However, Christians read what is in the New Testament, where Jesus says to tear down the church of the Old Testament and rebuild it with new rules.
Not the American Fundie Christians. They basically take a few of the most evil passages from the old testament and the book of revelations and that's it.
That's the sole source for their blind frothing hatred of gays and freedom, even though their attitudes are entirely unChristian. Of course, the so-called "real" Christians do nothing about that either. All religions have their psycho contingents. Christianity and Islam are damn near identical in this respect (as well as most others)
I agree that the term Intelligent Design has been usurped by the Bible beaters, but it really didn't start out that way.
Yes, that is the exact way it started out. Do a search on "wedge method". You will find quotes from the founder of the movement discussing how they failed to get creationism into schools and so they would use ID as a wedge to shove their religion into schools.
All the scientificish trappings were added later for the purpose of pushing their agenda.
Those are the simple basic historical facts as stated by the people who started the movement as they were starting it.
Nice try, but you obviously know nothing about the subject *or* you are intentionally trying to deceive people which wouldn't be surprising as doing just that is the primary method of the ID movement.
Have you read any of the foundations of Intelligent Design?
Yes, I have.
It has nothing to do with motivations of a Creator or advocating Creationism.
Which is how I know for a fact that this is exactly what it has to do with. You are either completely deluded since you couldn't even be bothered to read the writings of the founders of the movement who clearly state that that is their entire goal, or you are lying through your teeth. Which is it?
I say show me specific examples of where this has been stated, that we are employing some 20th century economic incarnation of manifest destiny and you come back with some more bs you pulled out of your ass, then you call me a liar, then you claim to know exactly what a neo-con is, down to the bone.
I pointed out where those statements were made. I pulled nothing out of my ass, I pulled it directly from one of the primary neo-con position papers. I know what the neo-con's stated positions are because I've actually read them unlike yourself who doesn't even know what their positions are having not read their stated positions which the website I sent you to is the primary repository of.
You're so convinced that we're killing people in Iraq, not doing any good,
Now you're just making up more shit I didn't say. Typical of people holding your position. It's indefensible, so you rely on making up strawman arguments. My primary problem with the whole Iraq fiasco is the fundamental contempt for integrity that was displayed by this administration in their eagerness to implement their ivory tower intellectual plan for world domination.
That's the kind of shit I hear coming from liberals.
No, mostly that's the shit you hear coming out of the right wing hate machine and attributed to "Liberals". I know I didn't say what you're trying to pretend I did, so I have no reason to believe any of these other random screechings (Kanye West's personal nutjobism notwithstanding) have any basis in reality either.
Our economy is measured by our real assets, debt represents capital investment in America.
Which has what, exactly, to do with the international monetary market? When you just repeat arguments you hear from pundits you look really silly, you know that don't you?
National debt is represented as real assets in our homeland.
Absolutely not.
We are floating a tremendous amount of currency on nothing at all except the fact that the dollar is the reserve currency. I'm too lazy to look up the actual numbers right now, but the amount of outstanding "dollars" in the world exceeds the actual number of paper dollars by a tremendous amount (I want to say 4 times, but that could well be wrong). That's just fictional dollars versus paper dollars which completely ignores the number of paper dollars versus any inherent worth of said dollars.
When foreign countries hold on to dollars, then they are essentially out of circulation and our policy has been to essentially ignore them and just continue printing more dollars. Which has only worked so far due to the fact that the dollar is the reserve currency.
I don't know what connection you're trying to make with PNAC and the current administration,
Just read the membership list, it isn't a particularly deep point.
I as a neo-con, agree that we aught to be enforcing human rights all over the world, through military force.
Which has fuck all to due with the neo-con agenda. Human rights are something they greatly dislike for it gets in the way of their goals. Note their raft of violations. Note also their lack of any sort of action to promote human rights.
What is meant by promoting economic domination is not clear to me either, you haven't sited a particular instance of that being said.
What is meant is that they feel it is their right to economically *dominate* the world. Not compete fairly, not win through superior ideas but to use US military force to achieve their personal economic goals. Just read through everything, you'll find it. I mean you're trying to claim you support those people and describe yourself as a "neo-con" man, so either you have already read the entire site, or you're so crazy ignorant as to describe yourself as something that you don't even know what is.
Look at the facts in Iraq, we've probably saved more children from starvation and disease than the current death toll.
Wow, where are the facts that would back this up?
Things have taken a turn for better since we invaded.
This would be laughable if it weren't symptomatic of such an entirely diseased nature.
It's not clear what you're for and against, I think you are just full of irrational hatred.
I'm for the government staying the fuck out of my business. I'm against a government that makes up ridiculous lies and demonstrates a total lack of any integrity. I'm not the least bit irrational. You're the one making up nonsense about the people you're supporting when their own words prove you to be a liar. How is that rational exactly?
Well if it isn't Darby, the guy with the nutty sig.
At least it's not spam;-)
I've heard your Euro argument from a number of people, it must be all over the liberal blogs, eh?
I wouldn't know. It's been written up a number of times in a number of places over the last several years. You quite obviously haven't heard the argument based on the rest of your response since it isn't a simple question of the rise and fall of the dollar versus other currencies. It's the fact that the dollar is the world's reserve currency. This gives a tremendous advantage since we are able to float a lot of dollars since we don't expect to ever have to buy them back. If the Euro were to become the reserve currency, then people would be selling dollars to buy euros. Were it just a question of the dollar falling a bit, then it could be good, bad, or indifferent. It's a lot more than that though. The dollar's status is what allows us to run such a high trade deficit. It's also what allows us to borrow such huge amounts of money to finance our economy.
If the euro was to replace the dollar as the world's reserve currency, then we would suffer a tremendous economic hit. Basically, we'd have to pay back the tremendous deficit we've racked up with dollars that would be worth far less than they are now and with nobody wanting them anymore. Heck, China could collapse our currency at will given the amount they own. Obviously, it would hurt them as well, but that's how entangled we are and how reliant we are on the status of the dollar as the world's reserve.
Is this crash inevitable? Maybe, maybe not. It's certainly far more likely than that we can just keep borrowing and spending and it will all magically work out forever as has been our policy for a long time now.
Maybe you should actually read the arguments rather than just setting up strawmen.
Where the hell do you get these so-called FACTS, that's just stupid.
Wow, you are really and truly a deeply ignorant person, aren't you? I got that *fact* from their website where they stated back in 2000 exactly that as their motivation for invading Iraq if only there were some major attack on the US they could use as justification. So, the fact that you're trying to defend people even though you can't be bothered to read their own website demonstrates that you don't know crap about the situation and have no interest in learning. Don't let that stop you from calling anybody who actually does their research "stupid" though.
Seriously, it's people like you who treat our government like a sports event where you root for your favorite team for purely emotional reasons without taking even the most basic steps to educate yourself on the issues that prevent any sort of rational public discourse.
The fact that Iraq exports oil is not just a coincidence, it is not a reason for going to war but it WOULD explain why Iraq is so corrupt, that is the only correlation I, myself, can make between the Iraq war and oil.
Then perhaps you should do some actual investigation into it since, while I don't think it's the only reason, it is a major one. It's not as simple as "they have oil, let's go get it". One of the major reasons was that Iraq was trading oil in Euros. One of the primary things holding our economy afloat right now is the fact that oil is traded in dollars. Were oil to be traded in Euros instead of dollars, our economy would tank pretty much immediately. So there's that. There's also the fact that the neo-con agenda has involved invading Iraq as a means to promote American economic domination.
Those are pretty much the only reasons we are in Iraq right now.
It is clear that you don't know the difference between a mainstream Republican and a christian fundamentalist.
It is clear that you haven't paid even the most trivial attention to anything that's happened in America for the last 30 or so years if you think that there is a difference.
A mainstream Republican is a fundie. A Republican who is not a fundie, isn't mainstream. They are at the fringes of the party currently. In fact, if you don't toe the line on every issue, you are labeled a "RINO" and driven out of the party by the extremist fundies who are the mainstream of the Republican party.
I'm an agnostic libertarian who votes Republican, does that make me a "fundy" as well?
No, although it does demonstrate support for them. What it really does is make it quite an object of curiousity as to what it is that you actually expect to get out of voting Republican that is in line with your stated views when it is a fundamentalist party that believes in big oppressive government. It's really hard to imagine what could possibly make you think that you have anything in common when what you claim to support is what the Republican party is most opposed to.
Not because of (really, more despite) the positions inspired by relgiosity (which I abhor), but because of at least a stronger inclination towards a more hands-off functioning of the markets, businesses, and personal lives.
It always stuns and amazes me when I hear somebody trotting out this ancient old line about why they vote Republican. It's like you have been trapped in a bubble for the last 30 years or so. It's been at least that long since the Republicans were even better than the Democrats on any of those issues, let alone actually standing up for them at all.
Republicans hands off on personal lives?!? That is complete insanity. Hands off on markets and businesses?!? The Republicans are number one on corporate welfare.
So, you disagree with their theocratic issues, but vote for them nonetheless because once upon a time they actually believed in other things which you agree with even though it's been decades since there was any actual support for those ideas within the party. Sorry, but theocracy is pretty much the only thing you listed which you can get from the Republican party. I wonder how long it will be before people actually start looking at their beliefs and see which party acts most on them rather than spouting old dead lies about what the party supports. It sure takes people a long time.
Yes, both parties love spending tax dollars... but at least the red-staters are at least a little more squeamish about it than their more lefty-socialist counterparts.
This just shows a real lack of understanding. You got this *exactly* wrong. The red states are largely the recipient of welfare by was of various subsidies. The majority of the red states pay no net federal taxes whatsoever. In fact, they pay negative taxes. The blue states are the ones subsidizing the welfare of the red states. Try and suggest eliminating farm subsidies and the like. You will hear more screeching than you ever have from the red staters whining about how they deserve to keep getting their socialist welfare checks from the productive areas of the country.
It's this type of complete lack of understanding of the basic structure of the country that leads to so many conflicts.
The blue states are generally productive capitalist states. The red states are generally negatively productive socialist welfare states.
The fact that your average red stater isn't even aware of this basic fact is a big part of why they keep voting against their own best interests.
But despite the "we don't think hunters should be penalized" rhetoric, much of the left that's "in control" (as you put it) of their agenda in that area would see even hunting weapons confiscated.
There might be a few people actually pushing that agenda, but it's hardly a major issue for those "in control" NRA propaganda to the contrary. Obviously, there isn't as much need to pay those NRA dues if there isn't much of a threat though.
I think there are many, many more people like me out there than you'd guess. Leaning Republican on many fiscal/justice/defense type issues, and just rolling our eyes on the noisy social issues.
You mean many people who think that because 30 years ago the Republicans talked up a lot about things that the current party has nothing but contempt for, that somehow voting Republican will get them these things?!?
Yeah, there are a lot of them, and that is a crying shame that they can't figure out that "what I say and what I do" are 2 different things even after 30+ years of proof.
I prefer to be as peacable as possible, and find that life is much easier that way.
As do I. It's not always possible though.
Granted, if someone had a clear intent to KILL or cause GREVIOUS harm, and was completely closed to a peacable solution, then yes, I would fight, maim, kill. But ONLY if the situation is closed to a peacable, and REASONABLE solution.
If somebody I don't know lays their hands on me in a violent fashion, then at that point I am already involved in violence against my will. Wanting not to be is no longer an option.
Being detained by a security guard is NOT kidnapping. It is them showing legitimate force, within their rights, to detain you.
I believe the specific topic is the massive amount of cases where this isn't legitimate.
So, according to your logic, we should empty the prisons, right?
Well, largely, yes we should. The majority of the people are in there for non violent drug offenses which I am unaware of any legitimate arguments for which haven't been torn to shreds completely.
These people are being detained, pardon, kidnapped, against their will. And thus have the right to kill others?
It depends really. If they're in prison for rape, murder, or similar violent crimes, *and* they actually did it, then they belong there. If they are in prison for non violent, victimless crimes, then could you possibly blame a normal, sane, decent person for doing anything they have to do to get out of captivity?
I mean, you can argue all day about how occasionally the justice system will mess up and that's just something we all have to deal with, but put yourself in the place of somebody looking at 20 years in a cage *for nothing they did and nothing they had any possibility of control over*.
I'm sorry, but at that point, every guard in that prison *is* acting to keep me locked in a cage for nothing. Why should their lives have any value whatsoever to me? They have stolen my life and there is no possibility of *ever* getting it back no matter what happens in the future.
No, that is an absurd statement, since your infringment on their rights (and theft of total freedom, in the most fundamental way) is exponentially greater than your inconvenience.
You're failing to take into account responsibility, culpability, initiation of force, whatever you want to call it. I did nothing at which point I was attacked completely without any sort of provocation whatsoever. That's where I see a fundamental difference. If somebody else attacks me out of the blue, then how can I possibly know what else they have planned for me?!? They have already demonstrated a severely irrational nature and a total disregard for my rights. At that point they already surrendered any rights they had. Unless everybody has those rights, then nobody does.
Since YOU voted for them (if not, shut the hell up, you have no say, period). You gave them power. Thus you are culpable for their use of power. Thats the only good thing about democracy, is spreads blaim to where it belongs, in the hands of the people. Your taking part in the system makes you as culpable as any other agent within the system.
Well, I don't believe that anybody I have ever voted for has ever won. I don't vote for either of the major parties, so No, I haven't given anybody any power.
Stop being an extremist. Idealism leads to atrocity. People always come first, even if you disagree with them.
I'm not an extremist, I'm a realist. People come first until they go out of their way to attack me, that's the point I think you're failing to get. I'm not talking about innocent people minding their own business. I'm talking about people who attack me without provocation. The only reasonable assumption that will keep me and my family alive is that if they are willing to step so far outside the realm of decent, peacable, behavior, then it isn't much more
Damn, dude. Kennedy is *such* an easy target and the best you can come up with are "the Iraq war being "made up in Texas," and that the Iraqi torture chambers... were reopened under new management,"
I hate to break it to you but those are, as we now know absolutely, statements of fact. Seriously, the guy says probably ten retarded things a day and the *best* you can come up with is where his statements are: 1) Correct 2) Unarguably pro-freedom and anti-fascist
A Republican who doesn't like at least a little bit of what ACLU stands for isn't a real Republican.
I don't think that word means what you think it means. The ACLU fights for civil liberties. Republicans fight tooth and nail against civil liberties. You can't be a real Republican unless you despise everything the ACLU stands for. Otherwise, you're just a "RINO" since you're not toeing the party line.
Or are you using some 50 year old outdated and totally inappropriate definition of Republican?!? Back when they claimed to stand for small government, fiscal responsibility, isolationism, and individual liberty. The Republican party flipped 180 on all of those positions many decades ago, and those are the things they fight hardest against.
Being arrested or detained by a guard doesn't qualify, sorry. The least amount of force is to submit, and then exert force (via legal action) after the fact.
I disagree. Unless you have a great deal of cash to throw away on some farcical idea of "justice", that is an entirely useless thing to do. If anybody attempts to use force against me at any time in any way, then the only safe assumption that I can make is that they are attempting to murder me. You would have to be crazy to make any other assumption.
If some stranger attempts illegally to physically restrain me against my will, then I see nothing wrong with their death. In fact, their exit from the world would be an entirely good thing.
So, using the courts is generally only a valid tactic for the very wealthy or those looking to make shady contingency based lawyers rich. It isn't an option for regular people.
An evil sadistic scumbag who thinks that it is their right to take another innocent person hostage does deserve to die. They through their own willful actions have given up *any* rights they ever had by transgressing on those of others. If everybody isn't free, then nobody is. They have chosen to put themselves in a position of power over others, and with this greater privilege comes greater responsibility. It is completely unworkable and irrational to allow people any sort of power over others without a vast increase in penalty for abusing that authority.
It's just like congress. They should be liable for 300 Million times the penalty for *any* crime they commit while in office since any crime they commit is a crime against every citizen.
The death star runs Gentoo, which is why they were behind schedule building it.
Hah! I just put gentoo on my brand spanking new Opteron 175 machine last night and a full clean kernel compile took just under 4 minutes. Not that it discounts your joke or anything. I'm just stoked with my new computer;-)
I was referring to GWB only because he is in office. What I am talking about is basic emotional response to a sudden catastrophic vulnerability exploit. Your response is seemingly intended as flamebait/troll, as I took pains to point out that anyone in the Administration of the day would be freaked and reeling from something like this.
My point was that your point doesn't fly with the current administration since there is nothing better that could possibly have happened for their benefit, so it is not true that anyone would be reeling since they clearly weren't as evidenced by our current presence in Iraq.
How you could possibly consider a statement of fact backed up by supporting documentation to be either flamebait or troll is beyond me, but to each their own.
It's about due process vs. the responsibility to protect the USA from terrorist attacks. You guys don't seem to be interested in the latter though.
Which is a lie as you know fully well. What decent Americans (i.e. not cowards such as yourself) are interested in is living in a free country and not giving in to the terrorists. You on the other hand have surrendered unconditionally to the terrorists with your cowardly piss all our rights away to protect us oh please mommy protect us from the evil boogie men.
Of course there is absolutely zero evidence that anything Bush has done has had any effect on preventing terrrorism or even that that is the intent.
If I have the responsibility to protect the USA, I'm going to do what I can to accomplish that, right up to (but not over) the edge of what I can do legally.
And what exactly does that have to do with anything Bush has done during his entire time in office?!?
Sorry, but I am not a coward. I'll take freedom and the risk inherent to it over cowardice and a laughable belief that you're being protected by your nanny state fascist tactics, but that's just the fundamental difference between us.
If you want to argue against something Bush or any other leader does, that's fine. But using the Nazis is deliberately inflamatory and should be considered "flamebait", in my opinion.
Well, then you're an idiot IMNSHO. When there are valid parallels to draw, then they should be drawn. How the fuck else do you learn from history if you aren't allowed to talk of such things?!? Seriously WTF. The Nazis did a lot of bad crap. Killing the Jews was only one of them. Taking your approach allows people to get away with anything as long as they don't kill Jews. Oh no, we certainly don't want to point out fascism that doesn't involve genocide it's too scary. Much easier to just bury your head in the sand.
Let's look at this from GWB's Administration's point of view (not getting sidetracked by who is in office- bear with me): you (as in current administration) are in charge of and responsible for the security/well being of the nation....suddenly there are FREAKIN' airliners (full of your people no less) being used as "guided missles" against your cities and especially the Pentagon!
You're leaving out a lot of the administration's perspective though. It's critical to keep in mind at all times when thinking about these people that their number one priority since even before the 2000 election was to find an excuse to invade Iraq no matter the consequences. They knew full well that they wouldn't be able to convince the American people to do it. In fact they stated flat out *in their own words* that they needed for some sort of "Pearl harbor" event to happen for them to get away with manipulating America into invading Iraq. They still have it all up on their website
So while there is no reason to believe they were involved in the attacks, it is an absolute fact that they were overjoyed when it happened and that they went into overdrive to spin it as a cause to invade Iraq, who was uninvolved, as they had planned for years. So, while they probably were surprised the day it happened, they already had a contingency plan whose sole requirement to put into affect was the attacks.
You really do need to read up on the people running your country if you really want to have any sort of rational perspective on them.
If a dem was doing this, for hte same reasons, I would have no problem with it because I agree with the POLICY, not necessarily the President.
Then may I kindly suggest that you move somewhere where people share your beliefs like North Korea? Seriously, if you're too cowardly to live in a free country, how about *you* move to a country that shares your values and lack of courage and integrity? Why do you choose to try and fuck things up for the people who live here becasue they actually like freedom and have the courage to live with it, rather than just going to live among your kind?!?
That doesn't automatically make them bad laws, nor dows it automaticlally mean the government will misbehave in that manner.
Well, if you totally ignore the fact that history demonstrates conclusively that it *always* happens. So, yes, there is a nonzero possibility that they won't misbehave. It's a completely worthless point to make though, since the odds of them not abusing their power are laughably small.
Slashdot Mirror
However, Christians read what is in the New Testament, where Jesus says to tear down the church of the Old Testament and rebuild it with new rules.
Not the American Fundie Christians. They basically take a few of the most evil passages from the old testament and the book of revelations and that's it.
That's the sole source for their blind frothing hatred of gays and freedom, even though their attitudes are entirely unChristian. Of course, the so-called "real" Christians do nothing about that either. All religions have their psycho contingents. Christianity and Islam are damn near identical in this respect (as well as most others)
So where are the demonstrations by the rest of them? Why are they silent?
The same place that the demonstrations by Christians against the crazed hate mongering fundies are. The same reason they are silent.
I don't have the answer to that one either, but the answer is the same.
I agree that the term Intelligent Design has been usurped by the Bible beaters, but it really didn't start out that way.
Yes, that is the exact way it started out. Do a search on "wedge method". You will find quotes from the founder of the movement discussing how they failed to get creationism into schools and so they would use ID as a wedge to shove their religion into schools.
All the scientificish trappings were added later for the purpose of pushing their agenda.
Those are the simple basic historical facts as stated by the people who started the movement as they were starting it.
Nice try, but you obviously know nothing about the subject *or* you are intentionally trying to deceive people which wouldn't be surprising as doing just that is the primary method of the ID movement.
Have you read any of the foundations of Intelligent Design?
Yes, I have.
It has nothing to do with motivations of a Creator or advocating Creationism.
Which is how I know for a fact that this is exactly what it has to do with.
You are either completely deluded since you couldn't even be bothered to read the writings of the founders of the movement who clearly state that that is their entire goal, or you are lying through your teeth.
Which is it?
What happened to Karl Rove and Dick Cheney running everything?
They're on the list too.
What could possibly make you think that Wikipedia is a better source than the actual people whose movement it is is beyond me though.
I say show me specific examples of where this has been stated, that we are employing some 20th century economic incarnation of manifest destiny and you come back with some more bs you pulled out of your ass, then you call me a liar, then you claim to know exactly what a neo-con is, down to the bone.
I pointed out where those statements were made. I pulled nothing out of my ass, I pulled it directly from one of the primary neo-con position papers. I know what the neo-con's stated positions are because I've actually read them unlike yourself who doesn't even know what their positions are having not read their stated positions which the website I sent you to is the primary repository of.
You're so convinced that we're killing people in Iraq, not doing any good,
Now you're just making up more shit I didn't say. Typical of people holding your position. It's indefensible, so you rely on making up strawman arguments. My primary problem with the whole Iraq fiasco is the fundamental contempt for integrity that was displayed by this administration in their eagerness to implement their ivory tower intellectual plan for world domination.
That's the kind of shit I hear coming from liberals.
No, mostly that's the shit you hear coming out of the right wing hate machine and attributed to "Liberals". I know I didn't say what you're trying to pretend I did, so I have no reason to believe any of these other random screechings (Kanye West's personal nutjobism notwithstanding) have any basis in reality either.
Our economy is measured by our real assets, debt represents capital investment in America.
Which has what, exactly, to do with the international monetary market?
When you just repeat arguments you hear from pundits you look really silly, you know that don't you?
National debt is represented as real assets in our homeland.
Absolutely not.
We are floating a tremendous amount of currency on nothing at all except the fact that the dollar is the reserve currency. I'm too lazy to look up the actual numbers right now, but the amount of outstanding "dollars" in the world exceeds the actual number of paper dollars by a tremendous amount (I want to say 4 times, but that could well be wrong). That's just fictional dollars versus paper dollars which completely ignores the number of paper dollars versus any inherent worth of said dollars.
When foreign countries hold on to dollars, then they are essentially out of circulation and our policy has been to essentially ignore them and just continue printing more dollars. Which has only worked so far due to the fact that the dollar is the reserve currency.
I don't know what connection you're trying to make with PNAC and the current administration,
Just read the membership list, it isn't a particularly deep point.
I as a neo-con, agree that we aught to be enforcing human rights all over the world, through military force.
Which has fuck all to due with the neo-con agenda. Human rights are something they greatly dislike for it gets in the way of their goals. Note their raft of violations. Note also their lack of any sort of action to promote human rights.
What is meant by promoting economic domination is not clear to me either, you haven't sited a particular instance of that being said.
What is meant is that they feel it is their right to economically *dominate* the world. Not compete fairly, not win through superior ideas but to use US military force to achieve their personal economic goals.
Just read through everything, you'll find it. I mean you're trying to claim you support those people and describe yourself as a "neo-con" man, so either you have already read the entire site, or you're so crazy ignorant as to describe yourself as something that you don't even know what is.
Look at the facts in Iraq, we've probably saved more children from starvation and disease than the current death toll.
Wow, where are the facts that would back this up?
Things have taken a turn for better since we invaded.
This would be laughable if it weren't symptomatic of such an entirely diseased nature.
It's not clear what you're for and against, I think you are just full of irrational hatred.
I'm for the government staying the fuck out of my business. I'm against a government that makes up ridiculous lies and demonstrates a total lack of any integrity.
I'm not the least bit irrational.
You're the one making up nonsense about the people you're supporting when their own words prove you to be a liar. How is that rational exactly?
WTF is a "toaster-face"?!?
Well if it isn't Darby, the guy with the nutty sig.
;-)
At least it's not spam
I've heard your Euro argument from a number of people, it must be all over the liberal blogs, eh?
I wouldn't know. It's been written up a number of times in a number of places over the last several years. You quite obviously haven't heard the argument based on the rest of your response since it isn't a simple question of the rise and fall of the dollar versus other currencies. It's the fact that the dollar is the world's reserve currency. This gives a tremendous advantage since we are able to float a lot of dollars since we don't expect to ever have to buy them back. If the Euro were to become the reserve currency, then people would be selling dollars to buy euros. Were it just a question of the dollar falling a bit, then it could be good, bad, or indifferent. It's a lot more than that though. The dollar's status is what allows us to run such a high trade deficit. It's also what allows us to borrow such huge amounts of money to finance our economy.
If the euro was to replace the dollar as the world's reserve currency, then we would suffer a tremendous economic hit. Basically, we'd have to pay back the tremendous deficit we've racked up with dollars that would be worth far less than they are now and with nobody wanting them anymore. Heck, China could collapse our currency at will given the amount they own. Obviously, it would hurt them as well, but that's how entangled we are and how reliant we are on the status of the dollar as the world's reserve.
Is this crash inevitable? Maybe, maybe not. It's certainly far more likely than that we can just keep borrowing and spending and it will all magically work out forever as has been our policy for a long time now.
Maybe you should actually read the arguments rather than just setting up strawmen.
Where the hell do you get these so-called FACTS, that's just stupid.
Wow, you are really and truly a deeply ignorant person, aren't you?
I got that *fact* from their website where they stated back in 2000 exactly that as their motivation for invading Iraq if only there were some major attack on the US they could use as justification.
So, the fact that you're trying to defend people even though you can't be bothered to read their own website demonstrates that you don't know crap about the situation and have no interest in learning. Don't let that stop you from calling anybody who actually does their research "stupid" though.
Seriously, it's people like you who treat our government like a sports event where you root for your favorite team for purely emotional reasons without taking even the most basic steps to educate yourself on the issues that prevent any sort of rational public discourse.
The fact that Iraq exports oil is not just a coincidence, it is not a reason for going to war but it WOULD explain why Iraq is so corrupt, that is the only correlation I, myself, can make between the Iraq war and oil.
Then perhaps you should do some actual investigation into it since, while I don't think it's the only reason, it is a major one.
It's not as simple as "they have oil, let's go get it". One of the major reasons was that Iraq was trading oil in Euros. One of the primary things holding our economy afloat right now is the fact that oil is traded in dollars. Were oil to be traded in Euros instead of dollars, our economy would tank pretty much immediately.
So there's that. There's also the fact that the neo-con agenda has involved invading Iraq as a means to promote American economic domination.
Those are pretty much the only reasons we are in Iraq right now.
I don't know how I ever got by without this load of flotsam in the past.
I hate to break it to you, but it's a load of jetsam.
Heretic.
It is clear that you don't know the difference between a mainstream Republican and a christian fundamentalist.
It is clear that you haven't paid even the most trivial attention to anything that's happened in America for the last 30 or so years if you think that there is a difference.
A mainstream Republican is a fundie.
A Republican who is not a fundie, isn't mainstream. They are at the fringes of the party currently. In fact, if you don't toe the line on every issue, you are labeled a "RINO" and driven out of the party by the extremist fundies who are the mainstream of the Republican party.
I'm an agnostic libertarian who votes Republican, does that make me a "fundy" as well?
No, although it does demonstrate support for them.
What it really does is make it quite an object of curiousity as to what it is that you actually expect to get out of voting Republican that is in line with your stated views when it is a fundamentalist party that believes in big oppressive government. It's really hard to imagine what could possibly make you think that you have anything in common when what you claim to support is what the Republican party is most opposed to.
Not because of (really, more despite) the positions inspired by relgiosity (which I abhor), but because of at least a stronger inclination towards a more hands-off functioning of the markets, businesses, and personal lives.
It always stuns and amazes me when I hear somebody trotting out this ancient old line about why they vote Republican. It's like you have been trapped in a bubble for the last 30 years or so. It's been at least that long since the Republicans were even better than the Democrats on any of those issues, let alone actually standing up for them at all.
Republicans hands off on personal lives?!? That is complete insanity.
Hands off on markets and businesses?!? The Republicans are number one on corporate welfare.
So, you disagree with their theocratic issues, but vote for them nonetheless because once upon a time they actually believed in other things which you agree with even though it's been decades since there was any actual support for those ideas within the party. Sorry, but theocracy is pretty much the only thing you listed which you can get from the Republican party.
I wonder how long it will be before people actually start looking at their beliefs and see which party acts most on them rather than spouting old dead lies about what the party supports. It sure takes people a long time.
Yes, both parties love spending tax dollars... but at least the red-staters are at least a little more squeamish about it than their more lefty-socialist counterparts.
This just shows a real lack of understanding. You got this *exactly* wrong.
The red states are largely the recipient of welfare by was of various subsidies. The majority of the red states pay no net federal taxes whatsoever. In fact, they pay negative taxes. The blue states are the ones subsidizing the welfare of the red states. Try and suggest eliminating farm subsidies and the like. You will hear more screeching than you ever have from the red staters whining about how they deserve to keep getting their socialist welfare checks from the productive areas of the country.
It's this type of complete lack of understanding of the basic structure of the country that leads to so many conflicts.
The blue states are generally productive capitalist states.
The red states are generally negatively productive socialist welfare states.
The fact that your average red stater isn't even aware of this basic fact is a big part of why they keep voting against their own best interests.
But despite the "we don't think hunters should be penalized" rhetoric, much of the left that's "in control" (as you put it) of their agenda in that area would see even hunting weapons confiscated.
There might be a few people actually pushing that agenda, but it's hardly a major issue for those "in control" NRA propaganda to the contrary. Obviously, there isn't as much need to pay those NRA dues if there isn't much of a threat though.
I think there are many, many more people like me out there than you'd guess. Leaning Republican on many fiscal/justice/defense type issues, and just rolling our eyes on the noisy social issues.
You mean many people who think that because 30 years ago the Republicans talked up a lot about things that the current party has nothing but contempt for, that somehow voting Republican will get them these things?!?
Yeah, there are a lot of them, and that is a crying shame that they can't figure out that "what I say and what I do" are 2 different things even after 30+ years of proof.
Wow, violent aren't we?
No, I'm not really.
I prefer to be as peacable as possible, and find that life is much easier that way.
As do I.
It's not always possible though.
Granted, if someone had a clear intent to KILL or cause GREVIOUS harm, and was completely closed to a peacable solution, then yes, I would fight, maim, kill. But ONLY if the situation is closed to a peacable, and REASONABLE solution.
If somebody I don't know lays their hands on me in a violent fashion, then at that point I am already involved in violence against my will. Wanting not to be is no longer an option.
Being detained by a security guard is NOT kidnapping. It is them showing legitimate force, within their rights, to detain you.
I believe the specific topic is the massive amount of cases where this isn't legitimate.
So, according to your logic, we should empty the prisons, right?
Well, largely, yes we should. The majority of the people are in there for non violent drug offenses which I am unaware of any legitimate arguments for which haven't been torn to shreds completely.
These people are being detained, pardon, kidnapped, against their will. And thus have the right to kill others?
It depends really. If they're in prison for rape, murder, or similar violent crimes, *and* they actually did it, then they belong there. If they are in prison for non violent, victimless crimes, then could you possibly blame a normal, sane, decent person for doing anything they have to do to get out of captivity?
I mean, you can argue all day about how occasionally the justice system will mess up and that's just something we all have to deal with, but put yourself in the place of somebody looking at 20 years in a cage *for nothing they did and nothing they had any possibility of control over*.
I'm sorry, but at that point, every guard in that prison *is* acting to keep me locked in a cage for nothing. Why should their lives have any value whatsoever to me? They have stolen my life and there is no possibility of *ever* getting it back no matter what happens in the future.
No, that is an absurd statement, since your infringment on their rights (and theft of total freedom, in the most fundamental way) is exponentially greater than your inconvenience.
You're failing to take into account responsibility, culpability, initiation of force, whatever you want to call it. I did nothing at which point I was attacked completely without any sort of provocation whatsoever. That's where I see a fundamental difference. If somebody else attacks me out of the blue, then how can I possibly know what else they have planned for me?!? They have already demonstrated a severely irrational nature and a total disregard for my rights. At that point they already surrendered any rights they had. Unless everybody has those rights, then nobody does.
Since YOU voted for them (if not, shut the hell up, you have no say, period). You gave them power. Thus you are culpable for their use of power. Thats the only good thing about democracy, is spreads blaim to where it belongs, in the hands of the people. Your taking part in the system makes you as culpable as any other agent within the system.
Well, I don't believe that anybody I have ever voted for has ever won. I don't vote for either of the major parties, so No, I haven't given anybody any power.
Stop being an extremist. Idealism leads to atrocity. People always come first, even if you disagree with them.
I'm not an extremist, I'm a realist. People come first until they go out of their way to attack me, that's the point I think you're failing to get. I'm not talking about innocent people minding their own business. I'm talking about people who attack me without provocation. The only reasonable assumption that will keep me and my family alive is that if they are willing to step so far outside the realm of decent, peacable, behavior, then it isn't much more
Damn, dude. Kennedy is *such* an easy target and the best you can come up with are "the Iraq war being "made up in Texas," and that the Iraqi torture chambers... were reopened under new management,"
I hate to break it to you but those are, as we now know absolutely, statements of fact.
Seriously, the guy says probably ten retarded things a day and the *best* you can come up with is where his statements are:
1) Correct
2) Unarguably pro-freedom and anti-fascist
WTF?!?
A Republican who doesn't like at least a little bit of what ACLU stands for isn't a real Republican.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
The ACLU fights for civil liberties. Republicans fight tooth and nail against civil liberties.
You can't be a real Republican unless you despise everything the ACLU stands for. Otherwise, you're just a "RINO" since you're not toeing the party line.
Or are you using some 50 year old outdated and totally inappropriate definition of Republican?!? Back when they claimed to stand for small government, fiscal responsibility, isolationism, and individual liberty. The Republican party flipped 180 on all of those positions many decades ago, and those are the things they fight hardest against.
Being arrested or detained by a guard doesn't qualify, sorry. The least amount of force is to submit, and then exert force (via legal action) after the fact.
I disagree.
Unless you have a great deal of cash to throw away on some farcical idea of "justice", that is an entirely useless thing to do.
If anybody attempts to use force against me at any time in any way, then the only safe assumption that I can make is that they are attempting to murder me.
You would have to be crazy to make any other assumption.
If some stranger attempts illegally to physically restrain me against my will, then I see nothing wrong with their death. In fact, their exit from the world would be an entirely good thing.
So, using the courts is generally only a valid tactic for the very wealthy or those looking to make shady contingency based lawyers rich. It isn't an option for regular people.
An evil sadistic scumbag who thinks that it is their right to take another innocent person hostage does deserve to die. They through their own willful actions have given up *any* rights they ever had by transgressing on those of others. If everybody isn't free, then nobody is.
They have chosen to put themselves in a position of power over others, and with this greater privilege comes greater responsibility. It is completely unworkable and irrational to allow people any sort of power over others without a vast increase in penalty for abusing that authority.
It's just like congress. They should be liable for 300 Million times the penalty for *any* crime they commit while in office since any crime they commit is a crime against every citizen.
If you really a fun portrayal of this sort of thing, watch the evade-the-British-captors scene in the 1995 version of Rob Roy [imdb.com],
Or for another quite amusing portrayal, you could read this
Being a dog owner, you might a real kick out of it.
The death star runs Gentoo, which is why they were behind schedule building it.
;-)
Hah!
I just put gentoo on my brand spanking new Opteron 175 machine last night and a full clean kernel compile took just under 4 minutes. Not that it discounts your joke or anything. I'm just stoked with my new computer
I was referring to GWB only because he is in office. What I am talking about is basic emotional response to a sudden catastrophic vulnerability exploit. Your response is seemingly intended as flamebait/troll, as I took pains to point out that anyone in the Administration of the day would be freaked and reeling from something like this.
My point was that your point doesn't fly with the current administration since there is nothing better that could possibly have happened for their benefit, so it is not true that anyone would be reeling since they clearly weren't as evidenced by our current presence in Iraq.
How you could possibly consider a statement of fact backed up by supporting documentation to be either flamebait or troll is beyond me, but to each their own.
It's about due process vs. the responsibility to protect the USA from terrorist attacks. You guys don't seem to be interested in the latter though.
Which is a lie as you know fully well. What decent Americans (i.e. not cowards such as yourself) are interested in is living in a free country and not giving in to the terrorists.
You on the other hand have surrendered unconditionally to the terrorists with your cowardly piss all our rights away to protect us oh please mommy protect us from the evil boogie men.
Of course there is absolutely zero evidence that anything Bush has done has had any effect on preventing terrrorism or even that that is the intent.
If I have the responsibility to protect the USA, I'm going to do what I can to accomplish that, right up to (but not over) the edge of what I can do legally.
And what exactly does that have to do with anything Bush has done during his entire time in office?!?
Sorry, but I am not a coward. I'll take freedom and the risk inherent to it over cowardice and a laughable belief that you're being protected by your nanny state fascist tactics, but that's just the fundamental difference between us.
If you want to argue against something Bush or any other leader does, that's fine. But using the Nazis is deliberately inflamatory and should be considered "flamebait", in my opinion.
Well, then you're an idiot IMNSHO.
When there are valid parallels to draw, then they should be drawn. How the fuck else do you learn from history if you aren't allowed to talk of such things?!?
Seriously WTF.
The Nazis did a lot of bad crap. Killing the Jews was only one of them. Taking your approach allows people to get away with anything as long as they don't kill Jews.
Oh no, we certainly don't want to point out fascism that doesn't involve genocide it's too scary. Much easier to just bury your head in the sand.
Let's look at this from GWB's Administration's point of view (not getting sidetracked by who is in office- bear with me): you (as in current administration) are in charge of and responsible for the security/well being of the nation....suddenly there are FREAKIN' airliners (full of your people no less) being used as "guided missles" against your cities and especially the Pentagon!
You're leaving out a lot of the administration's perspective though.
It's critical to keep in mind at all times when thinking about these people that their number one priority since even before the 2000 election was to find an excuse to invade Iraq no matter the consequences. They knew full well that they wouldn't be able to convince the American people to do it. In fact they stated flat out *in their own words* that they needed for some sort of "Pearl harbor" event to happen for them to get away with manipulating America into invading Iraq.
They still have it all up on their website
So while there is no reason to believe they were involved in the attacks, it is an absolute fact that they were overjoyed when it happened and that they went into overdrive to spin it as a cause to invade Iraq, who was uninvolved, as they had planned for years.
So, while they probably were surprised the day it happened, they already had a contingency plan whose sole requirement to put into affect was the attacks.
You really do need to read up on the people running your country if you really want to have any sort of rational perspective on them.
If a dem was doing this, for hte same reasons, I would have no problem with it because I agree with the POLICY, not necessarily the President.
Then may I kindly suggest that you move somewhere where people share your beliefs like North Korea? Seriously, if you're too cowardly to live in a free country, how about *you* move to a country that shares your values and lack of courage and integrity? Why do you choose to try and fuck things up for the people who live here becasue they actually like freedom and have the courage to live with it, rather than just going to live among your kind?!?
That doesn't automatically make them bad laws, nor dows it automaticlally mean the government will misbehave in that manner.
Well, if you totally ignore the fact that history demonstrates conclusively that it *always* happens.
So, yes, there is a nonzero possibility that they won't misbehave. It's a completely worthless point to make though, since the odds of them not abusing their power are laughably small.