy in the name of the perpetual never-to-end "war on terror".

Fighting in WWI and WWII was beneficial to the people, because it protected them from being ruled by a dictator. Wars always benefit someone. That's true. But they often have to benefit the public in some noticeable way, or else the public will be entirely against it.

The kind of laws/acts/etc. that the left wing of the government wants to enact are far more restricting of our liberties than the patriot act, or any other kind of law that democrats will deem "unconstitutional". When it comes to that, they're complete and utter hypocrites.

Like I explained before, the patriot act only causes inconvenience for a limited number of people. As for innocent people being held against their will, that will only become a problem under a truely corrupt government. As it stands, you still have to have done some highly suspicious stuff ot actually be held against your will. You might be restricted from flying under certain conditions (or in some extreme cases restricted entirely), but the chances of being held against your will is very slim at best, unless you're involved in some suspicious activity.

Though you wouldn't know that, because you never care to genuinely listen to the conservative take on it.


And curtailing of civil liberties? How about taking away the right to bear arms? There should be no reason why someone can't legally own a pistol. An assult rifle? Yeah, that should be confiscated. A 9mm? No. We as citizens deserve the right to be able to defend ourselves in any and every situation, because if we're being attacked, the quickest person to come to your aid is yourself. By the time the police get there (if you're even able to contact them) chances are that something bad will have already happened. Besides that, what about hunting? Are people not going to be allowed to hunt anymore?

Golden Legacy, on Jan 28 2009, 02:17 PM, said:

Split answered this for me, how contradictory this statement is, you've got to be ****ing kidding me.

Do me a favour and shut up about this bias nonsense. I always address your viewpoints, I've never seen anyone pay so much attention to this and make a big deal out of it.

GL, if you can name me one truely conservative news outlet that you actually listen to and don;t just scoff at, I will genuinely shut the hell up about bias.

But I make a big deal out of it, because a lot of people who are biased make there decisions about the government from biased viewpoints (go figure). If base your decisions solely on a biased viewpoint, then you're not getting the full picture, and you're not going to be able to make a good decision on what's right or wrong in the situation.

A good example is a known troublemaker getting into trouble at school. The biased viewpoint (and rightfully so), is that he's a bad egg. However, even he he's innocent, he'll likeky still get blamed for it because the authority of the school has a biased viewpoint about him.






Anyway, I'm starting to get fed up with debating. I think I'll just sit back and let the Liberals run rampad without speaking out. That way, we'll actually be able to see if what they want to do will be good for the country or not.

I just hope that if they screw up, it's reversable (though unfortunately, when it comes tp the government, that;s not always a luxury).



[EDIT] Whoops, double post

[Legolastom]

What they screw up? Um... Toasty... have you seen what the bush administration left for them?

[Caael]

I'll say it again, I was joking about the cold war stuff.

[Legolastom]

You don't make a paragraph long joke in a rant Tim.

[Caael]

The cold war stuff was a sentence long.

Quote

f we didn't have people like you in the world, Russia would have won the cold war, Capitalism would have collapsed and everybody would be equal. I'm not going to explain why because this will take too long, but it's there in short.

thatsthejoke.jpg

You fuel the American stereotypes and you're possibly the most right-wing person I've ever had the misfortune to talk to. Please stop posting and we'll all be better off.

[Golden Legacy]

[quote]Government is not the solution. It's the problem. Less government means more freedoms.[/quote]
Which is why I don't believe the government should stick its hand in a woman's vagina and tell her what she can with her own body. You believe in that.

I don't believe the government should decide whose marriage should be recognized and whose sexuality should be honoured. You support this.

I don't believe the government should tap into people's conversations, phone calls, e-mails, etc. You support this.

I don't believe the government should be able to detain people indefinitely without ever bringing them to court or to issue warrants without any charge. You support this.

I don't believe the state should have any influence from the church, no Bible teaching or "moral value lessons" mandated to be taught to every child in schools.

In effect, when it comes to personal liberties and civil rights, you support the biggest possible government in dictating its standard of "morals" on the mass populace.

[quote name='Toasty' post='458025' date='Jan 29 2009, 06:21 AM']"Red scare" tactics? It's the truth. Socialism doesn't work. At the very least, it doesn't work in the way the American government is trying to impliment it.[/quote]
It is not "the truth", and certainly not just because you say it is. There are plenty of countries that implement "crazy socialist policies" and have higher standards of healthcare, education, etc. You are so unbelievably close-minded to make a claim along these lines. I daresay that the USA could follow the example of socialist policies in many other nations.

As Caael said, you continue to fuel the stereotypes of Americans that know little of the world and only know that if America says it, it must be true.

[quote]Most human rights groups have traditionally leaned left, because most human rights activists agree with liberal ideals. You're far more likely to see a liberal speaking out about the atrocities brought upon citizens of the middle east by the Iraq war than a conservative.[/quote]
If you were a true Christian and a true believer in God, you would be speaking out against the atrocities the USA has brought on to the innocent lives of Iraq, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Iran, El Salvador, Vietnam, Panama, Serbia/Kosovo/Bosnia, and every other place in the world the USA has ever decided to "liberate".

[quote]It means it wasn't done on purpose. The article even states that it was an accident, so quit making it sound like the wedding in particular was targeted.

A member of the Taleban who was apparently on a hill nearby, started shooting at US troops. The US troops called in air support, and one of the missles accidentally struck the wedding.
It seems to me as if air strikes should be only used as a last resort because of accidents like this. If possible, ground troops should be the only ones involved.

I'm not glad to hear that a wedding was blown up, especially since it sounds like it could have been avoided. But there are many other cases where you'll get casualties even if you inly use ground troops, and those are what I'm talking about.
As for the last part of your response, an insurgent would have specifically targeted the wedding. That makes it entirely different from what happened here.[/quote]
Ahh, yes of course.

If an insurgent kills an innocent life, it is terrorism.
If the USA kills 40 innocent lives, it was an "accident". "We're sorry".

I'd love for you to go up to an Iraqi or an Afghani child, and tell him "we "accidentally" killed your mother, "accidentally" tortured your father to death, "accidentally" bombed your house, slaughtered your uncle, slayed your brother and sister - but it's ok, because you have a DEMOCRACY. You are FREE."

[quote]I am not neutral to begin with. I'm far closer to it than you are, but I still lean to the right.[/quote]

[quote]What makes me neutral is not that I call you biased. Because you are, and whether you are or aren't has no effect on whether I am neutral or not.[/quote]

[quote]The thing is GL, I actually try to think like a liberal from time to time so I can understand where they're comming from, and better asses whether or not I think what they're doing is going to be good for the country or not.[/quote]
This is all senseless fluff. You can claim for yourself how "neutral" or objective you are, but giving a token example on a senseless issue does not justify any "non bias" of yours. Until you properly promote equality of human lives, quit it with your chauvinistic America-first attitude, finally start opening your mind to other peoples and ideologies, I will not in anyway take your word that you have more "neutrality" than I.

[quote]Do you honestly believe that all terrorists are adults? As for the 17 year-old, he probably would have hung himself if he wasn't from a terrorist organisation. The terrorists we're dealing with are willing to commit suicide. While it's possible that he was torutred to the point where he wanted to commit suicide, I still find that unlikely.[/quote]
I honestly believe there are international standards of ethics for dealing with children and juveniles. At no point are they to be subjected to subhuman conditions, no matter the justification a country uses.

One man's terrorist, another's freedom fighter. Most Afghanis and Iraqis see the USA as an invading/occupation force, and I would say with good reason.

[quote]I can guarantee that the people who will be thrown back into a new gunatanamo will be deserving of it, and will not be innocent. At the very least, you'll be able to say that about the people who are going to be tried in court.

There is no reason for why you should be against a new gunatanamo, besides the possibility that innocent people (who were not tried in court) could be thrown in there. And that's only a possibility if Obama doesn't put any regulations on it, such as a minimum requirement of evidence needed to throw someone in there.[/quote]
The last time it was "guaranteed" that the USA would conduct its war within legal and ethical standards, we got Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. I can't even fathom why it sounds like you support another Guantanamo, it is almost like you are waiting for it and want it to happen.

[quote]"Upgrade" and "low emissions" do not go hand in hand. I would like to see more fuel efficient cars, and usre, I'd like cleaner air to breath too. But you don't need all of these restrictions on the pollution. Some are required, obviously. I'm not against haveing a few in there. But most of them are only put in there out of fear of global warming (which has been denounced worldwide by more than 500 respected scientists, if I remember correctly).[/quote]
You want higher fuel standards and cleaner air, yet you oppose the regulations that would set the mandate for them?

[quote]Fighting in WWI and WWII was beneficial to the people, because it protected them from being ruled by a dictator. Wars always benefit someone. That's true. But they often have to benefit the public in some noticeable way, or else the public will be entirely against it.[/quote]
Please stop invoking the World Wars. The USA's conduct in the last half century has been akin to an imperial force that has caused the deaths of millions.

And when I say "benefit", I mean the government and business. Look up Haliburton, the defense contractor in Iraq, and see how their stocks have continued to rise with the war in Iraq, or how Exxon Mobil has posted greater profits in the past 5 years than ever before. And in terms of the government and American expansion of military, notice now how Syria, Iran, Russia, Venuezela, and China are all being saber-rattled by the USA.

I predict a new "front on the war on terror" will open up with a false flag operation within the next 3 years.

[quote]And curtailing of civil liberties? How about taking away the right to bear arms? There should be no reason why someone can't legally own a pistol. An assult rifle? Yeah, that should be confiscated. A 9mm? No. We as citizens deserve the right to be able to defend ourselves in any and every situation, because if we're being attacked, the quickest person to come to your aid is yourself. By the time the police get there (if you're even able to contact them) chances are that something bad will have already happened. Besides that, what about hunting? Are people not going to be allowed to hunt anymore?[/quote]
I continue to laugh in amusement at how protective the average American is of their guns. Do not worry, noone can ever ban guns in the United States. The mental shock would be too much.

[quote]GL, if you can name me one truely conservative news outlet that you actually listen to and don;t just scoff at, I will genuinely shut the hell up about bias.[/quote]
The Economist, Der Spiegel

[quote]But I make a big deal out of it, because a lot of people who are biased make there decisions about the government from biased viewpoints (go figure). If base your decisions solely on a biased viewpoint, then you're not getting the full picture, and you're not going to be able to make a good decision on what's right or wrong in the situation.[/quote]
I have already said this. The American media - and I am referring to CNN, FOX, NBC, the NY Times, Limbaugh/Hannity, etc. - is incredibly self-centered, portrays the rest of the world as either licking the feet of the USA or are backward rag-headed terrorists, puts the interest of corporations first over human rights, is incredibly in favour of war and pre-emptive warfare, and has little support for cultural perspectives.

The BBC's "Day In Pictures" segment on their website has more insight into the world than anything I've ever seen on a mainstream American news organization.

I have also started to read alternative and freelance outlets, very good stuff, I could recommend you a few links.

[quote]Anyway, I'm starting to get fed up with debating. I think I'll just sit back and let the Liberals run rampad without speaking out. That way, we'll actually be able to see if what they want to do will be good for the country or not.

I just hope that if they screw up, it's reversable (though unfortunately, when it comes tp the government, that;s not always a luxury).[/quote]
[quote name='Legolastom' post='458043' date='Jan 29 2009, 12:01 PM']What they screw up? Um... Toasty... have you seen what the bush administration left for them?[/quote]
Apparently not.

[Ironsight]

Again, GL, you make it sound like the US purposefully kills bystanders.

[Golden Legacy]

To the bystanders themselves, do they give a damn if it was intentional or not?

[Ironsight]

Yeah, but they'd be wrong in thinking so. Soldiers who would purposefully fire on innocents would be court martialed before MoveAlong.org could turn it into a T-shirt.
You might think otherwise, but not every soldier is a heartless bastard.

[Eugine]

Quote

I have also started to read alternative and freelance outlets, very good stuff, I could recommend you a few links.

Won't mind adding a few to my favourites.

Anyway, I think President Obama is doing a damn fine job so far. He has the potential to be one of the best Presidents America ever had imo, especially regarding foreign policy. If he meets the challenges (and there is a lot... President Bush left the world in a mess frankly), I think the US will see a new progressive era that may (unfortunately?) leave the GOP in the wilderness for a long time.

The stimulus package Nancy Pelosi wrote is god damn awful though. I hope President Obama cleans up the bill. If he succeeds in cleaning this bill, I believe he will be a great President, if he doesn't, well, he will be a weak President.

Regarding the media and Rush Limbaugh:
I agree with GL. The American media should not be your primary source of info. When you watch/read CNN, FNC, NBC and others, then watch/read BBC, DWTV, etc you begin to view the American media as mass entertainment. I have no idea how BBC has a "liberal" bias btw, since BBC reports the facts. And unlike Riad's wild claim last year, facts cannot have a (liberal [or conservative]) bias. The British imo, does news the best.

Rush Limbaugh represents what is wrong with the GOP, and why it will never return to power if it continues to portray this image: Old, white, male, racists. America is too diverse to yell at minorities now (as what Rush always does!). Minorities will be the majority soon.

Btw, too much topics to discuss here... Lots of paragraphs to read!

[Caael]

GL said:

I continue to laugh in amusement at how protective the average American is of their guns. Do not worry, noone can ever ban guns in the United States. The mental shock would be too much.

Lol! I love your cynicism GL. I love how Americans try to defend the bearing arms thing by saying "but if they were illegal there would be more demand for them". That may be so, but America has the highest rate of gun crime in the world IIRC (or at least in and MEDC). That is because it's legal to buy a gun in America. The correlations are right infront of your face, I dont see how you can possibly disagree. When have you EVER have somebody come up to you and assault you Toasty? How many stories have you heard in the news where somebody is assaulted, but ITS OK GUYS, HE HAD A GUN AND SHOT THE PERPETRATOR. ITS COOL. And then the law comes into play; was it in self-defence or does it go deeper?

There's no way you can justify how civilians with guns can possibly be a good thing.

[Legolastom]

Miley Cyrus, on Jan 30 2009, 03:18 AM, said:

Yeah, but they'd be wrong in thinking so. Soldiers who would purposefully fire on innocents would be court martialed before MoveAlong.org could turn it into a T-shirt.
You might think otherwise, but not every soldier is a heartless bastard.

Well toasty seems to think its aright.

[Sephiroth]

And you think Toasty`s word is that of god becaaaussse?

[Legolastom]

Please get the **** out of this thread.

[Toasty]

Legolastom, on Jan 29 2009, 08:01 AM, said:

What they screw up? Um... Toasty... have you seen what the bush administration left for them?

Yeah, and I can see how the new administration will make it worse. Most of the bad things that happened in the last administration was brought about by congress, and in part

Legolastom, on Jan 30 2009, 11:12 AM, said:

Well toasty seems to think its aright.

Okay, what the hell. I've been specificaly saying the exact opposite this whole and entire time.

The point is, the even though innocents are being killed, they aren't being "murdered". Their deaths are what most people like to call "collateral damage". Something no person in their right mind wants (that includes me, unless you're too blind to notice that as well), but something that is going to happen when you go to war and start shooting.


GL, it doesn't matter whether the civilians over there think people are being murdered or not. As DS said, soldiers who are doing that will be court martialed, because such a thing is completely undermining to what the US wants to accomplish. There is absolutely no reason to kill innocent Iraqi's over there besides hatred for the people in the middle-east. And if a soldier is known to hate people like that, chances are that they're either kept off the front lines or discharged if it becomes a problem.



And as for Gunatanamo, Fox News (yes, Fox GL, just shut up and listen) had a segment on it today. There are sections for compliant and non-compliants prisoners. Chances are, that if there's "torturing" going on, it's only being done on prisoners who are being exceptionally hard to handle, in an attempt to get them to co-operate. Or, it could also be for interrogation. But still, chances are that even in interrogation, only the non-compliant's are tortured. In which case they bring it upon themselves.

If I remember correctly, the Bible and the Qu'ran have similar teachings. If that's the case, then those being held at Gunatanamo that are Islamic, should know that it's better to just be relaxed and compliant. However, the extremeists would likely think otherwise, meaning that there's a high probability that those who are non-compliant are terrorists. A bit of a stretch I suppose, but if you factor in the fact that the majority of middle-eastern people are Islamic, and hold their religion in high regard, you'd imagine that the majority of them would follow the teachings to a T. Thus, it's less of a stretch.

As for the compliant section, they get to watch TV, go outside for 14 hours a day for recreatinoal activites, and there's even an art class. As long as you're compliant in Guantanamo, life is a hell of a lot better for you than it was even under Saddam's reign.

Regardless of what section you're in, you still get the essentials: hygenic stuff (soap, etc.), fresh clohes (non-complaint wear orange, complaint wear white), laceless shoes, etc.

You can claim that Fox was only showing the bright side of things, and you very well could be correct. But regardless it's also still possible that BBC/etc. are only showing the negative stuff. And the Red Cross report is only stating how people are being "mistreated," while failing to point out that the only people being "tortured" are the non-compliant ones.

Either one could be possible, or both could be possible. Infact, I find it highly likely that the latter is correct. Meaning both sources are only releasing parts of the inforamtion available to either make things look better or worse than they actually are.

[Legolastom]

Or maybe the BBC just showed what its sources gave them.

[Ironsight]

I heard something about laws being proposed to stop the tortures in Guantanamo. Besides the obvious things wrong with this, interrogators have less interrogation techniques available to them than the FBI. No "Good Cop, Bad Cop" or anything like that.

Of course, I could be misremembering the info, it was from a couple of days ago after all. Can anyone else shed any light on this?

[Toasty]

Legolastom, on Jan 31 2009, 08:36 AM, said:

Or maybe the BBC just showed what its sources gave them.

Even if that's true, their sources could still be leaving things out.

[Caael]

Toasty, on Feb 1 2009, 06:21 AM, said:

Even if that's true, their sources could still be leaving things out.

What would sources gain from that? Sources just want the money for providing the info, I doubt they'd care about the issue itself. They have nothing to benefit from leaving parts of information out.

[Toasty]

There are a lot of people out there who would like to skew the view that the general populus has on a certain subject. A source can give false information and still get paid. There is still a thing called "corruption" in the media, regardless of where it comes from (in most cases).

BBC is also a liberally biased source to begin with. Maybe not as biased as some other sources, but biased non-the-less.

I'd like to see an article from them that states every fact about gunatanamo that other news sources have released so far. Including those from Fox and other American news sources.

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, once again, you only call it biased because you don't agree with reality.

Eugine, on Jan 29 2009, 11:40 PM, said:

I agree with GL. The American media should not be your primary source of info. When you watch/read CNN, FNC, NBC and others, then watch/read BBC, DWTV, etc you begin to view the American media as mass entertainment. I have no idea how BBC has a "liberal" bias btw, since BBC reports the facts. And unlike Riad's wild claim last year, facts cannot have a (liberal [or conservative]) bias. The British imo, does news the best.

Quit relying on corporate media fanaticism.

Eugine, on Jan 29 2009, 11:40 PM, said:

Won't mind adding a few to my favourites.

Some of my favourite alternative sources, just a selection:

http://therealnews.com/t/
http://www.democracynow.org/
http://www.truthdig.com/
http://www.representativepress.org/
http://www.mediachannel.org/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/
http://www.economist.com/
http://english.aljazeera.net/
http://www.spiegel.de/international/
http://www.haaretz.com/

http://www.hrw.org/
http://amnesty.org/
http://www.btselem.o...glish/index.asp

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/
http://www.counterpunch.org/
http://www.antiwar.com/
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

(for the lulz) http://www.americans...rainwashed.com/

Caael, on Jan 30 2009, 01:22 PM, said:

Lol! I love your cynicism GL. I love how Americans try to defend the bearing arms thing by saying "but if they were illegal there would be more demand for them". That may be so, but America has the highest rate of gun crime in the world IIRC (or at least in and MEDC). That is because it's legal to buy a gun in America. The correlations are right infront of your face, I dont see how you can possibly disagree. When have you EVER have somebody come up to you and assault you Toasty? How many stories have you heard in the news where somebody is assaulted, but ITS OK GUYS, HE HAD A GUN AND SHOT THE PERPETRATOR. ITS COOL. And then the law comes into play; was it in self-defence or does it go deeper?

There's no way you can justify how civilians with guns can possibly be a good thing.

I can't understand it myself, and more unfortunate is the gun culture surrounding it. There are honest to God gun shows in certain places and people treat these like mass social events. The correlation between "civil liberties" and guns is also a facade, as most Western democracies do not have this same idiotic liberty with guns as here in the USA, and they have comparatively lower gun violence rates. Go figure.

[Ironsight]

Golden Legacy, on Feb 1 2009, 05:42 PM, said:

I can't understand it myself, and more unfortunate is the gun culture surrounding it. There are honest to God gun shows in certain places and people treat these like mass social events. The correlation between "civil liberties" and guns is also a facade, as most Western democracies do not have this same idiotic liberty with guns as here in the USA, and they have comparatively lower gun violence rates. Go figure.

Have you ever been to a Gun Show before? You seem to treat these great events like some kind of Satanic Gathering.

[Golden Legacy]

Then I am misinformed and it's wrong of me to make assumptions, this is true. Tell us about them if you've been to one. I can't imagine a recreational event based around guns, but shed some light for us.

[Ironsight]

Everyone from Competitive Shooters to Enthusiast Historians attend to trade talk amongst each other. Authentic gear from the World Wars can be bought here (I myself am the proud owner if a few WWII Tank Crew patches). It's a place of learning more than anything really. At least, to me.
I haven't been to one for a few years though. They get smaller and smaller every year due to attitudes like yours.

[Legolastom]

So wait is it a historical event about wars or is it a "Gun show"?

[Saturos S.]

Because to me a gun show seems like a place where stupid people gather and size up their guns for whatever they're overcompensating for.

[Ironsight]

Legolastom, on Feb 2 2009, 07:21 AM, said:

So wait is it a historical event about wars or is it a "Gun show"?

Both.

Sir Walsingham, on Feb 2 2009, 07:55 AM, said:

Because to me a gun show seems like a place where stupid people gather and size up their guns for whatever they're overcompensating for.

Ignorance.

[Saturos S.]

Miley Cyrus, on Feb 2 2009, 07:46 PM, said:

Ignorance.

I know it is, but I choose to be ignorant about gun shows. Why? Because I don't think civilians should be armed in the first place. I'm sure I've given my reasons for that loads of times, and they still haven't changed.

[Caael]

Cmon DS, i'm still waiting for a response to my guns post. Just 1 legit reason why guns are idea. Not "It was in the constitution", because that was written 200 years ago and doesn't even apply now.

[Legolastom]

B-b-b-b-but thats unconstitutional... HERETIC! That's it im calling the Inquisition hotline.

[Golden Legacy]

Now to be fair here, remember that it's a part of culture. Hunting was and remains a popular pastime in the States, and when the nation was founded (and for a while still) politicians would often 'duel' for power between guns as an honorable way to settle their affairs.

I don't approve of guns in the mass populace generally and still don't, but that's the context to think it in.

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Feb 1 2009, 05:42 PM, said:

Toasty, once again, you only call it biased because you don't agree with reality.

Holy hell GL. You claim that US soldiers go over to the middle east just to "massacre" innocent civilians, and you say I'm rejecting reality?

It's called bias GL. You keep on claiming that I only listen to America's side of the story. Well I'm sorry to break it to you, but you're only relying on the left-wing's side of the story.


Get sources that give you an opposing viewpoint, or get out of politics, because as it stands, you really don't know what the hell you're talking about.



And Caael, you live in an entirely different country than America. England is a much. much smaller country, and it is FAR easier to control the trafficing of guns in a country the size of yours.

America has far bigger borders, and much more open space. It's a lot easier to smuggle illegal guns around here in the states than it is in England. Because of that, even if you ban guns, the people who intend to do illegal things with them are still going to get them.

That leaves you with armed criminals and defenseless civilians. I don't care what kind of "proof" you have that banning guns works, because I can tell you that although it may work in smaller countries, it won't work in America. That's solely because we have a lot more places for criminals to hide them.

[Saturos S.]

Toasty, on Feb 3 2009, 04:08 AM, said:

Holy hell GL. You claim that US soldiers go over to the middle east just to "massacre" innocent civilians, and you say I'm rejecting reality?

It's called bias GL. You keep on claiming that I only listen to America's side of the story. Well I'm sorry to break it to you, but you're only relying on the left-wing's side of the story.
Get sources that give you an opposing viewpoint, or get out of politics, because as it stands, you really don't know what the hell you're talking about.

You do know that both of you are quite biased. But as far as news sources go, reuters and bbc are probably one of the most neutral out there.

Toasty, on Feb 3 2009, 04:08 AM, said:

And Caael, you live in an entirely different country than America. England is a much. much smaller country, and it is FAR easier to control the trafficing of guns in a country the size of yours.

America has far bigger borders, and much more open space. It's a lot easier to smuggle illegal guns around here in the states than it is in England. Because of that, even if you ban guns, the people who intend to do illegal things with them are still going to get them.

That leaves you with armed criminals and defenseless civilians. I don't care what kind of "proof" you have that banning guns works, because I can tell you that although it may work in smaller countries, it won't work in America. That's solely because we have a lot more places for criminals to hide them.

Hiding places? We have them. Open spaces? We have them.

O, and that last bolded sentance(s) is utter bullcrap, I hope you realise that. It just shows that you aren't even open-minded enough to consider the pros and cons on your gun policy.

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Feb 2 2009, 11:08 PM, said:

Holy hell GL. You claim that US soldiers go over to the middle east just to "massacre" innocent civilians, and you say I'm rejecting reality?

It's called bias GL. You keep on claiming that I only listen to America's side of the story. Well I'm sorry to break it to you, but you're only relying on the left-wing's side of the story.
Get sources that give you an opposing viewpoint, or get out of politics, because as it stands, you really don't know what the hell you're talking about.

I'm getting this from you? L-O-L. Stick to your megacannons please.

Enlighten me then on America's use of white phosphorous, cluster bombs, and depleted uranium. The attack on Faluja in 2004 is enough to bring Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld to the International Criminal Court in chains as war criminals. You do not exercise "restraint" when you use such weaponry in your wars.

[Drizzy Drake]

Golden Legacy, on Feb 3 2009, 03:39 PM, said:

I'm getting this from you? L-O-L. Stick to your megacannons please.

Enlighten me then on America's use of white phosphorous, cluster bombs, and depleted uranium. The attack on Faluja in 2004 is enough to bring Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld to the International Criminal Court in chains as war criminals. You do not exercise "restraint" when you use such weaponry in your wars.

Merked!

And GL, where do you stand on the 9/11 conspiracy. The theory that Bush planned the 9/11 bombings, and that which "flew" into the Pentagon wasn`t a Boeing 757 (proven by Rolls Royce themselves) at all, but possibly a smaller, un manned aircraft, or an explosive device

[Ironsight]

Golden Legacy, on Feb 3 2009, 12:39 PM, said:

I'm getting this from you? L-O-L. Stick to your megacannons please.

Enlighten me then on America's use of white phosphorous, cluster bombs, and depleted uranium. The attack on Faluja in 2004 is enough to bring Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld to the International Criminal Court in chains as war criminals. You do not exercise "restraint" when you use such weaponry in your wars.

And all the weaponry you listed there is vital to the war effort. Depleted Uranium Slugs are used to take out heavily armored enemies. Gas is used to clear dangerous buildings or other areas where sending troops in would be suicidal. Cluster Bombs are sued to efficiently deal with both tanks and infanrty. If you're going to take away these weapons, you might as well ban the use of Tanks and have every military operation only use Hummer Reconisance vehicles.

Neophyte, on Feb 3 2009, 12:43 PM, said:

And GL, where do you stand on the 9/11 conspiracy. The theory that Bush planned the 9/11 bombings, and that which "flew" into the Pentagon wasn`t a Boeing 757 (proven by Rolls Royce themselves) at all, but possibly a smaller, un manned aircraft, or an explosive device

http://www.meikathon.net/roflmao/facepalm4.jpg

[Drizzy Drake]

Watch Loose Change. The US government flew a Boeing 757 for 2 hours un manned, with 8 take offs and 7 successfull landings. In 1998 I believe. Is it not possible that they could have flown the planes into the towers?

Also, why is it that 10 minutes after the ``757`` crashed into the Pentagon, the FBI secured every video survailence in the area, including office building cameras and a gas station camera that was pointed directly at the crash site.

And when they released footage, nothing was shown. Just a few clips before, then cut straight to the after shot of the apperant crash.

And I will say it again. Rolls Royce, upon being shown the engines found at the Pentagon, denied ever in their entire existance as a company, ever making such an engine. Meaning only one thing; a 757 DID NOT crash into the Pentagon.

[Golden Legacy]

My official view on 9/11 is that regardless of what the actual "truth" behind it is, it was warped and used to the advantage of the administration that had been eyeing intervention and occupation in the Middle East for years.

I don't quite believe it was the government that pulled it off, but definitely that there is more to the story than we are being told.

Miley Cyrus, on Feb 3 2009, 05:00 PM, said:

And all the weaponry you listed there is vital to the war effort.

Quote

Depleted Uranium Slugs are used to take out heavily armored enemies.

Depleted uranium in Iraq.

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k300/Ma_Justice/600_Depleted-Uranium.jpg

Quote

Gas is used to clear dangerous buildings or other areas where sending troops in would be suicidal.

White phosphorous in Iraq.

http://www.worldproutassembly.org/iraq-2001.jpg

Quote

Cluster Bombs are sued to efficiently deal with both tanks and infanrty.

http://electronicintifada.net/artman2/uploads/1/cluster-bomb-victim-483.jpg


God Bless America! My country 'tis of thee! OH BEAUTIFUL FOR SPACIOUS SKIES.

[Drizzy Drake]

Golden Legacy, on Feb 3 2009, 05:14 PM, said:

My official view on 9/11 is that regardless of what the actual "truth" behind it is, it was warped and used to the advantage of the administration that had been eyeing intervention and occupation in the Middle East for years.

I don't quite believe it was the government that pulled it off, but definitely that there is more to the story than we are being told.
Depleted uranium in Iraq.

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k300/Ma_Justice/600_Depleted-Uranium.jpg
White phosphorous in Iraq.

http://www.worldproutassembly.org/iraq-2001.jpg
http://electronicintifada.net/artman2/uploads/1/cluster-bomb-victim-483.jpg
God Bless America! My country 'tis of thee! OH BEAUTIFUL FOR SPACIOUS SKIES.

I respect your opinion. I think you`re wrong, but to each his own...

AND NO GL!! their soljas have been killin us lieks weeve been killin dem, so its okay that we kill civilitans!!!

/toasty

[Caael]

Golden Legacy, on Feb 3 2009, 10:14 PM, said:

My official view on 9/11 is that regardless of what the actual "truth" behind it is, it was warped and used to the advantage of the administration that had been eyeing intervention and occupation in the Middle East for years.

I don't quite believe it was the government that pulled it off, but definitely that there is more to the story than we are being told.
Depleted uranium in Iraq.

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k300/Ma_Justice/600_Depleted-Uranium.jpg
White phosphorous in Iraq.

http://www.worldproutassembly.org/iraq-2001.jpg
http://electronicintifada.net/artman2/uploads/1/cluster-bomb-victim-483.jpg
God Bless America! My country 'tis of thee! OH BEAUTIFUL FOR SPACIOUS SKIES.

Aaargh I was ****in eating as well

[Saturos S.]

Something is wrong with the white phosphorous picture. I just can't put my finger on it.

and for the captain obvious's out there, I don't mean that his guts are bleeding etc. He just doesn't correct, his guts have far too much colour.

[Toasty]

Would've posted this a while ago, but I was too lazy.

Neophyte, on Feb 3 2009, 01:12 PM, said:

And I will say it again. Rolls Royce, upon being shown the engines found at the Pentagon, denied ever in their entire existance as a company, ever making such an engine. Meaning only one thing; a 757 DID NOT crash into the Pentagon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airl...piracy_theories

I suggest you start on the third line from the bottom of the paragraph:

Quote

Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. He states that Flight 77 "was absolutely a plane. I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." In addition, Kilsheimer's account is supported by the photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building.

A black box is a key component of a planes communication system, if you didn't know what it was.

And might I point out that those are the words of an expert, and not some half-witted conspiracy theorist.

Also, just because Rolls Royce said that they didn't make the engines, doesn't mean that the engines weren't made by another copmany.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757#De...and_development

Quote

The 757 was the first Boeing airliner launched with engines produced outside the United States, with early customers selecting the Rolls-Royce RB211. Pratt & Whitney soon offered the PW2000, launched by Delta Air Lines. General Electric offered an engine option early in the program, the CF6-32, but eventually abandoned the engine due to insufficient demand.

So the plane could have had, in order of likeliness, a Rolls Royce RB211, a Pratt & Whitney PW2000, or a GE CF6-32.

That makes the Rolls Royce the most likely candidate (it was the first to be offered), but it doesn't mean that it was the only engine ever used in the Boeing 757.

Golden Legacy, on Feb 3 2009, 02:14 PM, said:

My official view on 9/11 is that regardless of what the actual "truth" behind it is, it was warped and used to the advantage of the administration that had been eyeing intervention and occupation in the Middle East for years.

I don't quite believe it was the government that pulled it off, but definitely that there is more to the story than we are being told.
Depleted uranium in Iraq.

[images]

God Bless America! My country 'tis of thee! OH BEAUTIFUL FOR SPACIOUS SKIES.

Oh shut up already

Depleted Uranium hasn't been widely used on the ground since the second Gulf War. Currently, it's used only in kinetic energy penetrators (armor piercing rounds) in tank ammunition, as far as I know.

And I'd guess those pictures are from the mid-late 90's/early 00's, because that's when DU was mainly used. Widespread use was mainly in 30mm machine guns on land, and gatling guns in the air/at sea.


DU makes for much better KEP than tungsten, which is the other option, because it stays sharp even after fragmenting, and usually explodes when it breaks into fine enough particles fast enough. Meaning that it can also be used as an incindiary weapon.


Might I also add that it is 40% less radio-active than common Uranium, and that it's even used as radiation shielding

There's a reason for why it's considered safe to handle.

Neophyte, on Feb 3 2009, 02:18 PM, said:

I respect your opinion. I think you`re wrong, but to each his own...

AND NO GL!! their soljas have been killin us lieks weeve been killin dem, so its okay that we kill civilitans!!!

/toasty

Holy ****.

Get the **** out. You're not even debating anymore, you're just slinging mud. Taking something I've said and completely flipping it upside-down to make a statement is a pretty half-assed attempt to make someone look stupid, and, might I add, doesn't help prove any kind of point.


I'll say it again:

I don't condone the murder of innocent civilians

AND

Our soldiers are NOT over there murdering them.

Either way civilians may be dying at the hands of our soliders, but it's not deliberate. There is no way to prevent every civilian death over there. All we can do is continue to fight the terrorists, and do the best we can to keep the civilains out of the line of fire.

The best way to do that would probably be to limit air strikes to an absolute minimum, and use more ground troops.



Now shut the hell up about US soldiers being murderers, because they're not.

[Caael]

Toasty, on Feb 9 2009, 08:13 AM, said:

All we can do is continue to fight the terrorists,

LOL

OL

OL

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Feb 9 2009, 04:13 AM, said:

Oh shut up already

Depleted Uranium hasn't been widely used on the ground since the second Gulf War. Currently, it's used only in kinetic energy penetrators (armor piercing rounds) in tank ammunition, as far as I know.

And I'd guess those pictures are from the mid-late 90's/early 00's, because that's when DU was mainly used. Widespread use was mainly in 30mm machine guns on land, and gatling guns in the air/at sea.

It's been confirmed time and time again by human rights organizations that the US uses depleted uranium as a fairly standard weapon in its operations. Iraq has been victim to uranium based weaponry since the early 90s, when the US led worldwide economic sanctions and ended up starving 500,000 Iraqi children to death. The radioactive fallout is contributed to this day, with a nuclear fallout greater than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

The US has used White phosphorous too, which is banned in civilian areas, and thus makes the destruction of Faluja in 2004 - the picture I have above, among many actions - a war crime.

Quote

DU makes for much better KEP than tungsten, which is the other option, because it stays sharp even after fragmenting, and usually explodes when it breaks into fine enough particles fast enough. Meaning that it can also be used as an incindiary weapon.
Might I also add that it is 40% less radio-active than common Uranium, and that it's even used as radiation shielding

40% "less radioactive" is still exposure to a substance that causes defects and abnormalities, as the images above show (which are all from the current Iraq War, you ignorant minded prat).

Quote

Either way civilians may be dying at the hands of our soliders, but it's not deliberate. There is no way to prevent every civilian death over there. All we can do is continue to fight the terrorists, and do the best we can to keep the civilains out of the line of fire.

Attacking civilian areas, regardless of what the US claims is the never-ending presence of insurgents, amounts to crimes against humanity. When the US drops a 1 ton bomb on an apartment building, kills 100 women and children and justifies it with the supposed presence of one insurgent, that is a crime against humanity and it is enough to bring the perpetrators into chains.


But hey, it looks like a war with Iran is coming within a few years, if you're old enough you should "liberate" them too.

[Caael]

I'm gonna side with Rage Against the Machine on this one and say that Bush should be treated as a War Criminal, as well as Tony Blair, and hung and shot.

[Golden Legacy]

How the **** did you Brits vote in Labour? Ugh, Blair and Bush, there's no difference, such fucking bastards.

And I think the Muse song "Take A Bow" captures it quite well.
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=Hb9Ih5QvF_E

Corrupt, you corrupt,
and Bring corruption to all that you touch.

Hold, you’ll behold,
And be holden for all that you’ve done.

Spell, cast a spell,
Cast a spell on the country you run.

And risk, you will risk,
You will risk all their lives and their souls.

And burn, you will burn,
You will burn in hell, yeah you’ll burn in hell.
You’ll burn in hell, yeah you’ll burn in hell for your sins.

Death, you bring death and destruction to all that you touch.

Pay, you must pay
You must pay for your crimes against the earth.

And Beg, you will beg
You will beg for their lives and their souls.

Yeah,
Burn, you will burn,
You will burn in hell, yeah you’ll burn in hell,
You’ll burn in hell, yeah you’ll burn in hell,
Burn in hell, yeah you'll burn in hell for your sins.

[Legolastom]

"How the **** did you Brits vote in Labour?"

Have you seen the alternatives?

[Caael]

Born with insight and a raised fist A witness to the slit wrist As we move into '92 Still in a room without a view Ya gotta know Ya gotta know That when I say go, go, go Amp up and amplify Defy I'm a brother with a furious mind Action must be taken We don't need the key We'll break in Something must be done About vengeance, a badge and a gun 'Cause I'll rip the mike, rip the stage, rip the system I was born to rage against 'em Fist in ya face, in the place And I'll drop the style clearly Know your enenmy Word is born Fight the war, **** the norm Now I got no patience So sick of complacence With the D E F I A N C E The mind of a revolutionary So clear the lane The finger to the land of chains What? The land of the free? Whoever told you that is your enemy Something must be done About vengeance, a badge and a gun 'Cause I'll rip the mike, rip the stage, rip the system I was born to rage against 'em Now action must be taken We don't need the key We'll break in I've got no patience now So sick of complacence now I've got no patience now So sick of complacence now Sick of sick of sick of sick of sick of you Time has come to pay Yes I know my enemies They are the teachers who taught me to fight me Compromise, conformity, assimulation, submission Ignorance, hypocrisy, brutality, the elite All of which are American dreams Extremely powerful song: Know Your Enemy- Rage Against the MachineTheir political influence is amazing and I firmly believe they stand up for what is right. I'm a strong supporter of them.

Legolastom, on Feb 9 2009, 10:09 PM, said:

"How the **** did you Brits vote in Labour?"Have you seen the alternatives?

O yeah, and this. Labour back in the days when it was formed was actually pretty good; a combination of smaller socialist and left-wing parties. Now its just the best available. Like if a shop runs out of coke, you'll have to buy pepsi. It's not your first choice, but there's nothing better.

[Golden Legacy]

Damn good song Caael.

And yeah, I have to ask what happened with Labour, gone down. Liberal Democratic party seems good though, think they'll ever have a chance?

[Caael]

I'm still hoping for CPGB ^_^

[Golden Legacy]

Led by future Prime Minister Haigh I'm sure. ^_^

[Legolastom]

http://www.omrlp.com/

[Caael]

Golden Legacy, on Feb 9 2009, 10:40 PM, said:

Led by future Prime Minister Haigh I'm sure. ^_^

Well, I aim to please ;D

[Ironsight]

Boy, you have no idea how happy I'm going to be when the tables turn and I get to bash Obama. Luckily, it doesn't seem like I'll have to wait long either.

[Golden Legacy]

If it's due to another war, then I will be happy to join in that criticism of Obama. I already hate what he's done in Pakistan/Afghanistan, and heaven forbid he launches another "liberation" war in the vein of Bush.

Now, if it's on domestic/social issues, that will be more interesting to see.

[Toasty]

Gl, if we quit fighting the terorists, they'll come and blow us up again. They aren't just going to stop because we let up, and that's not because we're such "tyrannous dogs that supress innocent middle-easter countries". The terrorists hate us because we exist. They've pretty much said it themselves, and unless America becomes a third world country or gets wiped off the face of the map, they won't be happy.

Anyway,

All the current stimulus package is pretty much just a spending bill. I already heard what Obama said about that "You have to spend money to stimulate an economy" or whatever. Well duh, that's basic economics.

My point, is that a lot of the stuff isn't even being spent to stimulate the economy at all. I mean, seriously. ACORN is getting a slice of the pie. ACORN. The group that's being accused of committing voter fraud. Whether they actually did or not doesn't matter. They shouldn't be entitled to anything until their name is cleared (which it won't, because they're guilty and they know it).

Besides that, this "stimulus" package is also pushing things like the ability for the government to monitor your doctor and prevent you from recieving "unecessary treatment". Basically, the government is given limited control over your health. Great.All it has become is a way for the democrats to push their agendas (as the most effective way of doing so would be to put their ideas into a budget related bill such as the stimulus package), and increase their foothold in the government.

All it's really become is a check to all of Obama's supporters (in the form of them getting bills they wanted passed), with a little bit of economic stimulation on the side.

And as for Obama "Uniting" both parites, bull****. That's not a good idea, and it should never be considered. Once we move from a two party system (which is bad enough) to a one party system, the American people lose. Big time. The American people effectively lose the ability to have control over their government, because the one major party will choose who their candidate is going to be, and then give them rediculous amounts of funding. Leaving any independant party with almost no chance of sucess at all.Besides that, we all know that by "Uniting" he means "forcing the republicans to side with democratic ideals," because that's pretty much been the only option so far anyway.

I hope the country crashes an burns in a way that the people realise their mistake, but still have the ability to rise up out of the ashes, because that looks to me like our only option for now. Whether you want to admit it or not, we're in for a rough ride (unless you're poor & lazy and/or a minorty, and get government handouts).

Golden Legacy, on Feb 9 2009, 01:15 PM, said:

It's been confirmed time and time again by human rights organizations that the US uses depleted uranium as a fairly standard weapon in its operations. Iraq has been victim to uranium based weaponry since the early 90s, when the US led worldwide economic sanctions and ended up starving 500,000 Iraqi children to death. The radioactive fallout is contributed to this day, with a nuclear fallout greater than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.The US has used White phosphorous too, which is banned in civilian areas, and thus makes the destruction of Faluja in 2004 - the picture I have above, among many actions - a war crime.

"Fairly standard weaponry" means "Kinetic Energy Penetrators used by tanks". They don't use DU in standard rifles on the battlefield anymore, or even in heavy machine guns. If they need something heavier than what they're using, they use Tungsten. DU isn't as widely used as you think it is, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a significant percentage of the Iraqi/middle-eastern population being directly affected by it.

As for white phosphorus, I'll have to take your word for it until I get more information about it (and that doesn't mean from those websites that calim the US is committing war crimes left and right).

Golden Legacy, on Feb 9 2009, 01:15 PM, said:

40% "less radioactive" is still exposure to a substance that causes defects and abnormalities, as the images above show (which are all from the current Iraq War, you ignorant minded prat).

The current Iraq War started when again? Oh that's right, in the early '00's.

Golden Legacy, on Feb 9 2009, 01:15 PM, said:

Attacking civilian areas, regardless of what the US claims is the never-ending presence of insurgents, amounts to crimes against humanity. When the US drops a 1 ton bomb on an apartment building, kills 100 women and children and justifies it with the supposed presence of one insurgent, that is a crime against humanity and it is enough to bring the perpetrators into chains.But hey, it looks like a war with Iran is coming within a few years, if you're old enough you should "liberate" them too.

I'd like to see an article about an attack as overkill as that. They only use bunker-buster bombs when the insurgents are in a fairly well armored building, and there's a fairly large group in said building. If it's only one or two insurgents, there's no need to drop a bomb (unless there's some extreme case involved), and so they go in with infantry.

Though I suppose if something as overkill as what you stated were to hapen, it could loosely be considered a war crime, as it's apparent that the surrounding civilian's lives weren't taken well enough into account.

And no, we're not going to liberate them. We're going to shove dynamite up their ass and blow'em to bits. At least I won't be behind America if we attempt to.

Though I would suggest you read some "predictive" chapters in the christian bible. Has some interestng things pertaining to the middle east in particular.Like Iraq becoming prosperous again and Israel becoming insanely filthy stinking rich (which considering that they recently discovered an ass-load of oil, isn't too far off. At least from what I've heard. Though if it turns out to be true, then that's yet another prediction by the bible that's come true)

[Caael]

Toasty, on Feb 11 2009, 06:33 AM, said:

Gl, if we quit fighting the terorists, they'll come and blow us up again.

LOL ****ING LMAO

HAHAHAHAHA

Oh dear you have no idea Toasty :P

[Ironsight]

How about you explain yourself instead of comming off as a ****, Caael?

[Caael]

Okay. The reason our troops were in Iraq is because we thought they had WMDs. Well they dont. It has been proven and they do not have WMDs. Now they just used terrorists as an excuse to stay in Iraq.

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Feb 11 2009, 02:33 AM, said:

Gl, if we quit fighting the terorists, they'll come and blow us up again. They aren't just going to stop because we let up, and that's not because we're such "tyrannous dogs that supress innocent middle-easter countries". The terrorists hate us because we exist. They've pretty much said it themselves, and unless America becomes a third world country or gets wiped off the face of the map, they won't be happy.

Who's the terrorist when you drop a 1 ton bomb on an apartment building and kill a 100 women and children, all to "get that one bad guy"? Who's the terrorist when you violate international law and commit war crimes? Please. There have been more people who've died in the Iraq War than 100 9/11s. Funny how when it's only terrorism if it's Americans who are killed on 9/11, but when the US invaded/bombed/intervened in Chile, El Salvador, Guatemala, Iraq, Iran, Panama, Vietnam, Serbia, Bosnia, etc. and millions died there, it's called "good foreign policy".

Quote

All the current stimulus package is pretty much just a spending bill. I already heard what Obama said about that "You have to spend money to stimulate an economy" or whatever. Well duh, that's basic economics.

Besides that, this "stimulus" package is also pushing things like the ability for the government to monitor your doctor and prevent you from recieving "unecessary treatment". Basically, the government is given limited control over your health. Great.All it has become is a way for the democrats to push their agendas (as the most effective way of doing so would be to put their ideas into a budget related bill such as the stimulus package), and increase their foothold in the government.

All it's really become is a check to all of Obama's supporters (in the form of them getting bills they wanted passed), with a little bit of economic stimulation on the side.

I think the stimulus package is a mess as it is, there is too much being done here, too many different programs instead of a few large ones to really shock the economy into motion. Naturally, the Republicans intervened and forced the package to be scaled back in infrastructure and alternative energy, and they even cut in half the money that would be spent in updating schools and bringing them up to date with the latest technologies.

And your rant about healthcare is senseless. Obama has already taken a huge step forward with the State Children Health Care Initiative he passed in his first 2 weeks of office - healthcare has now been extended to cover an additional 4 million minors, and all I have to say is it's about time.

Quote

And as for Obama "Uniting" both parites, bull****. That's not a good idea, and it should never be considered. Once we move from a two party system (which is bad enough) to a one party system, the American people lose. Big time. The American people effectively lose the ability to have control over their government, because the one major party will choose who their candidate is going to be, and then give them rediculous amounts of funding. Leaving any independant party with almost no chance of sucess at all.Besides that, we all know that by "Uniting" he means "forcing the republicans to side with democratic ideals," because that's pretty much been the only option so far anyway.

This is the stupidest argument I've heard from you yet. When the Republicans were in power in 2000 onwards and when Bush had approval ratings of 70% (wtf?), the Republicans were the ones mocking everyone else and forcing the Democrats to bend to their whim (i.e. Iraq War). Now that the power has shifted to the liberals, you're complaining that there isn't enough bipartisanship of ideas? Please.

Quote

"Fairly standard weaponry" means "Kinetic Energy Penetrators used by tanks". They don't use DU in standard rifles on the battlefield anymore, or even in heavy machine guns. If they need something heavier than what they're using, they use Tungsten. DU isn't as widely used as you think it is, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a significant percentage of the Iraqi/middle-eastern population being directly affected by it.

There is more radioactive matter lying in the grounds of Iraq than in the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined a 100 times. DU is still very much in active use, and for you to deny its crippling effect on the newborn babies of Iraq or in the broader Middle East is absolutely sickening. This is where you turn away from your Fox News, CNN, NBC, etc. and start daring yourself to open your eyes.

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=37167

Quote

I'd like to see an article about an attack as overkill as that. They only use bunker-buster bombs when the insurgents are in a fairly well armored building, and there's a fairly large group in said building. If it's only one or two insurgents, there's no need to drop a bomb (unless there's some extreme case involved), and so they go in with infantry.

Though I suppose if something as overkill as what you stated were to hapen, it could loosely be considered a war crime, as it's apparent that the surrounding civilian's lives weren't taken well enough into account.

Because we all know the cases of weddings and family gatherings being bombed - and when it's confirmed there is not a single "insurgent among them" - that it's easier to say this in retrospect.

And you are half right on the second statement. If it is an area where there is even the possibility of one civilian at risk, it would be a war crime. Attacking a populated area, regardless of demographics and the ratio of the civilians and combatant, is a war crime.

Quote

And no, we're not going to liberate them. We're going to shove dynamite up their ass and blow'em to bits. At least I won't be behind America if we attempt to.

Finally we agree. It would be a horrible horrible mistake to attack Iran. If anything, the USA has to apologize for what it did to them in 1953 and in the 1980s. This is where I wish the average American was more informed about the past actions of the USA, it might give some more insight into the way things are now.

Quote

Though I would suggest you read some "predictive" chapters in the christian bible. Has some interestng things pertaining to the middle east in particular.Like Iraq becoming prosperous again and Israel becoming insanely filthy stinking rich (which considering that they recently discovered an ass-load of oil, isn't too far off. At least from what I've heard. Though if it turns out to be true, then that's yet another prediction by the bible that's come true)

I'm not going to assess the Bible for obvious reasons, but I'm actually aware on something similar in the latter point. It was recently that off the coast of Gaza, a large reserve of natural gas was discovered. It is in the waters of Palestine, and naturally Israel has blockaded the Palestinians and has trapped 1.5 million people, half of them children, in an open air prison cut off from all aid, food, electricity, fuel. The Gaza massacre launched by Israel last month in which 1400+ people were killed clearly had ulterior motives.

I'm going to assume the Bible left that part out.

[Ironsight]

http://homepage.mac.com/the.jack/.Pictures/healthy-gamer/marine3.jpg
"Game over man, GAME OVER!"

[Toasty]

Oh **** son.


I've kind of grown tired of debating, so I'll leave (for now) with this:

When it comes to these things, a person's stance is based highly on opinion (duh). GL, you hate America and fully support the civilians of the middle east, so you're going to say that America says things to smooth it over/cover their asses, and do things out of selfish desires (I'll point out right now that there's little room for niceness in global relations since it's impossible to please everyone).

I support America, and see that even though it's nowhere near perfect (and never will be), it's foundation is far greater than any other nation's. Therefore, I say that we're doing what we're doing over in Iraq to help ourselves and anyone else who would be targeted by terrorists in the middle east (yes Caael, it's about terrorism).

The civilians who are killed over there are not being murdered. They're victims collateral damage and bad intel. Not that I'm happy, but I'm certainly not going to convict America of being a terrorist for it.



Also,

The Democrats in congress care nothing about boosting the economy, and only use stimulus packages to pass bills that satisfy their own agendas (Hilary's healthcare bill was banned by congress, only to be passed by necesity as part of a "stimulus package").

Despite having a majority in congress during Bush's terms, the Republicans never had complete control of congress (like the Dem's are about to obtain), therefore it is still the Dem's fault for preventing Bush from saving the housing market, and ultimately the economy (like he was trying to do for at least 3 years).

And Obama sucks and is a socialist *******.


The end.

[Caael]

...And what is wrong with him being a socialist?

[Legolastom]

Don't bother trying to argue with those who have been brainwashed by their own ignorance, his government has obviously done a better job of convincing him than any debates or facts ever could.

[Golden Legacy]

Time for a Toasty-like rant response.

"Oh **** son.
I've kind of grown tired of debating, so I'll leave (for now) with this:

When it comes to these things, a person's stance is based highly on opinion (duh). Toasty, you have a hatred towards human rights and you are the most hypocritical person I have ever had the displeasure of debating. How someone can claim to be pro-life yet support the slaughter of innocents is beyond me. You aren't a believer in God. You aren't a Christian. You are a hypocrite and demonstrate the same chauvanistic attitude and disdain towards the world that the unfortunate stereotypes of America is based on. Never have I known anyone to have such an impulse towards the White Man's Burden and have a subtle superiority complex towards other peoples and civilizations that have lasted thousands of years.

Let's be clear, I hate the foreign policy of America, not the country itself. The foreign policy of the past half a century t is entrenched in intervention and in blood. While I know that a typical person like yourself shows more care towards the right to own guns and defends so passionately weapons and rifles, why you don't show the same care and acknowledgment towards basic civility and human conditions I do not know. I wonder, do you even know the different nations that have been interfered in? Do you even understand how many have died in Iraq, how many refugees, how many millions have had their lives destroyed? You ought to talk to an Iraqi yourself and see.

For this comment, "the civilians who are killed over there are collateral damage", you have a sick mind. Maybe you should try believing in God, I hear that's supposed to give you morals.

Also,

The two-party system is broken. Democrats, Republicans, they are all the same. Wars have been launched under both types of administrations, economies have failed due to both policies. Get this through your head, the political process is made up of corrupt entities who cater only to the power elite - media, business, government, military - they are there for profits and to satisfy their own greed.

All that said, if you can't understand how the healthcare system is broken, then you need to open up your eyes more. As for "Hilary's healthcare bill", it was not "banned", it was vetoed. That was 17 years ago, times have certainly changed.

Bush sucks.

Obama is not a socialist, though I wish he were more of one, but he is a warmongerer. Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and your beautiful Bush are cowards and losers, they have slaughtered people and will rightfully burn in hell.

The End.

[Toasty]

Get a clue GL. Take a look at both your post, and my post, and notice how I was far less of an ass.

I don't (for the last time) support the slaughter of innocents.

You see what's going on over in the middle east as slaughter, and I see at as somewhat avoidable collateral damage. The vast majority of civilian deaths could have been avoided by not invading the middle east (there would still have been a number of victims of Saddam), but we had to for quite a few reasons. Many of which you consider to be bull**** mostly because your sources call them bull****.

What we should be doing right now is increasing the accuracy of our intel and using more precise means of exterminating the terrorists over there. I.E. refrain from launching missles unless the target is in the middle of nowhere.


GL, you like all but a very small portion of what America is. You dislike it's founding fathers (from what I've gathered), you hate it's foreign policy, you hate it's previous president and are somewhat displeased with it's current president, you are un-supportive of it's millitary, and you wouldn't mind if it groveled at the feet of China or Russia (I assume, as you've previously stated that they'd make better superpowers than the US does, and they'd beat us like a disobedient slave if they were).

For you to like America, it would practically have to become a completely different country. Though as fate may have it, that's pretty much what's happening right now.

And again GL, it's a matter of opinion. The civilians who die over there are by definition colateral damage. Unwanted and sometimes unecessary colateral damage, but collateral none-the-less. We aren't over there to killl innocent people, so at best (from a prosecution point of view) you could call it involuntary manslaughter or reckless endangerment.

That is the litteral definition of what you could call it.


The difference is that the Republicans are trying to reform (from what I see at least, though it could be a facade I suppose) and the democrats are not. They talk about bi-partisonship, but are only forcing the Republicans to agree with them. Obama is using legal means to "promote" republican senators out of their seats so that their new democratic governors can put in democrats to replace them. Ultimately, this means the dems will likely be able to achieve full control over congress.

Also, Bush tried to do a lot of things that would've helped America in the short and long term. Unfortunately, the Democrats hated him, and prevented him from doing anything, ultimately making him look like a complete klutz of a president, when infact, many of the problems were not caused by him in the first place.

The healthcare system needs to be completely privatized to prevent the government from dictating whether or not you've got a life threatening condition. The government doesn't have the capacity or knowledge to be the doctor of every single American. Should the government even remotely gain control over the healthcare system, they'll screw it up.

It holds true every time that the more power the government is given, the more likely they are to abuse it or otherwise cause damage. They only need be powerful enough to keep law and order amongst the people. Other than that, it's not their responsibility. They aren't supposed to babysit us, pay our bills, heal us, or otherwise take care of us. Their only job is to protect us from outside invasion, and prevent us from killing or otherwise hurting eachother.

And you forgot to close your quotation mark.

Also, the first comment of my previous post was in response to DS's post.


[EDIT] Dangit GL, you're making me a liar. I said I was done debating. D:

[Ironsight]

Three-quarters of your post was flames, GL. I don't care how "Passonate" you get while debating, show some god damn restraint.

Golden Legacy, on Mar 8 2009, 08:46 AM, said:

Obama is not a socialist.

Wat.

Quote

Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and your beautiful Bush are cowards and losers, they have slaughtered people and will rightfully burn in hell.

Because they were all involved in a war? You really are a petty person.

Half the men on your list did more great things for this country than Obama ever will. I guarantee, if America lasts to the next election, he won't be seeing another term.


GL, I'd like to know your opinion on Obama's 9 trillion dollar budget, as well as all those Earmarks he said while camaigning he wasn't going to be spending money on.

[Toasty]

Unfortunately DS, even if Obama massively screws up, it'll still all be blamed on Bush.

And Obama's already spent more money than the entire Iraq war has sucked up, and most of it has nothing to do with stimulating the economy. So if anyone's to blame for putting us in debt it's him.

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Mar 9 2009, 05:08 AM, said:

You see what's going on over in the middle east as slaughter, and I see at as somewhat avoidable collateral damage. The vast majority of civilian deaths could have been avoided by not invading the middle east (there would still have been a number of victims of Saddam), but we had to for quite a few reasons. Many of which you consider to be bull**** mostly because your sources call them bull****.

Aren't you the one who recently proclaimed the Iraq War to be the fulfillment of the Bible?

Quote

GL, you like all but a very small portion of what America is. You dislike it's founding fathers (from what I've gathered), you hate it's foreign policy, you hate it's previous president and are somewhat displeased with it's current president, you are un-supportive of it's millitary, and you wouldn't mind if it groveled at the feet of China or Russia (I assume, as you've previously stated that they'd make better superpowers than the US does, and they'd beat us like a disobedient slave if they were).

Everything you've "gathered" is absolute nonsense. If you want to make baseless claims, I could just as easily say: you hate other cultures, you think the rest of the world is a 3rd world civilization, you see other nations as a threat when they carry out their foreign policy but are completely supportive of every invasion the US does, you think American bombs are dipped in freedom and laced with democracy, you call people who try to defend their countries from an invading power as rebels or terrorists but call soldiers who fly overhead and drop cluster bombs over a village as brave, etc.

Quote

And again GL, it's a matter of opinion. The civilians who die over there are by definition colateral damage. Unwanted and sometimes unecessary colateral damage, but collateral none-the-less. We aren't over there to killl innocent people, so at best (from a prosecution point of view) you could call it involuntary manslaughter or reckless endangerment.

When NATO troops used to point their guns at civilian buses in Serbia, was that "involuntary"? When snipers shot down children in the Faluja invasion of 2004, was that "unnecessary collateral damage"? When the US doused Vietnam with the chemical known as Agent Orange which is causing deformities to this day, was that "unintended"?

To you it's involuntary, to the people there it's slaughter. Where is that famous Toasty open-mindedness?

Quote

The difference is that the Republicans are trying to reform (from what I see at least, though it could be a facade I suppose) and the democrats are not. They talk about bi-partisonship, but are only forcing the Republicans to agree with them. Obama is using legal means to "promote" republican senators out of their seats so that their new democratic governors can put in democrats to replace them. Ultimately, this means the dems will likely be able to achieve full control over congress.

Every administration does this. And "reform" is absolute nonsense, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats every improve things. Every president talks of bipartisanship - Bush ran as a president who would "heal the divide in America" - and we all know how that turned out.

Quote

The healthcare system needs to be completely privatized to prevent the government from dictating whether or not you've got a life threatening condition. The government doesn't have the capacity or knowledge to be the doctor of every single American. Should the government even remotely gain control over the healthcare system, they'll screw it up.

It holds true every time that the more power the government is given, the more likely they are to abuse it or otherwise cause damage. They only need be powerful enough to keep law and order amongst the people. Other than that, it's not their responsibility. They aren't supposed to babysit us, pay our bills, heal us, or otherwise take care of us. Their only job is to protect us from outside invasion, and prevent us from killing or otherwise hurting eachother.

Then the government shouldn't dictate what a woman does with her body. The government shouldn't decide that the marriages of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals is less than that of heterosexuals. The government shouldn't have the power to search people's homes without warrants, to arrest people and place them in solitary confinement for decades without ever bringing charges against them.

Make up your mind. Either you're against government, which means you're a libertarian, or you support the government intruding in people's lives the way you prefer it, in which case you absolutely support it.

As for healthcare, there needs to be a new system built from the ground-up, single payer, that can be available alongside private options, having both available would ensure competition and certainly make sure everyone is covered for less than the extravagant costs of the US healthcare system today. It's for this reason among others that the US ranks in the 30s and 40s for statistics as infant mortality and life expectancy.

Miley Cyrus, on Mar 9 2009, 05:15 AM, said:

Because they were all involved in a war? You really are a petty person.

Half the men on your list did more great things for this country than Obama ever will. I guarantee, if America lasts to the next election, he won't be seeing another term.

Don't put words into my mouth. Obama is a continuation of the same failed foreign policy and is proceeding on the same relentless, belligerent path only less obviously. I support his social policy - a ban on assault weapons is being put together, the restrictions on stem cell research are being removed, openly gay and lesbian people are being allowed to serve in the military, the Lilly Ledbetter Act was signed which will alleviate the disparity of income between women and men (which the Republicans vetoed, God bless them) - all of which are substantial improvements over the past 8 years, and his economic philosophy has the right idea but it tries to do too much, too quickly.

And ahh, "petty". I suppose you think Reagan is a great man for supporting the Contras in Nicaragua and arming Saddam Hussein? Or Nixon being great for launching the military coup of Salvader Allende in Chile in 1973 and putting in the authoritarian ruler Augusto Pinochet? Clinton imposed sanctions on Iraq that starved 500,000 Iraqi children to death in the 90s, Johnson with his Secretary of Defense McNamara ordered the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam, the My Lai massacre, everything we've seen with Saint Bush the past years? The 40 year embargo on Cuba, the School of the Americas which trains death squads and dictators to imprison and kill people in Latin America, the tens of thousands that died as a result of the US interventions in Guatemala and El Salvador, the 100,000+ genocide of East Timor led by the US-backed Suharto of Indonesia? Very petty of you indeed.

Foreign policy of the US, I hate it and I have no need to apologize. That said, neither you nor Toasty should assume on others, I appreciate the freedoms the USA has, I appreciate the education opportunities for higher learning, I appreciate the multicultural diversity. I don't appreciate the people who use this to assume that other nations are backward or weak, however, the way I have seen you two suggest. There is a difference between being patriotic and being self-centered.

Quote

GL, I'd like to know your opinion on Obama's 9 trillion dollar budget, as well as all those Earmarks he said while camaigning he wasn't going to be spending money on.

The US is 13 trillion dollars in debt before he even took office. Where did you get the 9 trillion figure from?

Toasty, on Mar 9 2009, 05:47 AM, said:

Unfortunately DS, even if And Obama's already spent more money than the entire Iraq war has sucked up, and most of it has nothing to do with stimulating the economy. So if anyone's to blame for putting us in debt it's him.

Spending on infrastructure and creating jobs is the general philosophy of what to do in a recession. That's why I said I support Obama's stimulus package in spirit - it has the right idea, but it tries to involve too many areas and different fields. I would have voted "no" on the package if I could, it definitely needs refining to a few specific areas.

And last I checked costs of Iraq, already incurred and long-term, place it in the several trillion dollar range. I would much rather have someone invest in the nation he represents itself as opposed to creating a military base out of a nation half a world away that had no business being intervened in.


At any rate I'm exhausted from all this.

[Legolastom]

what you say

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Mar 9 2009, 01:05 PM, said:

At any rate I'm exhausted from all this.

Same. Let's keep this particular discussion dead. At least for a few months. =P

[Golden Legacy]

Aye, let's keep it this way for now.

[Ironsight]

North Korea.

[Golden Legacy]

That would be international politics.

[Toasty]

Good point there.

[Ironsight]

I kind of wanted to talk about what the US is doing about them, seeing as how we're still technically at war with them. But you're right, this is the UN's problem. Let's hope it'll do something properly for once.

[Golden Legacy]

It's not even the UN's problem necessarily. It's each nation's approach towards North Korea. Yes, the US is technically at war with North Korea, but 'technically' at war and 'actually' at war are two different scenarios. On what basis do you say that the US has a right to intervene, which is where you seem to be coming from?

[Toasty]

Regret, on Apr 6 2009, 10:44 AM, said:

I kind of wanted to talk about what the US is doing about them, seeing as how we're still technically at war with them. But you're right, this is the UN's problem. Let's hope it'll do something for once.

Fix'd.

Name one time where the UN ever actually did ANYTHING.

[Golden Legacy]

Vermont approves gay marriage! 4th US state to do so, congratulations for them.

[Ironsight]

Yet another reason to avoid Vermont.

[Golden Legacy]

Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, now Vermont, with California having allowed for it too.

Funny, they tend to have the most well-educated people in the nation, I suppose they won't be missing you.

[Ironsight]

Golden Legacy, on Apr 7 2009, 12:53 PM, said:

Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, now Vermont, with California having allowed for it too.

Funny, they tend to have the most well-educated people in the nation, I suppose they won't be missing you.

I feel the tingling sensation of flames.

The fact California voted against it twice gives me some a small measure of pride in my state.
Although it still sucks here.

[Golden Legacy]

California voters supported Proposition 8 last November which outlawed gay marriage, yes. If you're proud of that, hey, more power to you.

Maybe the next time it's up, we'll see what happens when there isn't a $50 million ad blitz from neighboring churches to support the ban.

[Ironsight]

Golden Legacy, on Apr 7 2009, 01:05 PM, said:

California voters supported Proposition 8 last November which outlawed gay marriage, yes. If you're proud of that, hey, more power to you..

I'm supprised you can celebrate Vermont's decision, but hey, more power to you too.

[Legolastom]

Golden Legacy, on Apr 7 2009, 09:05 PM, said:

California voters supported Proposition 8 last November which outlawed gay marriage, yes. If you're proud of that, hey, more power to you.

Maybe the next time it's up, we'll see what happens when there isn't a $50 million ad blitz from neighboring churches to support the ban.

Good to see that the teachings of Jesus are kept so closely by his followers.

[Ironsight]

That Kumar doctor guy quit House so he could work for Obama.
Son of a *****!

[Golden Legacy]

Legolastom, on Apr 7 2009, 04:55 PM, said:

Good to see that the teachings of Jesus are kept so closely by his followers.

Isn't it nice? All people are equal in the eyes of God, unless you are a woman, a minority, a gay/lesbian/bi, or disabled.

[Ironsight]

I know homosexuality is wrong the same way I know cannibalism is wrong, I don't need a divine being to tell me so.

[Caael]

So why does it happen?

[Golden Legacy]

As much as I would like to proceed with this, let's not create a whole debate here, start up a new thread on Homosexuality and Gay Marriage if needed.

[Legolastom]

The homosexuality thing pisses me off of course but what I hate is the fact they spent $50 million on an add campaign, Jesus will love them on saving so many lives with all that life changing money.

[Toasty]

The ad campaign was wrong IMO. It's good to support your beliefs, but that's a little much.

You can claim that christians are hypocrites or whatever, but look at it from this point of view:

Christianity teaches that it's a sin to help another person sin, or otherwise entice them to do wrong. Voting for gay marriage is, from a religious perspective, helping people sin. Therefor, it's not hatred or discrimination against gays.

However, it is hatred/discrimination if they start saying things like "gays are going to hell" because that isn't necessarily true either. As long as they believe in christ, they'll go to heaven. But by choosing to be gay, their "riches" will be scarce.

Understand? Now quit frikkin' saying how religious people are so discriminative, because they're not. Some are, but being one does not automatically make you a discriminative person. Now stfu.

[Saturos S.]

http://www.godhates***s.com/

Most wars are based on religious differences (or were for a long time, still are in some parts of the world.) In the west the love for your religion might be somewhat moderate but you can't approve the few idiots because the majority are moderate.

It's just important not to overgeneralise stuff. But by all means, bash the Westboro Baptist Church all you want.

Edit, well stupid swear filter is blocking my point.
http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_e...+baptist+church

First link should get you there.

[Legolastom]

Toasty, on Apr 10 2009, 07:54 AM, said:

The ad campaign was wrong IMO. It's good to support your beliefs, but that's a little much.

You can claim that christians are hypocrites or whatever, but look at it from this point of view:

Christianity teaches that it's a sin to help another person sin, or otherwise entice them to do wrong. Voting for gay marriage is, from a religious perspective, helping people sin. Therefor, it's not hatred or discrimination against gays.

However, it is hatred/discrimination if they start saying things like "gays are going to hell" because that isn't necessarily true either. As long as they believe in christ, they'll go to heaven. But by choosing to be gay, their "riches" will be scarce.

Understand? Now quit frikkin' saying how religious people are so discriminative, because they're not. Some are, but being one does not automatically make you a discriminative person. Now stfu.

I was just talking about those people Toasty.

[Caael]

http://i39.tinypic.com/63uip2.jpg

I lol'd

[Legolastom]

This isn't the you laugh you lose thread, take your picture bumps somewhere else mate.

[Split Infinity]

...Love?

[EDIT] Ish bettar.

[Laharl]

So it would seem our farcical stay in Iraq is over, i wonder how long it will take America to follow suit

[Caael]

Yeah I know Thomas, I just thought it was relevant.

[Golden Legacy]

The US is building the largest embassy in the world in Baghdad, larger than the Vatican and a self-sustaining infrastructure of energy and water to support a population of a small town. 30+ permanent military bases have been built and contracts have been renewed.

LOL at people who think America will ever leave Iraq.

[Quacnar]

But Golden Legacy don't you know??

HE OPPOSED THE WAR FROM THE START

[Ironsight]

Man, it must be GREAT being the leader of a "rouge country" right now. I mean, you can do pretty much whatever you want, you can push the envelope as far as you want, and you MIGHT get a stern letter for it.

[Golden Legacy]

I presume this is about North Korea.

[Ironsight]

Yeah, it is.
Don't we have another topic for North Korea? Should I have revived that instead?

[Golden Legacy]

Definitely. I don't really know the relevance of this topic, especially when it is used to encompass "post everything that happens in the world here, debate, GO!".

Domestic issues for the US, at best, for this topic.

[Legolastom]

What about American foreign policy?

[Golden Legacy]

I think there should be a general "Foreign Policy" thread, and more specific threads such as "North Korea". There will inevitably be some overlap, but it's better than having an all-encompassing topic such as this (which would either be renamed or closed).

[Ironsight]

No posts about the Cambridge thing? :)

[Toasty]

Oh yeah.

Sounds to me like the professor is just quick tempered.

I mean seriously. Someone reported a breaking at the guy's place, so the officer went to check it out.

And then, just because he asks the Prof. to step outside the house for a moment, likely just to ask a few questions about what happened, the Prof. goes all "YOU'RE RACIST" and shiz.


At least that's how I understand it. I wasn't there though, so I can't really say.


Though apparently even though Obama wasn't either, he can. lawl

[Legolastom]

Shut up you ****ing right wing.

[green]Wind dude: Dont do this **** dude it dun be nice[/greencolur]

[Golden Legacy]

I've only vaguely heard about the Gates' incident. It's been over a year now since I've stopped watching American media and caring about random domestic events such as this. From what I do understand, I think it was wrong of Gates to lash out at the officer for doing his job - being taken in for "disturbing the peace" is a rather arbitrary and pointless charge however, seeing as how he was released almost immediately (and was arrested at his own house, moreso).

I don't think Obama should have commented on a local issue such as this, which is not wrong for a President to do so but inadvisable. That said, racial profiling is a real phenomenon, but it's a shame that it'll now be drawn out in another media-crazed blitz designed to get ratings.

[Legolastom]

So what shall we argue about today guys? I need some wall O texts.

[Toasty]

Let's argue about how government controlled healthcare is the about the stupidest idea in the history of the world. Unless of course you're a government official who doesn't actually have to use said healthcare system.

[Golden Legacy]

I read Toasty's comment, and laughed so hard.

[Toasty]

I know. It's so funny because it's so true.

[Golden Legacy]

LOL. Time and time again you have shown your revolting ignorance on anything that goes on in the world. When you don't even know basic facts about your own nation's political system, it begins to be nothing less than laughable.

[Ironsight]

Legolastom, on Aug 24 2009, 04:24 PM, said:

So what shall we argue about today guys? I need some wall O texts.

Damn you, Legolastom. *shakes fist*

[Legolastom]

Yeah the NHS in this country is so disgus- Oh wait republican propaganda isn't broadcast in this country never mind.

Edit: Don't reply to anything I say in this topic BTW guys I cant help myself posting even if I don't want to.

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Aug 24 2009, 06:15 PM, said:

LOL. Time and time again you have shown your revolting ignorance on anything that goes on in the world. When you don't even know basic facts about your own nation's political system, it begins to be nothing less than laughable.

Government officials have a separate healthcare getup than either private healthcare, or medicare. Should the government take over health coverage from the private sector, the officials would still have their own separate (and better) coverage. That's a fact.


Our healthcare system as it stands is flawed. Sure. But nothing's perfect. However, we do happen to have the best doctors in the entire world. Doctors from all around the world come here to work, because they get payed better here thanks to our privatized healthcare setup. This also means we get a lot of really good doctors. They don't go to Canada, because thanks to the healthcare system up there, they make less money, and they have more restrictions.

If we go to a government healthcare plan, we will lose a lot of really good doctors. They'll find better places to work. Because of that, our healthcare system will suffer.


Not to mention that the government would get to have a say in what treatment you would be allowed to have, and when you would get it. They'll obviously take actions to stay within the budget that will have negative effects on American citizens.


I'd also like to point out that the government will not be forced to say what treatments they will cover for you, and they will reserve the right to change what treatments they will cover whenever they want.

Unlike the private sector where they'll tell you what they will cover, and they'll be legally bound to provide exactly that level of coverage.

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Aug 25 2009, 12:31 AM, said:

Government officials have a separate healthcare getup than either private healthcare, or medicare. Should the government take over health coverage from the private sector, the officials would still have their own separate (and better) coverage. That's a fact.

Yes. Federal employees receive a separate healthcare system entirely subsidized and free, as well as retiring with full pensions and lifetime benefits. Every politician who goes against a public option for healthcare also happens to be receiving one, which stands in -direct- contradiction to your claim in the previous post.

Quote

Not to mention that the government would get to have a say in what treatment you would be allowed to have, and when you would get it.

Quote

I'd also like to point out that the government will not be forced to say what treatments they will cover for you, and they will reserve the right to change what treatments they will cover whenever they want.

Insurance companies do that. In fact, what you described is exactly what insurance companies do in almost flawless fashion.

Quote

Unlike the private sector where they'll tell you what they will cover, and they'll be legally bound to provide exactly that level of coverage.

No, that's the exact opposite of what insurance companies do. The propaganda is actually scaring me from you. Insurance companies have one goal, which is profit. Their entire platform is not driven on providing coverage - it is in finding ways they do NOT provide coverage. Insurance companies will scour every bit of your medical history to find reasons not to cover a patient. Entire heart bypass operations are canceled on the basis that one individual had a yeast infection some 10 years ago, and therefore have the right to change coverage the day before - either in forcing the patient's family to suddenly pay the cost of the operation, or having to cancel altogether.

Policies of demarketing (targeting people who need health coverage least), overprescribed treatments (doctors mandating patients take numerous drugs to cover liability charges, which insurance companies often refuse), and 'selected' patients (hospitals check to see if a patient has insurance and reserve the right to deny someone care if they do not) are some brilliant hallmarks.

And lastly:

Quote

If we go to a government healthcare plan

Do you know the difference between health coverage and health care?

[Nosferatu]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...reats-cia_N.htm

Have your go or something.

[Caael]

Toasty doesn't seem to realise that over half his population are under insured and something like 40% or something ridiculous have no coverage at all. And they can just die of their illnesses because they're poor and dont work hard enough, right?

[Gio]

I was reading over this. Man people have become so mean in this topic.

I think end this post by saying that I don't think Obama is going to get elected to another term.
And the only reason I am posting that is I don't feel like reading through all the insults to get to the that actual points everyone is trying to make.

[Toasty]

There's a reason this topic has been dead for a while.

Caael, on Feb 3 2010, 03:08 PM, said:

Toasty doesn't seem to realise that over half his population are under insured and something like 40% or something ridiculous have no coverage at all. And they can just die of their illnesses because they're poor and dont work hard enough, right?

Caael doesn't seem to realize that in his country, anyone can be denied health coverage for silly an ridiculous reasons. A sound and perfect system indeed.

Also, Caael is so silly, that he, in fact, makes statistics up on the spot since he can't remember them. So silly is he. I mean, EVERYONE knows that something like 90% of Americans live in 3rd world country-like conditions!

AND IT'S ALL THE REPUBLICANS FAULT!!!!!

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Feb 4 2010, 02:30 AM, said:

Caael doesn't seem to realize that in his country, anyone can be denied health coverage for silly an ridiculous reasons. A sound and perfect system indeed.

I had no idea Caael was living in the US.

And no no, it's the crazy God-less leftist athiest library-hugging liberals' fault for daring to suggest there might be areas to improve! How dare they, with their support of intellectualism and science! It's their hatred of Christians and Jesus that's holding America back, we need to convert America back into a religious theocracy and BRING BACK MORALS AND BIBLE CLASSES!!!!!1!1

[Caael]

Toasty, on Feb 4 2010, 07:30 AM, said:

There's a reason this topic has been dead for a while.



Caael doesn't seem to realize that in his country, anyone can be denied health coverage for silly an ridiculous reasons. A sound and perfect system indeed.

Also, Caael is so silly, that he, in fact, makes statistics up on the spot since he can't remember them. So silly is he. I mean, EVERYONE knows that something like 90% of Americans live in 3rd world country-like conditions!

AND IT'S ALL THE REPUBLICANS FAULT!!!!!

Please at least pretend you know about the UK before trying to use satire involving it.

I didn't make up those statistics, I just cant remember exact numbers. But seeing as we're playing the 'who can be the most pedantic whilst completely avoiding the point' game, I think I'll join in by saying 90% is an absurd figure and there is no evidence to support your claim.

[Ironsight]

Last year's topic, bros.

In retrospect, probably better to keep this topic closed...