CommanderJohnson

quote:Originally posted by Charles Lindsey: Never trust a Gammulan. Now the Insurgents on the other hand....At least WE don't backstab our own race like some *couINSURGENTSgh*

quote:Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: ps: Friez, if you don't break that up into paragraphs, I swear I'm gonna delete it. Whats with you? How MANY times do you have to be told to make your posts READABLE?? What? Did you lose your way between pre-K and high school?[/QB]That seemed like a personal insult! Report post! Report post! Report post! *click* *click* *click* (imagines getting shoved out an airlock and stops) quote:His post stands as it was originally written and I don't find ANYTHING wrong with it. People with thin skins should NOT engage in heated topics and debates. Agreed...goes with next quote. And from Race: quote: In various threads I've read a number of things I've found offensive personally to me as a man of color but refrained making of issue of them. It is a practice I will continue as I refuse to marginalized by race,however I am having a hard time knowing where the line is drawn when it comes to what is offensive and what is not. Eps was offended by Jag's statement not based on the one statement alone but by a number of similar ones made in the past that I thought waere over the line , but we're all grown ups here and when we discuss hot button topics sh*t happens. In this case the person who was offended was in effect told he had no right to be. In my case the post was deleted. I think that people on here are forced to a standard of defending their opinions and beliefs. If someone resorts to an attack that offends me, i'll be able to explain why the attack is unwarranted and probably turn it around into an insult to the person who originally said it. I think these forums should be as unrestricted as possible, with people being able to post what they want and having to deal with the consequences to the best of their ability. Censorship and "offensive things" being frowned upon should only happen if it becomes an organized strcture of insulting/oppression (aka, everyone on here becomes pro-KKK).

Join the Gammulans and you can stand up to the oppressive, evil, destrutive, interventionist GALCOM and rule the world!

Better not be joining the 'commies, if you want to have a planet that isn't RANDOMed.

I agree with Jag. There's no net disadvantage to welfare being a local issue. It's probably an advantage since local governments can deal with problems much more effectively. I'm not sure, but I think the main reason for it being on a national level is smart politicians (smart for themselves, not for the country), decided it'd sound nice and get votes to "give" and "fix all the problems". I'm sure they had good intent at the time, but it's really bad now.

Dragon Lady's right, for the most part. Although I don't agree with not helping the poor at all (i.e. Letting them starve and die because they may have problems with jobs, corporations that fire them, etc.), I do agree that wealth gaps cause people to strive to succeed, as I also agree that poverty IS relative. I bet most people in 3rd world countries would find it great to simply LIVE in our country, let alone get welfare checks, etc.

quote:Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: Whoa!! Look was the cat dragged in! Hi!! As you can see, the gang's still all here....tearing up the general discussion forums as usual. Whatever you do, stay away from those political debates. Trust me on this. Yeah, we've even scared SC off. That proves it HAS to be bad.

Vote Republican!

Did the right side win? (literally and figuratively in this case)

Those people should be shot. Oh, wow, if I posted that on DU, I would have gotten banned. DU's rules makes SC's look like anarchy.

1. I hear AOL and Earthlink/Mindspring are the worst Broadband providers? Is this true? 2. If so, what do you think is the best? 3. Is Bellsouth any good?

I'm pretty sure Raptorwb is right. I'm not an expert on the Bible or the Old Testament, but i'm pretty sure it has some nice allusions to there's going to be a whole bunch of fighting and war, and it's only going to an end when Jesus comes.

Replying in some semblence of order: Ok, logic, as you admitted, dictates effects need causes. That stance is a lot more valid than "some effects don't need causes because I don't believe in God". I know you didn't say it in THOSE terms, but your implying that effects must not need causes because your right, even though everything else in the universe needs a cause. We agree, the institution of the Church is historically bad and for the most part is a bad idea. This also applies to the comments about researching on aborted fetuses and cloning. The institution is REALLY conservative which is sad, hopefully they'll catch up with society. My building analogy just points out that everyone inside would believe SOMETHING is supporting it, just like all the objects in the building are supported by something. This just goes along with my point about causes. We know something created us, we just don't know the specifics. In regards to reproduction, I was just pointing out that somehow your assume reproduction is a good thing. If I contend reproduction is bad, what's the problem with women being drafted? (this paragraph was just to point out a contradiction in your morality. you seem to claim that there are no moral absolutes, yet you seem to set up reproduction as one in order to justify your position on women being drafted) Anyway, what's wrong with women being drafted if they claim they can do any job men can? Common belief and Locke's philosophy both hold value since they: 1. Work 2. Are what most law and concept of rights are based on. Without Locke, we probably would still be working for a nobility. 3. Biological comfort doesn't apply when your CONDITIONED to kill. People don't intrinsically believe killing/murder/stealing is good. Uhh, utilitarianism in regards to the well-being of society would advocate Christian morality as well, for the most part. Requiring everything to be proven true just leads to a lack of opinion and structure in one's beliefs and life and seems to lead to nihlism. Taking opinions requires thought and advocacy which at least is open to change when faced with evidence/logic. quote: Not true, I?m advocating the belief in nothing without sufficient evidence (and what constitutes sufficient evidences varies with the importance of what is being considered), and thus advocating the position of not knowing. This is different from not advocacy at all. Well, this conversation will go nowhere then, since you refuse to take an opinion as to a counter-explanation. Since we both agree that the importance of the existance of God is extremely high, it would be impossible for your burden of proof to EVER be met. quote:Well you are advocating it?s outside of science, so prove it. Everything else needs/has a cause. In order for us to exist and science to be true, whatever caused the universe had to be outside of science. If the fact EVERYTHING ELSE needs a cause isn't enough for you, then I guess you've set your burden of proof high enough that your paradigm will never be forced to change. Good job. quote:Actually, I have replied to most if not all of your arguments over the last four pages, as well as providing possible counter explanations. Furthermore, I need only prove your points wrong if you have first proven them to be right (which you haven?t, not once). Thank you for proving my point. You've provided possible counter explanations. I know you have. I've ADMITTED that they are POSSIBLE counter-explanations, but you STILL don't have a COHERENT advocacy. What ONE explanation do YOU BELIEVE IN that explains ALL of the arguments and points that have been brought up over the past pages? And since you require some sort of "proof" provide it too. You haven't done so yet. All you've been doing is casting doubt through SPECULATION w/o evidence (which is why it's not allowed in courts of law) At least empirical evidence/logic is held valid. Your idea of "sufficient evidence" is impossible to be met. You've set your burden of proof high just so your in no danger of having your entire paradigm proven wrong. I know that my arguements/logic/evidence is not sufficient to prove to you, or anyone else, that the Christian God is the absolute Truth, but I do know it should be sufficient to make most reasonable people believe that there is a high probability of a Creator/God of some sort, and to cause people to not immediately dismiss the concept of a Christian God. As for my 4th point that logic can't prove anything to you, sure you never SAID that, but i'm not "shoving words in your mouth". All of your words imply that your not slightly open to being wrong no matter how much logic you presented with. I've admitted that my belief in the CHRISTIAN concept of God is based around faith (non-scientific). I've admitted that it's POSSIBLE I could be wrong. I've also admitted that since it is outside of science, there is no "proof/evidence", per se. No one else, however, has pointed out how all of my arguments over the past few pages are wrong. All that's been done are seperate "possible explanations" for each of my points, which in no way answer them all, as a whole. The best that happened was when Dragon Lady admitted that there was a creation being, which was quickly recanted when that actually implied an advocacy. quote: There is other SENSORY/SCIENTIFIC information that would contradict the cookie being there and in the same shape. Without knowing anything about science or the situation, it WOULD be logical to assume the cookie is still there in the same shape. Without knowing anything else about God except that He created the universe, it's logical to assume He still exists. How is that logic flawed? It's exactly how any human being would think if they had no experience of natural decay/other animals eating cookies/etc. It WOULD be logical to assume the cookie is still there, in the same shape. (at least past the age 6 months-1 year...that's when humans naturally develop the concept of object permanence). quote:What, are you saying that if I don?t your going to keep picking one for me? Well I already have an advocacy, and a rather nice one at that. If you don't have an advocacy, it's impossible to argue against. "Not knowing anything that isn't proven" isn't an advocacy in this case since i've ALREADY admitted that it's IMPOSSIBLE to PROVE a Christian God within your/our concept of "proof", espeically since that being would be outside of science. quote:I?m SICK AND TIRED OF HAVING SAID THINGS I NEVER ONCE SAID. WE never established that the CP was outside of science, YOU clamed it was while I argued that it may or may not be. Umm, your proving my point WHY YOU NEED AN ADVOCACY. I claim that it's outside of science, and you claim that it "may or may not be". You just covered just about EVERYTHING. That's like a doctor saying to a woman that she may or may not be pregnant. No matter WHAT argument I make, you'll just claim that it's unverifiable, since you have NO DEFINITE OPINION/ADVOCACY on the subject, since you seem to have an unalienable desire to never be proven wrong. Which is it, is the being inside or outside of science? Take a position, and defend it. quote: But I don?t darling, that?s my point. I say only that there is insufficient evidence to know one way or the other. Not simply that I don?t know, but that by claiming that god exists you are making an insufficiently supported assumption. I?m dreadfully sorry if I won?t be nice and argue the point you want me to, I tried that for about three pages and it didn?t work, so I changed (not threw out, changed) my advocacy. Had to start quoting to make my arguments apparent. My belief that God (again, i'm using God interchangably for CP since I've already admitted that i'm not trying to prove to you that the Christian God is definitely true) exists is supported by the logic and arguments i've been posting over the past 3-4 pages. You claim "there's not enough evidence one way or another", which isn't an advocacy, just you admitting a lack of knowledge/evidence. Sure, we've both agreed on that (I hope?), but you must have an opinion/advocacy that you can defend and believe in. quote:Well, I have seen innumerable elevators (at least from the inside) and have a general idea of how they work, so it?s no surprise that I have faith that they work. This is called accumulated experience, which is sufficient to believe that an elevator works (especially considering I have never herd any better evidence suggesting they don?t work). Do you have a collection of empirical evidence that necessitates the existence of god? Ok, everything in the universe has a cause, so I have faith that a being created us. Since every thing within our realm of existance/science has a cause, whatever was the first cause could not be within science (process of elimination). There is no better evidence that those two points aren't true, so I believe in em. Also, my elevator analogy was just to point out you have FAITH, not to prove God. Thanks for helping me out though. quote:Nope, but it is considered false until adequately proven true. If you think otherwise, I have bridge I would like to sell you? This sort of goes along with your argument that the immensity/importance of the point determines the amount of evidence. I disagree. What matters is the possible BAD CONSEQUENCES of believing something true when it hasn't been proven true. If someone tries to sell me a bridge, and I believe they have a bridge without it being proven false, I give them the money, and then they run, it's an obvious bad consequence so I shouldnt do it. In the case of God, there are no bad consequences to believing in the existance of that God, and in the case of a Christian God, there are no bad consequences of following that morality. Thus, believing in true without it being proven true has no bad effects, thus the level of evidence required to believe in it should be significantly LOWER than buying something for a million dollars, walking into a dark room where you hear screams of pain from, etc.

I'm not going to quote quotes, but i'll respond to Linday's post in some semblence of order. Ok, since the original debate was around my points, i'll repost em, then proceed to respond to the arguments below that. quote:Saddam is: 1. Oppressing his people/Violating their rights/Has no problem killing them 2. Violating UN Resolutions/Agreements 3. Storing/devloping/has chemical and biological weapons 4. Anti-America 5. A totalitarian dictator 6. Irrational in terms of international actions 7. *WANTING* Nuclear Weapons 8. Supporting Radical Islamic causes (Israeli suicide bombers) Saddam is probably: 1. Developing Nuclear Weapons 2. Supporting terrorism against the United States I don't care if the administration is doing it because it'll help their oil or not. An invasion will STILL solve the above problems, and that's what we should care about. People keep pointing out "Cuba, China, and others" in response to oppressing people, invading we'd stop him, and my analogy about stopping the ones we catch. It seems obvious to me. Just because other people are doing some of the points I listed above. Some may hate us, some may be oppressing their people, that doesn't mean we shouldn't attack the PRIME threat, the one that meets ALL of the above critera, Iraq. Also, the idea that we can stop Cuba and China are flawed. We can't stop China, the casualty level would be too great, if we could even pull it off. Cuba, on the other hand, isn't the least bit of a threat to US. They are still under economic sanctions because of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and I personally believe they should be dropped. Castro is the leader of a impoverished country and there's no sign of that changing in the future, and there's no downside to letting him recover. So again, no other country is AS GREAT OF A THREAT as IRAQ. If they were, it'd meet all of the criteria I named. That also answers the argument: Why Iraq? Why now? We DO pick and choose our worst enemy, because they ARE our worst enemy AND even if they MIGHT tie with other nations for the "worst enemy" spot, look at a map. As Jaguar said, Iraq is in the BEST tactical position to justify an attack. It's not a double standard, it's PRIORITIZING. Under your logic, we'd NEVER attack *ANY* nation because "there are other bad ones". That means we'd ALWAYS allow injustice to happen because "we can't make a choice". That's called nihlism, and that's what caused 9/11 and the Holocaust, among others. Let me rephrase "interests" to SECURITY of it's member nations. Security > interests since no security = loss of life and interests. And yes, our interests supercede their interests since w/o us there is no United Nations. We ARE the only superpower, and our interests come first. Especially in regards to OUR security. Our constitution guarntees our government will protect US not every nation in the world. We come first, and in the end, we are doing the RIGHT thing by helping the people of Iraq. The fact Saddam is anti-America increases the risk of an attack greatly. I can't attach a number to it, but it's common sense. If someone has a gun, you may feel a little afraid of that person, but no reason to feel really threatened. If that person ALSO wants to kill you AND has a gun, your going to be a lot more threatened. Iraq being anti-America just increases the damage that the rest of the justifcations above would cause. Ok, my "common premise" statement is saying that all of my points put together ONLY APPLY TO IRAQ. Just applying one or two to other countries does not prove that the other countries are better targets. It's just clouding the issue. Him being irrational is obvious. He attacked Kuwait, got knocked back, and then decided to be defiant. Who, in the right mind, is going to defy the United States? Sure, the way i'm putting it may seem a little bit of bullying, but how stupid can you be? It's like a little twerp is telling the biggest/strongest man alive that he's able to beat him in a fight. The little guy has to be insane. Iraq is insane. (P.S. This is just an analogy to his irrationality, my other points still apply about why we should attack Iraq. The analogy is JUST to prove his irrationality, not to prove we should attack) No, the North Korea reference makes the article MORE invalid because it proves that the author was making statements WITHOUT any sort of research/evdience to back it up. Sure, we all may be doing the same thing, but if whoever posted it was trying to use his article as "evidence", it's invalid as such since he didn't have the data to begin with. Yes, we will deal with the threat nations that we can. From your arguments, we have three choices: 1. We only deal with the ones we can. 2. We don't deal with any of them. 3. We try to deal with all of them at the same time and subsequently lose. #3 is stupid, #2 will cause a lot more harm than good since we'd just be complict in the face of atrocities. So yes, I am advocating that we deal with only the ones we can. What's the problem with that? It's better than the alternatives. Diplomacy with NK and war with Iraq for the same reasons I listed in my last post. Namely, that a war on NK would cause problems with China, and we don't want to get into ANOTHER war, like Vietnam, that we aren't prepared for and would cause so many casualties. Oh yeah, and a new argument. NK isn't an islamic regime that supports terrorism. AND NK doesn't meet ALL of the critera I listed above. Fine, the article points out/attempts to point out a double standard. SO WHAT? The author never explains why a double standard is bad, which other countries are MORE of a threat, WHY those other countries are MORE of a threat and WHY attacking Iraq is bad. Even IF he somehow justifies why a double standard is bad, he STILL doesn't point out why an attack on IRaq is objectively bad. Sure, double standards may be bad, but that doesn't say why attacking Iraq is bad/not attacking Iraq is good. Ok, now you say nation building is bad? The anti war on Iraq philosophies are incoherent. If we EVER want the world to be unified and for us not to be worrying about individual interests, people all over the world must be FREE. You imply that nation building is bad because it causes other countries to hate us. SO WHAT? Are we supposed to be liked but let people be oppressed and killed and have their rights violated? If that continues, we're ALWAYS going to have problems like Iraq, and threats from countries like Iraq. You say (which I don't believe) that if we attack Iraq, it'll cause people to hate us and we'll have more problems. Now, i've already answered this argument in my last post (talking about how there's won't be an increase in attacks/hatred toward us since OPPRESSIVE REGIMES lie right now anyway, it doesn't matter how much more "bad" stuff we do, the anti-US propoganda will stay the same) I don't know how coherent this paragraph is, but what i'm advocating is that we get rid of totalitarian, oppressive regimes and free those people. What exactly is YOUR advocacy? If we can't attack, and diplomacy wont work, what should we do. Also, before you try to defend diplomacy, read over the last 5 pages (we've already gone over it), and for a quick rehash. 1. Diplomacy has empirically failed with Iraq. 2. There's no reason why Iraq would suddenly start letting diplomacy work. 3. Saddam doesn't care. He's not responsible to public opinion, so if he doesn't get what he wants, he'll just sit there and hope the US backs down. 4. Diplomacy hasn't worked for 11 years. 5. Diplomacy doesn't solve Jaguar's argument about causing other nearby nations to stop being bad. 6. Diplomacy doesn't solve Saddam's oppression of his citizens. Letting that continue is repugnant and allowing murder. All of the points I named are more important than world opinion. One is what leaders state publically. The other is the amount of body bags that exist. Body bags and dead bodies are a little more important to stop than the leader of France saying "We are appalled by the United States action.". That's when I start laughing and wondering "What the hell is he going to do about it?". Oh, I do remember from the years that I was in public school that they were a bastion for liberal thought, with all of the "Be nice to everyone" posters on the walls. Thinking back, it makes me want to throw up. In response to Jag, have you seen what surrounds Iran? At the point we take over Iraq, Iran is pretty much surrounded. They'd be royally screwed if we decided to take them out.

quote: There are scientific laws that deal with a cause and effect relationship in much more specific circumstances, however. And one of the methods of research when employing the scientific method is to look for a cause and effect relationship, since it's often the easiest avenue to persue if one exists. Though my understanding is that that particular method is falling out of favor with the scientific community. So give me an example of something that disproves that everything needs some sort of cause. For the sake of this argument, and just about all others, that assumption needs to exist. quote: quote:Originally posted by Dragon Lady:

quote: quote:Originally posted by Charles Lindsey: [QB]

quote:Originally posted by Charles Lindsey: quote:It's directed at anyone who can answer it, and so far, no one has.Because your points are bogus. Saddam is: 1. Oppressing his people/Violating their rights/Has no problem killing them Cuba, China, lots of other nations. Why Iraq? Why now? 2. Violating UN Resolutions/Agreements So? It's the UN's problem. Of which we are part. 3. Storing/devloping/has chemical and biological weapons So? 4. Anti-America Lamest one. So is Iran and most of Islam though the some of the governments are officially our allies. 5. A totalitarian dictator Castro 6. Irrational in terms of international actions Dunno this one pretty lame too. 7. *WANTING* Nuclear Weapons So? 8. Supporting Radical Islamic causes (Israeli suicide bombers) This is tougher. I don't think his rewards started as incentives but now that everyone knows about them yes it is now an incentive. I'll answer the rest of these posts soon, but i'm getting tired. But just to keep it rolling, let me repeat what I think I already said earlier. Just because some of the points apply to other countries, it doesn't prove we shouldn't attack Iraq. Saying an argument is "bogus" provides no warrants, analysis, or argumentation, and finding any other country except Iraq that ALL of my points is probably impossible. So, again, if your going to answer em, answer em well: quote: Your also failing to recognize he is oppressing his own people. Regardless of the *PERCIEVED* intent of the attack, a few facts remain that justify an attack: Saddam is: 1. Oppressing his people/Violating their rights/Has no problem killing them 2. Violating UN Resolutions/Agreements 3. Storing/devloping/has chemical and biological weapons 4. Anti-America 5. A totalitarian dictator 6. Irrational in terms of international actions 7. *WANTING* Nuclear Weapons 8. Supporting Radical Islamic causes (Israeli suicide bombers) Saddam is probably: 1. Developing Nuclear Weapons 2. Supporting terrorism against the United States I don't care if the administration is doing it because it'll help their oil or not. An invasion will STILL solve the above problems, and that's what we should care about.

IM PRESENT AND ACCOUNTED FOR!

quote:Originally posted by Charles Lindsey: quote:Anti-Intellectualism=Most of the Posts on Here Another poorly constructed article. Please explain it to me. He went off on so many of his own tangets it's not even funny. Best I could tell he was calling the author of a comic strip bad names. Nah, what he is doing is pointing out that most leftist arguments are based in taking what the media and all legitimate authorities say, and turning around and saying "It's all wrong, it's all a conspiracy, and we should do the exact opposite". Evidence and facts supporting the opposing view aren't needed, the leftists just know that the traditional/acceptable/logical/rational view is wrong, and the opposite is right. quote: I would but it seems to be directed at Lotharr. It's directed at anyone who can answer it, and so far, no one has. quote: But this was a federal election. State shouldn't have any say in it. In fact now that I think about it there needs to be federal standards governing state elections for federal positions. I agree, there should be federal statutes. I thought it was stupid when the state courts were deciding a federal election. quote: It just coulda gone better ya know? The state should have demanded a recount perhaps. Seems to me I just saw another article where it quoted Florida's recount thresh hold. Something like 2 or 3 percent. I forget what the margin was in Fl but it was close. Yeah, I agree. They shouldn't have had all the politics involved and they should have just followed the statutes and applied them across the entire state. I think the Democrats screwed their position over by not advocating a recount of the entire state, but that's just me. quote: I guess what I am miffed at is the hijacking of procedure. It was fast heading towards the secondary process then everyone started getting worried and sued all over the place. The secondary procedure (congress deciding who wins), didn't seem much better. It would have just been putting a select group of politicians in charge of an election, which probably would have bugged even MORE people. I don't think the government can ever win. quote:I don't care who would have won but this was a fiasco and a debacle. Had they allowed due process to operate there would be no question. It was funny what people in other countries were saying about our election process...at least it didn't result in civil war like in a lot of countries. quote: Not when you are pres, your two brothers are governors of two important states, your cousins are senators of three others. It provides too much of a power and control base. Our government was specifically designed with checks and balances of power in mind. That all goes out the window when nepotism is involved to a large degree. I'm pretty sure the definition of nepotism is when someone in power APPOINTS someone in their family to another position of power. The people chose the Bushes to be in power. It'd be unfair to George W. Bush and his brothers if they COULDNT run for office because one of the others was in office. quote:Well that's enough for now. Thanks for bringing this back on topic Dredd.I just want the anti-war nuts/pacifists to answer my arguments. All I keep hearing is "Bush wants oil". quote:Your right Israel is in violation of resolutions 242 and 338. The land for peace agreements that are hindering real progress. Thanks for at least attempting to answer my arguments, but wait arguments is PLURAL, answering #2 doesn't mean that they are all wrong, not to mention you didn't ANSWER the argument, just pointed out another country that was violating UN agreements. Gee, that's nice, how does that prove we shouldn't attack Iraq for ALL of the reasons I listed? Your argument is equivilent to cops shouldn't arrest someone they see run a red light because they don't arrest EVERYONE who runs a red light. Tough luck for Iraq, but maybe after we teach them who is boss other nations will stop violating them too. quote: They are also in violation of 446, 452, and 465 that require Israel to rescind its annexation of greater Jerusalem. Or do you mean the fact that daily Israel is violating Fourth Geneva Convention by using illegal deportation, demolition of homes, collective punishments and taking of private property.... Nations have a right to self-defense, as do the people in them. If Mexicans started crossing the border and blowing up buildings in our southern states with suicide bombings, and the government did nothing to stop it, i'm pretty sure it'd be justified to invade Mexico until the attacks are stopped and the government cooperates. Your assuming that the occupation is bad because people are dying. You fail to realize that ending the occupation won't change that. quote: Or you were talking about Saddam? Oh I wonder where he ever got the notion it was ok to violate UN resolutions and hurt people inside his borders... On day the hypocrisy will have to end 1. All my points don't apply to Israel. 2. Kuwait wasn't inside his borders. 3. The Kurds weren't carrying out suicide bombings. 4. You can't justify evil actions "because other people get away with it". 5. The resolutions Saddam is violating constitute a threat to regional security and United States security, and there is no debate over the morality of Saddam. That ranks higher in priority than the ambiguous/hotly contested issue of whether or not Israel is justified in their actions. quote:You tell me. I did, later in the post, I explained what makes human life valuable. quote:Hee hee....US support is low and falling....what planet are you on? Look at a map. East of Iran is Afghanistan. West is Iraq. North is an ex-USSR dictatorship that doesn't care what we do as long as it makes us happy with them, and I think that they share a very small border with another country to the south. If I was in the Iranian government I would be extremely worried about doing anything supporting terrorism after we attack Iraq, since at that point we'd be able to invade Iran from almost any direction and remove yet another oppressive regime from power. Well, maybe that isn't what Bush is planning, but it seems interesting when you look at a map... quote:They need to be thinking about the economy..then again why should theythe people losing their jobs and retirements arent the super rich..as I was.onward Christian soldier! Lets go kick some EnronerIraqi bad guy butt.they really cant hit back and damned if doesnt look like were getting something doneand were doing it for the little Iraqi childrenawwww..anyone smell that? Ok, what exactly should they do about the economy? Why is it that there isn't an economic plan? Don't you think that if there was a way/easy plan to help the economy, the government would do it AND attack Iraq? That way they appease the people who want a war on Iraq and the people criticizing the administration for ignoring domestic issues. Oh look, maybe it's because THE GOVERNMENT CANT MAGICALLY FIX THE ECONOMY, OR EDUCATION, or ANY OTHER POINTLESS LIBERAL PROGRAM WE'VE BEEN POURING GOVERNMENT MONEY INTO FOR YEARS. quote: Lothar has a point and I for one would appreciate it if some of the people who support this police action would admit that that the safety of American citizens isn't the sole or even primary reason the Bush Administration insists upon forcing it. So what is his intent? Evidence, please. Even then, regardless of intent, refer to the arguements i've posted about 6 times on various forums that are IGNORED. Attacking Iraq is good, regardless. quote:Still I am floored by the deafening silence when we ask where is the domestic policy? What are we doing to stimulate the economy? what are we doing to improve schools and educate our children. Where is the assurance that those of us who have worked and paid taxes for YEARS will ever see a dime of Social Security benefits? Working Americans who invest in our and our country's future are rooked by slick snake oil salesmen who levrage our childrens future by raiding the companies they have driven in the ground. Nobody's pissed about this? 1. Education is a state responsibility, people just like thinking it's about the fed. 2. There's no cure all to all of these problems you keep listing, and there's no reason to think that attacking Iraq stops the government from solving them. 3. There may just be no solution that the fed can do, and if there is, you should post it here and then send it to congress. 4. They aren't going to let social security die, they'll probably just put it off awhile. quote:No one will deny that Hussien is a world class a**hole who truly deserves a sea based Harpoon at his front door with the morning paper , but our number one priority? Please. If he was half the threat we build him up to be the Israeli's would have a plan on the table and planes in the air. Israel couldn't defeat the entire Middle East which would ALL attack them if they decided to attack Iraq. The only reason they've won in the past is we've helped em out...a lot. quote: Our president lacks the patience and subtlety to be a diplomat , the empathy and vision to be a domestic leader , and the perspective to see that this country is in a bad way and he is doing very little to right the ship. He can't raise a single issue that yields him any political leverage. Certainly not because the Democrats are holding the cards , their inability to forge coherent leadership or a message that people with common goals could get behind is painfully obvious even to me. But because it looks too hard to him. Beating the crap out of a country we could defeat with our reservist is much easier and makes him look the hero. Does anyone think he was anything but a single term president before 9-11? You better wake up and smell what the Bush is cooking What's he supposed to do? Talk about how he's going to fix the economy and then not be able to? For some reason we all assume that every problem we ever face it's the federal government's responsibility to fix. Yes, the federal government needs to establish trade with other nations, protect us from other powers, ensure the rights guarnteed under the constituiton to all American citizens, but that's IT. They aren't required, nor have the means, of solving every problem that the country faces domestically. Domestic problems should usually be handled by state governments that know what is needed, which is why we have federalism. If the national government has something it can do to solve all of our woes, please tell me what it is and how it would work, because all i'm hearing is "The government needs to fix it" although there are no reasons why the government would be able to. quote:Really, I've been thinking that the best to improve education is to rent firearms, body armor and drug paraphenalia in high schools. It gives children access to the fundamental school supplies they need in the high schools of the 21st century while providing a nice source of revenue. The best way to improve education is to force parents to spend time with their kids, give teachers the ability to enforce morality on kids, allow kids who refuse to learn/work in schools to be sent to prisons where they will learn in isolation, and for parents to strip all privacy rights from their kids and have them under constant surveillence.

Well, since I don't think I need to care about the NDA anymore.... It was bad, even the retail part of the beta. That review hit it right on, but I just would have given it a lower score. One thing that it fails to mention though is the huge emphasis on levelling that arrogant people had, and probably still have (as in most massive multiplayer games). They are high level, they are powerful, and they get that way from wasting their time constantly hitting the "warp" or "fire" buttons. It's boring, it's repetitive, and you don't want to play it for more than 10 hours total, if that.

quote:Originally posted by Litvyak: Sure, there still may be reproduction, but there could be a huge population loss. I fail to see a population loss as a problem.

quote:Originally posted by Litvyak: The U.S. destroyed 2 cities of Japanese, is it wrong now to be Japanese?We aren't God. quote:Plenty of people indulge in pleasuring themselves, it doesn't mean they're hurting society. Even if nobody had reproductive sex we live in a day and age when intercourse isn't even needed for reproduction. I'm just pointing out the flaw in the worldview when taken to it's end. Just because artifical means can get around the problems doens't mean that it somehow gets rid of the problem, just like availability of condoms doesn't get around the problem of it destroying the framework of soceity or spreading STDs. Sure, there still may be reproduction, but there could be a huge population loss. quote: So all those priests, cardinals, bishops, etc would do just fine if they didn't collect money from thier flocks of sheep? Depends what CENTURY your living in. If it's the 21st century, they get enough to live (and the people donating the money know where it's going), and most money goes to poor/needy, etc. It's not some secret and corrupt organization, people who give money know where it's going. quote: quote:We know that God (higher power, whatever you want to call it) existed and God creates.I know no such thing. Then respond to my other earlier arguments. I'm responding to Dragon Lady's new assumption that a higher power exists and we know virtually nothing about it. It's going to be pointless to keep rehashing the arguments over whether or not a higher power exists. Every effect has a cause, and science can't be true unless the ultimate cause (a higher power) is outside of science. If you don't accept it, fine, but Dragon Lady's arguments about not knowing the specifics of God are a lot more valid (and still allow the potential for an "immoral" (under christian morality) life) than rejecting the concept of cause-effect. quote: quote: Sure, but there's no reason to assume multiple entities, or entitites over the rest of the course of reality, especially since we only know about one universe. And there's no reason to assume the existance of even one enitity. Ok here are two positions and a response of mine: 1. You reject the CONSTANTLY PROVEN idea of cause and effect and thus science. At that point, you have no reason to assume the existance of God, but you also have no reason to assume that miracles can ever be explained. You should then concede that miracles, centered around religious phenomena, could possibly/probably have no explainable cause within science. Therefore, the obvious concept of them being around religious artificats/areas implies there is God (probably around the religious affiliation of said artifacts/areas), or at least some sort of God. 2. You accept science and cause and effect and realize there had to have been an original cauase. Thus you admit the existance of a higher power, but can also maintain that there's no effect on our life now (deism). quote:Because it's hard for people to stay in power over other people if they just did everything they want. Morals are about controlling the population so that a group of people can maintain power over another group of people. Most morals are backed by laws and people to enforce those laws and those morals that are not are often ignored. How does stopping murder, theft, blackmail, etc give any benefit to the people in control, and how exactly does it benefit the CHURCH who are the ones who have always dictated it? quote: Nope, I'm assuming there's plenty of logical minded people that could make such a determination. Of course, I wouldn't mind being the one... it would actually be rather fun. Logical, nice arbitrary standard. I fail to see how most Judeo-Christian laws aren't logical. [ 10-13-2002, 10:53 PM: Message edited by: Dredd ]

Ok, first off, i'm going to start with an interesting editorial that I read in the AJC last week that applies perfectly to every liberal position on here. BE SURE TO READ THIS. ITS A REALLY GOOD AND APPLICABLE ARTICLE. Anti-Intellectualism=Most of the Posts on Here Secondly, that I finally have a little bit of time to post, i'm going to REPOST something that I posted on the first America's Role thread MULTIPLE TIMES which I *KNOW* no one has responded to yet, because it makes TOO much sense. It may be a little bit out of context since I was referring to one of Jaguar's old articles, but i'm sure it won't be too hard to find the last time I posted this. I'd appreciate it if I heard a response, since at the point my arguments are conceded, the whole issue of "The United States being evil" becomes totally IRRELEVENT to our ROLE, especially in regards to IRAQ: quote: Your also failing to recognize he is oppressing his own people. Regardless of the *PERCIEVED* intent of the attack, a few facts remain that justify an attack: Saddam is: 1. Oppressing his people/Violating their rights/Has no problem killing them 2. Violating UN Resolutions/Agreements 3. Storing/devloping/has chemical and biological weapons 4. Anti-America 5. A totalitarian dictator 6. Irrational in terms of international actions 7. *WANTING* Nuclear Weapons 8. Supporting Radical Islamic causes (Israeli suicide bombers) Saddam is probably: 1. Developing Nuclear Weapons 2. Supporting terrorism against the United States I don't care if the administration is doing it because it'll help their oil or not. An invasion will STILL solve the above problems, and that's what we should care about.Would you please ANSWER the above argument (slight edit to #2, HAS historically ignored UN resolutions)? You keep talking about the Bush administration being evil, but you ignore the above, and you ignore the analysis in Jaguar's article about the Leftists position on a war on Iraq. You ALSO fail to respond to the argument that if Saddam is against letting inspectors into civilian facilities, he is OBVIOUSLY hiding something, since he doesn't allow property rights, and it'd be a perfect opportunity to blame the US for another "atrocity" if people's homes are searched. He also doesn't care about his people, so he wouldn't care about letting civilian facilities to be searched. You keep repeating leftist rhetoric while ignore the facts.