How far do you want to take that? Butterfly Effect?
I can just see it now. "I demand to know the line of reasoning behind the desicion to order the senate's lunch deli platter from the grocery store and not the deli down the street. The extra work slowed down the grocery store lines as customers waited to get orders filled. This led to a glut of people waiting in line at the grocery store, and less parking spaces available since people were coming, but not leaving. The lot became full, and the other stores in the stip mall didnt have any parking, so a man picking up his take out from the chinese spot double parked. A cop stopped to put a ticket on the car. The man noticed this and a fight insued. That man got arrested for throwing chow mein at the police officer. The cop had to take the man to jail, which forced him off his usual route, so there was no one to notice a poor young girl getting harrased on the street, so I had to chase the attacker off and offered to give the girl a ride home. She was just giving me a kiss to say thank you. I swear honey thats how it happened! Those damn government workers not ordering from the Deli"
I already know that he's willing to defend Bush in a public forum, which makes him an idiot and closed-minded.
Do you really think evey bush support is an idiot? If that is the case, doesnt that make you closed minded?
I greatly disagreed with John Kerry as a candidate, and as a politician, and as an american. That being said, I COULD understand why people would vote for him. Without resorting to phrases like "ignorant bible-thumping tobacoo giants" or "intolerant, bigoted, hatemongers" can you think of a reason people voted for bush?
I think people voted for Kerry mainly because they disagreed with Bush's Foriegn policy, or did not like him personally. I think Kerry lost because he did not connect with voters, only jumped on issues... he made himself a challenger, not a candidate. People root for an underdog but they dont vote for him.
There, See? I discussed why people could vote for Kerry and I didnt even mention Frenchie-Communist, Wishy Washy, peacenik hippies.
I guess I should add i dont think "Bombing Run, Battle over Dresden" would be acceptable either. While D-Day was a massive undertaking, I dont think the germans should be proud of mowing down allied soldiers, nor should we be proud about firebombing a city. While the soldiers were noble, some of the tactics that may have been neccessary, should not be glorified. There is a nobleness to a soldier doing his duty... but sometimes the duty calls them to do things that history should not look back at with pride. I think its for this reason that the holocaust is barely even alluded to even in historically accurate video games.
"This game, obviously is different. I think its in poor taste and simply is trying to get shock attention to thier little cause. They are free to do this though, and have every right to"
See? I agree with you! Maybe I shouldnt have pursued this guys off topic response. Video games, guns, hand grenades and the like dont kill people. People kill people. The original poster said that he believed Americans were deprived of freedoms because we could not threaten the lives of our leadership without prosecution. I was simply responding to that.
The game is fine. I personally think its a cheap shot, but... oh well. Thats why *I* wont play it. It doesnt really bother me too much that it exists.
As far as libya.... what do you want? I am glad that they did what they did, for whatever reason. Those WMD programs will no longer harm the world. That is outstanding! In all honesty, what is the difference between bullying and diplomacy? In this case, they arent paying us tribute, forced to fight for us, or any of that.... they just dropped thier WMD Programs without a shot having to be fired. Thats how peace happens. Thats about the only way it happens. I would agree with you if we forced them into paying us "protection money" or something like that. I see now harm with them stopping WMD production though.
Youre right. I think they have a right to pursue whatever course of action they choose to, but know that the cost is heavy.
In my mind, its alot like pearl harbor. The Japanese military made a choice, and attacked a military base to start a war, hoping to knock us out of the Pacific early. In the end, they paid for that heavily. Its war, its part of life. I wish nuclear and atomic warheads had never been developed, but unfortunately that is the down side of science. It brings us power sometimes quicker than we can handle it.
It isnt in our saftey interests to have a (more than it already is) nuclear North Korea, despite how nice the alliteration sounds. Kim Jong Ill has a choice to make, either settle and make peace or go to war. It is pretty clear they want to go nuclear for the purpose of taking south korea carte blanche. If we want that to happen, we should act before they have the means, so maybe tokyo, seul, singapore and so on can stay on the map for a while longer.
I have often thought about that too. Some games are memorials to the fallen, at least in my mind. It remembers them as heros. I do not think a game where you played a german gunning down troops at normandy would be appropriate.
the posters comment went beyond this, He said that we were not as free as our masters would have us believe. He said this regarding threats on the life of the president. This to imply that we arent allowed freedom of speech to make threats on other peoples lives. The game is protected speech in my mind. Its in poor taste and cheap in my mind, but it is within the developers rights. I just dont think a threat on a life is protected speech. Thankfully, the SCOTUS agrees with me
Also, as far as "good" people being killed... im sure there were good germans who died. Probably some poor iraqi farmers who joined the army for money to feed his family. Its far and few between, in my mind, that someone really deserves to die in war. I do think that soldiers are noble in thier sacrafice, and should be honored. Games like the medal of honor series do this to the best thier medium can allow. I do wonder how much this game honors kennedy.
Perhaps if the warren report is wrong and this game proves it, it does honor him. I just dont want to have this discussion 30 years from now with a 9/11 flight sim to disprove the commisions results.
I think you missed the point of what I was saying. The original poster took the debate outside of the game discussion. It can be argued that any true physics game involving military style machinery and munitions is a "threat". Obviously the US isnt bothered with this since they created Americas Army as an Army Simulation. Though, I do think there is a world of difference between simulating fighting in the army in defence of your country, and simulating being a real murderer shooting an unarmed man from yards away because you dont happen to like him. I suppose if you believe in moral relativism this is the same to you. I cant even understand that mindset.
The point of what I was trying to say was this, there are reasons that a sitting president should not be legally threatened. A president, mayor, plumber, or mom who is under threat of death is not free. The threat is the problem. You begin to act in a way as to not upset those who are threatening your life. Think Tienemen square, how many democratic associations sprang up after that. Threats of violence control people. Violence only kills people. Do you think we should be allowed to make public or private threats on the lives of other people?
This game, obviously is different. I think its in poor taste and simply is trying to get shock attention to thier little cause. They are free to do this though, and have every right to. What if Ted Kennedy came out and said "If those people release the game I will have them killed". Do you see how that threat could infringe on the freedom of the developers of the game? Laws against inciting violence are made for this reason. I realize we need wise judgement to discern between an extremist view which is protected, and a call to kill leadership... But a society that is completely free to call for the murder of someone is not free at all.
Well, I agree that the threat of violence shouldnt be taken lightly. Thats why, after 12 years of threats of violence, the US took action to carry out what the UN had tried and failed at for years. That is, of course, to insure that WMD were not in Iraq and that grevious atrocities were not committed. We carried out the threat made by the UN.
Also, either you missed my point, or I didnt explain myself well enough. I am simply saying that the threat of violence can control people. This is good in the instance of Iraq and the middle east. Because of Iraq, Middle Eastern countries know that they cannot play the same game with the UN that Saddam did. This is why Libya surrendered thier arsenal. We are letting the international approach take its time in Iran. The only reason they are in talks with other countries is because the are afraid of the massive US army on thier doorstep. We also need to take the same course of action with North Korea.
We have the strongest army in the world, so when dealing with rational people we should NOT have to use it. They should realize they cant win against us, and scrap the nukes. We arent asking them to raise a US flag or start eating hot dogs. We are simply assuring that those countries who openly hate us do not have the capacity to kill us. Its harder in the case of Jihadists, but I think in North Korea diplomacy could work.
My whole point is this, a valid threat of violence can control people. If someone uses this threat to control a rouge nation that has said they want us to burn in nuclear flames, then that is good. If someone uses that to control a government via threats of assasaination, that is a bad thing.
We werent forced to vote for Bush, unlike some former dictatorships where voters WERE forced to the polls. Thank you for being an Anonymous Coward. As long as you dont believe in what you say enough to claim it, then your opinions wont go nowhere.
Um, Dude.
When does freedom of speech = freedom to threaten another human life? Do you think someone has the right to make a video game about killing you personally? What about someone you love?
Would you suggest that a society where threats on life are accepted and protected, would in fact be more free? That sort of system of intimidation would only sacrafice our freedom to those who have the greatest ability to end our lives.
Lets say some very rich and powerful person were to threaten the life of the president, and for the sake of argument, there is nothing illegal about making that threat. What you would be left with is a weakened presidency, perhaps more likely to act along the idealogical lines of the man who has threatened to take his life.
The intimidation that comes with a threat makes it just as serious as the actual act of murder. It is control based on whoever is strongest. A society free to threaten its leaders is not free, but merely bound to the will of the entity best equipped to make good on its word.
I gotta read these headlines more carefully. I always thought SPAM was popular BECAUSE of people using Hashish. I would lean more towards doritos but thats just me.
I checked your crummy website. Its about as conservative as ted kennedy. Here is what i found in about 13 seconds. A cover of thier magazine with Reagan and Bush saying "Can we stop presidents from lying" Did you know that the only president who ever was charged with perjury didnt even make it to the cover? How can you call yourself conservative and bash bush and reagan. Dont be afraid of being called a liberal, just dont be one. Here is a link to that cover
No conservative would endorse Kerry. Granted, Bush isnt the best conservative. If I was to endorse the MORE conservative of the two it would be Bush. If they endorsed no one, that would be understandable, but by endorsing Kerry they couldnt possibly be conservative. Lets remember Kerry is numero uno liberal in the senate.
Excellent response by the way. Dont bother posting responses to what ive said. Just a link...
>> The President lied about Iraq.
What did he lie about? WMD? If that is the case then you have made two points out of one just to make a longer list. I'll get to WMD when you refer to it.
>> Massive invasion of Iraq, illegal.
Such grandiose words. Would you have prefered a tiny invasion? At any rate, the UN approved serious consequences if Saddam didnt comply with us. The UN had thier opportunity to pursue inspectors, but that didnt work. Check Hans Blix's report. What do serious consequences mean if they dont mean war? Economic Sanctions? We already had done that for 12 years. Besides, we are a soverign nation. So was Iraq you say? Of course they were, thats why they had the right to say "screw you" to the UN and stonewall inspectors.
>> No WMDs. None since 1991.
So what was clinton bombing in 1998? Why did all the intelligence say there WERE WMD? How did bush convince Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Kofi, et all to go along with his scheme?
>> 100000 Iraqies dead, women and children mostly.
Women and children mostly? Im sure they were all handicapped children who were busy making birthday cards for thier fathers who worked hard to put food on the table. Please, spare me the bleeding heart "for the children" crap. Try this, the sanctions that your precious UN put on iraq killed an estimated 600k. Hows that for a statistic?
>> Over 1000 US Troops dead and toll is rising.
We are losing troops. Its a war, it is sad, that is why they need our support. But lets remember this is a WAR. People die in a war. Thats what war is. If we have lost our stomach to wage war then we are in a very bad place. I know our enemies havent given up on fighting, neither can we, or they will kill us.
>> US torturing civilians (for none existant WMDs?)
Document this? Are you talking about Abu Grab? Please... How many of them did we torture? Half of the things they did , leashes, panties on the head, what have you, can scarcely be refered to as torture. You pay good money to do things like that in some parts of this country. I remember when this started going on, the insurgents said "We will repay the americans what they have done" and proceeded to decapitate an american hostage. It shows the real evil here does it not? And we corrected our "abuses". People are getting in trouble for it, unlike the islamic fascists who reward people for such subhuman behavior.
>> Usama Bin Laden still around... laughing.
He is not laughing he is hiding. We will find him. Dont be so ignorant its bad for your health.
>> Americans are finding that it's now "legal" to be jailed without any representation, your home can be searched without a warrent, poverty groups have already been raided and any dissent is met with Gestapo like tactics - the Republican Convention in NY was a disgusting display of an arrogant disregard of peoples rights and freedoms.
The patriot act lets you search someones house without telling them right away. I support that. Maybe you think we should tell Muhammed Atta we are investigating him so he speeds up the attack. More over, what is a poverty group? Gestapo like tactics??? You have got to be kidding me. In Boston, those who didnt agree with the tolerant left were put in a cage! dont believe me? google it. It was in Yahoo Images. We republicans are trying to defend rights and freedoms, even your right to have your stupid opinions.
>> The Bush WH packed the entire Bin Laden family in the USA onto a plane the day after 9/11 and sent them home, without interrogation.
It wasnt the day after, it was the day of, and it wasnt Bush, it was richard clark. And Bin Laden's family has disowned him. God knows we couldnt search them, that would be racial profiling!
>> We've heard that the voting machines can be hacked by a 12 year old, anyone with brown skin will be picked up by the nearest police
Does/Should the X-Prize Foundation get federal funding for the efforts they are making towards space travel? Certainly NASA could learn a thing or two about budgets from these space explorers. I think perhaps it is a better investment for the government to fund private groups like this, considering the results of the state-run programs.
I dont see what danger there is in a belief that the Bible is the word of God? Maybe if you took something out of context... But in context it is a book about what God has done for you, and how to relate to God. I think the Bible is fine, just dont add to it and youre all set.
As far as the science thing, Im not a scientist. I talked about this in another post. Most of my belief in God comes from personal experience. I believe that science has definitely not ruled out God as a creator, nor has it proven it. We cant know what happened for certain. It has to be taken by faith. I do believe it is blindly arrogant to deny a God philosophically.
Most people in the world believe in a god of some sort. The reason I believe there is only one true God is because of the fact that everyone disagrees on some major points, therefore cant all be right. Terrorists sincerely believe what they do brings them closer to God, I dont think they could be going to Heaven do you? I dont need you to believe it, you need you to believe it. But, you choose not to and thats ok. You were given free will by the God you dont believe in, and you have the right to make up your own mind.
Regarding Winter Solstice... Nothing about modern Christmas celebrations have anything to do with that. Even Santa Claus (St. Nicholas) has christian/catholic origins. Kids want to get presents presents (wisemen), sing christmas songs (St. Francis of Assisi), and eat candy canes (shaped to look like shepherd's staffs). I realize that solstice was christianized by Rome many many years ago. I dont think that negates anything. The traditions of christmas are part of a Christian heritage, but its celebration is not exclusively christian. If you want to say that public schools should only mention winter, and not Christmas, fine. It just adds to the PC shill that kids are being taught. Teach them about Christmas, Solstice, Hanukkah, Rammadan, go nuts. If we are going to celebrate the pagan holiday, why not celebrate all of them?
On homosexuality. I dont want to lynch anyone, I dont hate anyone. I just dont want kids, teenagers, adults, or churches having to give it a stamp of approval if they dont want to. They dont have to give me one, they have the right to think im a bigot. Before you link me with the people that killed Matthew Shepherd, im for equal rights politically. I personally think that churches or colleges (in the case of athiests) should issue marriage licences, and that the government should only issue civil unions. I think homosexuals should be allowed to get civil unions like anyone else, and that individual churches or colleges would decide how they define marriage. Marriage is a religious tradition that government shouldnt legislate. I wouldnt support my church issuing marriage certificates to homosexuals, but if another church believed differently thats fine with me. Im only asking for the right to believe something is wrong, based on the Bible. I base my beliefs on the picture Christ gives us of marriage, as well as Paul's writing in Romans.
Finally, I dont think christians are being persecuted in America at this point in time. After seeing what they do in Indonesia, China, Sudan, and Saudi Arabia, and knowing what they did in the USSR, I would hardly compare a heated discussion on the internet, or fights in high schools as full scale persecution.
Defining stupid ones as those who disagree with you?
Hundreds of Millions of people base thier life on the Bible. If you want to marginalize that then you may. You think I am wrong, and im not threatened by that.
I think youre a Theophobe. Imagine the implications if you believed in a God. Suddenly there is a purpose to life, and more than likely accountability. Scary stuff.
One of us is asking for intellectual freedom, another is asking for repression of beliefs. You would think that on slashdot of all places, freedom of ideas would be supported.
Slashdot Mirror
What if the circumstance is, you are George Bush.
How far do you want to take that? Butterfly Effect?
I can just see it now. "I demand to know the line of reasoning behind the desicion to order the senate's lunch deli platter from the grocery store and not the deli down the street. The extra work slowed down the grocery store lines as customers waited to get orders filled. This led to a glut of people waiting in line at the grocery store, and less parking spaces available since people were coming, but not leaving. The lot became full, and the other stores in the stip mall didnt have any parking, so a man picking up his take out from the chinese spot double parked. A cop stopped to put a ticket on the car. The man noticed this and a fight insued. That man got arrested for throwing chow mein at the police officer. The cop had to take the man to jail, which forced him off his usual route, so there was no one to notice a poor young girl getting harrased on the street, so I had to chase the attacker off and offered to give the girl a ride home. She was just giving me a kiss to say thank you. I swear honey thats how it happened! Those damn government workers not ordering from the Deli"
I already know that he's willing to defend Bush in a public forum, which makes him an idiot and closed-minded.
Do you really think evey bush support is an idiot? If that is the case, doesnt that make you closed minded?
I greatly disagreed with John Kerry as a candidate, and as a politician, and as an american. That being said, I COULD understand why people would vote for him. Without resorting to phrases like "ignorant bible-thumping tobacoo giants" or "intolerant, bigoted, hatemongers" can you think of a reason people voted for bush?
I think people voted for Kerry mainly because they disagreed with Bush's Foriegn policy, or did not like him personally. I think Kerry lost because he did not connect with voters, only jumped on issues... he made himself a challenger, not a candidate. People root for an underdog but they dont vote for him.
There, See? I discussed why people could vote for Kerry and I didnt even mention Frenchie-Communist, Wishy Washy, peacenik hippies.
The naked pile was the torture. I would choose naked pile over decapitation any day. Hell, people pay good money in some places for the naked pile.
True. Those Penguins are some free SOB's. Maybe thats why the linux mascot is a penguin.
I guess I should add i dont think "Bombing Run, Battle over Dresden" would be acceptable either. While D-Day was a massive undertaking, I dont think the germans should be proud of mowing down allied soldiers, nor should we be proud about firebombing a city. While the soldiers were noble, some of the tactics that may have been neccessary, should not be glorified. There is a nobleness to a soldier doing his duty... but sometimes the duty calls them to do things that history should not look back at with pride. I think its for this reason that the holocaust is barely even alluded to even in historically accurate video games.
"This game, obviously is different. I think its in poor taste and simply is trying to get shock attention to thier little cause. They are free to do this though, and have every right to"
See? I agree with you! Maybe I shouldnt have pursued this guys off topic response. Video games, guns, hand grenades and the like dont kill people. People kill people. The original poster said that he believed Americans were deprived of freedoms because we could not threaten the lives of our leadership without prosecution. I was simply responding to that.
The game is fine. I personally think its a cheap shot, but... oh well. Thats why *I* wont play it. It doesnt really bother me too much that it exists.
As far as libya.... what do you want? I am glad that they did what they did, for whatever reason. Those WMD programs will no longer harm the world. That is outstanding! In all honesty, what is the difference between bullying and diplomacy? In this case, they arent paying us tribute, forced to fight for us, or any of that.... they just dropped thier WMD Programs without a shot having to be fired. Thats how peace happens. Thats about the only way it happens. I would agree with you if we forced them into paying us "protection money" or something like that. I see now harm with them stopping WMD production though.
Youre right. I think they have a right to pursue whatever course of action they choose to, but know that the cost is heavy.
In my mind, its alot like pearl harbor. The Japanese military made a choice, and attacked a military base to start a war, hoping to knock us out of the Pacific early. In the end, they paid for that heavily. Its war, its part of life. I wish nuclear and atomic warheads had never been developed, but unfortunately that is the down side of science. It brings us power sometimes quicker than we can handle it.
It isnt in our saftey interests to have a (more than it already is) nuclear North Korea, despite how nice the alliteration sounds. Kim Jong Ill has a choice to make, either settle and make peace or go to war. It is pretty clear they want to go nuclear for the purpose of taking south korea carte blanche. If we want that to happen, we should act before they have the means, so maybe tokyo, seul, singapore and so on can stay on the map for a while longer.
Care to expand on your dismisal of an opinion?
They are too young for that sort of thing! Maybe when they are older
I have often thought about that too. Some games are memorials to the fallen, at least in my mind. It remembers them as heros. I do not think a game where you played a german gunning down troops at normandy would be appropriate.
the posters comment went beyond this, He said that we were not as free as our masters would have us believe. He said this regarding threats on the life of the president. This to imply that we arent allowed freedom of speech to make threats on other peoples lives. The game is protected speech in my mind. Its in poor taste and cheap in my mind, but it is within the developers rights. I just dont think a threat on a life is protected speech. Thankfully, the SCOTUS agrees with me
Also, as far as "good" people being killed... im sure there were good germans who died. Probably some poor iraqi farmers who joined the army for money to feed his family. Its far and few between, in my mind, that someone really deserves to die in war. I do think that soldiers are noble in thier sacrafice, and should be honored. Games like the medal of honor series do this to the best thier medium can allow. I do wonder how much this game honors kennedy.
Perhaps if the warren report is wrong and this game proves it, it does honor him. I just dont want to have this discussion 30 years from now with a 9/11 flight sim to disprove the commisions results.
I think you missed the point of what I was saying. The original poster took the debate outside of the game discussion. It can be argued that any true physics game involving military style machinery and munitions is a "threat". Obviously the US isnt bothered with this since they created Americas Army as an Army Simulation. Though, I do think there is a world of difference between simulating fighting in the army in defence of your country, and simulating being a real murderer shooting an unarmed man from yards away because you dont happen to like him. I suppose if you believe in moral relativism this is the same to you. I cant even understand that mindset.
The point of what I was trying to say was this, there are reasons that a sitting president should not be legally threatened. A president, mayor, plumber, or mom who is under threat of death is not free. The threat is the problem. You begin to act in a way as to not upset those who are threatening your life. Think Tienemen square, how many democratic associations sprang up after that. Threats of violence control people. Violence only kills people. Do you think we should be allowed to make public or private threats on the lives of other people?
This game, obviously is different. I think its in poor taste and simply is trying to get shock attention to thier little cause. They are free to do this though, and have every right to. What if Ted Kennedy came out and said "If those people release the game I will have them killed". Do you see how that threat could infringe on the freedom of the developers of the game? Laws against inciting violence are made for this reason. I realize we need wise judgement to discern between an extremist view which is protected, and a call to kill leadership... But a society that is completely free to call for the murder of someone is not free at all.
Well, I agree that the threat of violence shouldnt be taken lightly. Thats why, after 12 years of threats of violence, the US took action to carry out what the UN had tried and failed at for years. That is, of course, to insure that WMD were not in Iraq and that grevious atrocities were not committed. We carried out the threat made by the UN.
Also, either you missed my point, or I didnt explain myself well enough. I am simply saying that the threat of violence can control people. This is good in the instance of Iraq and the middle east. Because of Iraq, Middle Eastern countries know that they cannot play the same game with the UN that Saddam did. This is why Libya surrendered thier arsenal. We are letting the international approach take its time in Iran. The only reason they are in talks with other countries is because the are afraid of the massive US army on thier doorstep. We also need to take the same course of action with North Korea.
We have the strongest army in the world, so when dealing with rational people we should NOT have to use it. They should realize they cant win against us, and scrap the nukes. We arent asking them to raise a US flag or start eating hot dogs. We are simply assuring that those countries who openly hate us do not have the capacity to kill us. Its harder in the case of Jihadists, but I think in North Korea diplomacy could work.
My whole point is this, a valid threat of violence can control people. If someone uses this threat to control a rouge nation that has said they want us to burn in nuclear flames, then that is good. If someone uses that to control a government via threats of assasaination, that is a bad thing.
How is america less free than anywhere else?
We werent forced to vote for Bush, unlike some former dictatorships where voters WERE forced to the polls. Thank you for being an Anonymous Coward. As long as you dont believe in what you say enough to claim it, then your opinions wont go nowhere.
Um, Dude.
When does freedom of speech = freedom to threaten another human life? Do you think someone has the right to make a video game about killing you personally? What about someone you love?
Would you suggest that a society where threats on life are accepted and protected, would in fact be more free? That sort of system of intimidation would only sacrafice our freedom to those who have the greatest ability to end our lives.
Lets say some very rich and powerful person were to threaten the life of the president, and for the sake of argument, there is nothing illegal about making that threat. What you would be left with is a weakened presidency, perhaps more likely to act along the idealogical lines of the man who has threatened to take his life.
The intimidation that comes with a threat makes it just as serious as the actual act of murder. It is control based on whoever is strongest. A society free to threaten its leaders is not free, but merely bound to the will of the entity best equipped to make good on its word.
I gotta read these headlines more carefully. I always thought SPAM was popular BECAUSE of people using Hashish. I would lean more towards doritos but thats just me.
I checked your crummy website. Its about as conservative as ted kennedy. Here is what i found in about 13 seconds. A cover of thier magazine with Reagan and Bush saying "Can we stop presidents from lying" Did you know that the only president who ever was charged with perjury didnt even make it to the cover? How can you call yourself conservative and bash bush and reagan. Dont be afraid of being called a liberal, just dont be one. Here is a link to that cover
No conservative would endorse Kerry. Granted, Bush isnt the best conservative. If I was to endorse the MORE conservative of the two it would be Bush. If they endorsed no one, that would be understandable, but by endorsing Kerry they couldnt possibly be conservative. Lets remember Kerry is numero uno liberal in the senate.
Excellent response by the way. Dont bother posting responses to what ive said. Just a link...
>> The President lied about Iraq.
What did he lie about? WMD? If that is the case then you have made two points out of one just to make a longer list. I'll get to WMD when you refer to it.
>> Massive invasion of Iraq, illegal.
Such grandiose words. Would you have prefered a tiny invasion? At any rate, the UN approved serious consequences if Saddam didnt comply with us. The UN had thier opportunity to pursue inspectors, but that didnt work. Check Hans Blix's report. What do serious consequences mean if they dont mean war? Economic Sanctions? We already had done that for 12 years. Besides, we are a soverign nation. So was Iraq you say? Of course they were, thats why they had the right to say "screw you" to the UN and stonewall inspectors.
>> No WMDs. None since 1991.
So what was clinton bombing in 1998? Why did all the intelligence say there WERE WMD? How did bush convince Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Kofi, et all to go along with his scheme?
>> 100000 Iraqies dead, women and children mostly.
Women and children mostly? Im sure they were all handicapped children who were busy making birthday cards for thier fathers who worked hard to put food on the table. Please, spare me the bleeding heart "for the children" crap. Try this, the sanctions that your precious UN put on iraq killed an estimated 600k. Hows that for a statistic?
>> Over 1000 US Troops dead and toll is rising.
We are losing troops. Its a war, it is sad, that is why they need our support. But lets remember this is a WAR. People die in a war. Thats what war is. If we have lost our stomach to wage war then we are in a very bad place. I know our enemies havent given up on fighting, neither can we, or they will kill us.
>> US torturing civilians (for none existant WMDs?)
Document this? Are you talking about Abu Grab? Please... How many of them did we torture? Half of the things they did , leashes, panties on the head, what have you, can scarcely be refered to as torture. You pay good money to do things like that in some parts of this country. I remember when this started going on, the insurgents said "We will repay the americans what they have done" and proceeded to decapitate an american hostage. It shows the real evil here does it not? And we corrected our "abuses". People are getting in trouble for it, unlike the islamic fascists who reward people for such subhuman behavior.
>> Usama Bin Laden still around... laughing.
He is not laughing he is hiding. We will find him. Dont be so ignorant its bad for your health.
>> Americans are finding that it's now "legal" to be jailed without any representation, your home can be searched without a warrent, poverty groups have already been raided and any dissent is met with Gestapo like tactics - the Republican Convention in NY was a disgusting display of an arrogant disregard of peoples rights and freedoms.
The patriot act lets you search someones house without telling them right away. I support that. Maybe you think we should tell Muhammed Atta we are investigating him so he speeds up the attack. More over, what is a poverty group? Gestapo like tactics??? You have got to be kidding me. In Boston, those who didnt agree with the tolerant left were put in a cage! dont believe me? google it. It was in Yahoo Images. We republicans are trying to defend rights and freedoms, even your right to have your stupid opinions.
>> The Bush WH packed the entire Bin Laden family in the USA onto a plane the day after 9/11 and sent them home, without interrogation.
It wasnt the day after, it was the day of, and it wasnt Bush, it was richard clark. And Bin Laden's family has disowned him. God knows we couldnt search them, that would be racial profiling!
>> We've heard that the voting machines can be hacked by a 12 year old, anyone with brown skin will be picked up by the nearest police
Does/Should the X-Prize Foundation get federal funding for the efforts they are making towards space travel? Certainly NASA could learn a thing or two about budgets from these space explorers. I think perhaps it is a better investment for the government to fund private groups like this, considering the results of the state-run programs.
Maybe applying a buzzword to something is a good way to kill the movement, ie Metrosexual, Latin-Invasion (Musically, not immigration issues), etc.
I dont think Pro-Am has enough synergy to be a value-rich commodity.
I dont see what danger there is in a belief that the Bible is the word of God? Maybe if you took something out of context... But in context it is a book about what God has done for you, and how to relate to God. I think the Bible is fine, just dont add to it and youre all set.
As far as the science thing, Im not a scientist. I talked about this in another post. Most of my belief in God comes from personal experience. I believe that science has definitely not ruled out God as a creator, nor has it proven it. We cant know what happened for certain. It has to be taken by faith. I do believe it is blindly arrogant to deny a God philosophically.
Most people in the world believe in a god of some sort. The reason I believe there is only one true God is because of the fact that everyone disagrees on some major points, therefore cant all be right. Terrorists sincerely believe what they do brings them closer to God, I dont think they could be going to Heaven do you? I dont need you to believe it, you need you to believe it. But, you choose not to and thats ok. You were given free will by the God you dont believe in, and you have the right to make up your own mind.
Regarding Winter Solstice... Nothing about modern Christmas celebrations have anything to do with that. Even Santa Claus (St. Nicholas) has christian/catholic origins. Kids want to get presents presents (wisemen), sing christmas songs (St. Francis of Assisi), and eat candy canes (shaped to look like shepherd's staffs). I realize that solstice was christianized by Rome many many years ago. I dont think that negates anything. The traditions of christmas are part of a Christian heritage, but its celebration is not exclusively christian. If you want to say that public schools should only mention winter, and not Christmas, fine. It just adds to the PC shill that kids are being taught. Teach them about Christmas, Solstice, Hanukkah, Rammadan, go nuts. If we are going to celebrate the pagan holiday, why not celebrate all of them?
On homosexuality. I dont want to lynch anyone, I dont hate anyone. I just dont want kids, teenagers, adults, or churches having to give it a stamp of approval if they dont want to. They dont have to give me one, they have the right to think im a bigot. Before you link me with the people that killed Matthew Shepherd, im for equal rights politically. I personally think that churches or colleges (in the case of athiests) should issue marriage licences, and that the government should only issue civil unions. I think homosexuals should be allowed to get civil unions like anyone else, and that individual churches or colleges would decide how they define marriage. Marriage is a religious tradition that government shouldnt legislate. I wouldnt support my church issuing marriage certificates to homosexuals, but if another church believed differently thats fine with me. Im only asking for the right to believe something is wrong, based on the Bible. I base my beliefs on the picture Christ gives us of marriage, as well as Paul's writing in Romans.
Finally, I dont think christians are being persecuted in America at this point in time. After seeing what they do in Indonesia, China, Sudan, and Saudi Arabia, and knowing what they did in the USSR, I would hardly compare a heated discussion on the internet, or fights in high schools as full scale persecution.
No, I meant the second chipmonk. Dont get me wrong, I have no problem with alvin or simon.
Defining stupid ones as those who disagree with you?
Hundreds of Millions of people base thier life on the Bible. If you want to marginalize that then you may. You think I am wrong, and im not threatened by that.
I think youre a Theophobe. Imagine the implications if you believed in a God. Suddenly there is a purpose to life, and more than likely accountability. Scary stuff.
One of us is asking for intellectual freedom, another is asking for repression of beliefs. You would think that on slashdot of all places, freedom of ideas would be supported.