Jump to content
3000AD Forums

Soback

Members
  • Content Count

    2,069
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Soback

  1. Felons can not own guns legally. Most of the crimes commited with guns are commited by criminals, with guns that have been stolen or bought off the street. Then there are some accidents that you always hear about. What you don't hear about is accidents that happen with knives, ect... If statistics were pulled from emergency rooms, I am sure that injury accidents from objects other than guns by far outnumber gun related ones. What you do not hear about is how many lives have been saved because of a citizen that had a gun, how many burglaries have been prevented, ect... Just face it. Gun is a tool. A much more efficient one compared to a knife or a club or a rock. Police are there AFTER the crime has been commited, not before. It is YOU who is there when the crime is being commited, and you have an option of either being a passive victim, hoping for the best, or you can be involved and be in control of your own defense. Given a choice of defending yourself with a baseball bat or a gun, a gun is ALWAYS better/safer for you, regardless if the criminal/s are armed or not. It's a simple matter. If someone breaks into your house, your safety and the safety of your family is threatened. Most people would want to protect their family. Now, of course if the situation dictates physicall violence, you use the best tool available to you, at least for your own safety if nothing else. People who are conserned for the safety/well being of a criminal have obviously never encountered a life threatining situation, or are one of those "deer in a headlight" type of people who have no instincts to self preservation. [ 04-10-2006, 07:01 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]
  2. ROFL Black Ghost. You can conclude whatever you want. On these forums, you are pretty much the most amateur debater, or the least capable. Pick whichever you like the most, or whichever sounds better. Take this thread for example. People have posted their opinions, then to the best of their ability, explained how they reached those opinions, and whenever possible backed those explanations up by real world events and facts. What have you done? 1. You have posted that we are surpassing every limit imaginable. "We're surpassing the limits of almost everything from pollution, population, morality, technology, etc... you name it. I could make a ten-page long list of problems and back each one up with a page of explantions its that bad. The thing is, most people know about these problems and how we are smashing past humanity's limits, but no one is going to act upon them. I think its time we do." 2. You have posted this masterpiece "Soback: I have nothing to say except.... " 3. And then you posted this, 6 days after the last post, in a clear effort to get the last word and provoke a reaction "And Im going to conclude that you clearly dont follow your code as closely as you want us to beleive." You see. That's an example of how to debatte. First post an opinion - Amatuer debator whos conclusions carry no water. Second, exmplain why - Because statements are neither explained nor backed up. Third, provide facts - check #'s 1 through 3 above. Care to tell me what conclusion this post leads you to?
  3. Soback

    Saudis and the nukes.

    Better bring that bomb shelter up to code. LOL I've been doing some research. You gotta have walls isolated with 2 to 4 inches of grade 2 lead sheets. Gotta make sure to seal all the seams. And, gotta have an air pump bringing in outside air, pushing it through the highest hepa filter you can get, creating positive pressure inside the shelter, with one way valve leaking air out. So, unless you build it like that, the cement bunker won't do you much good. This shelter is good against nukes, chemical, and bio. Runs anywhere from 30 grand for the basics, 70 grand mid range, to 150 grand which will allow you to build an attached "changing" room with considerable stock storage.
  4. And I have lots to say. Instead, I am just going to tell you to look lower, and read my quote.
  5. We are surpassing limits? What are you talking about. The only limits we are surpassing is the ones you set for yourself. Limits on pollution? Not even close. If you are refering to global warming, there's at least a dozen threads about it in scientific section. Look them up. Limits on population? Have you missed the globes night picture I posted? Go look again. Limits on technology? I wasn't aware that technology had limits. Limits on morality? Whos morality? Your morality? There's no such thing as limits on morality. Morality is a set of principles, there's no limits to principles people can hold for themselfs. These thoghts are so socialistic. It reminds me of my childhood, makes me wretch. "You can't do this, consider your fellow man" "It's for the best of society" "Sacrificing your prinicples and yourself is the most virtous thing you can do" "There's no you, you is a part of society, there's only society". Makes me sick. Go ahead and set limits for yourself and your socialist countries. I'll always move where man is free. Free to build, to develop, to research, to make, to produce, to live. If we deplete one mine, we will dig it deeper, and open up another one farther. When we run out of space (which is a ludicrous concept, but..) we will build up into the sky, and we will build under the ground. Oh, and by the way, as far as un-lit parts of the worlds being deserts. The only major deserts are in some parts of Africa and Australia, notice how I said SOME. Have you ever dug down 5 miles into the desert sands? No? Neither have I. Any ideas what's there? But anyway, we don't even need to wonder. There's enough resources in mineral deposits and forests to last us thousands of years. Those who can, Volio, do. Those who can't, stay the hell out of my way.
  6. Basically, there's NOBODY, absolutly nobody that knows what is best for me, other than me. Nobody is more qualified to make a decission about what I want on the market, other than me. Nobody but me, is more qualified to make a decission about how much I should earn. Anyway, you get the point. A government regulating what goes on the market, how much we consume, what we consume, ect... Is a government that is overstepping it's boundaries, and that's what breeds the elites that want to tax soda because they think our kids are fat, want to tax cigarettes because they want to chose for you if you smoke or not, want to tax fast food because they decided it's unhealthy, want to make all the possible decissions for you, while you just work, produce, and serve. They, the elites, career politicians like the Kennedy family, Clintons, and Bush, who today has went against the popular vote of the citizens, and is approving of granting illegals ways to aquire citizenship, and the rest of them, become our rulers, with us becoming their slaves. See, that's a great example. Apparently Bush has decided that he knows what is best for us. The citizens that have voted for him. And is going against our vote by dropping the bill that would criminally prosecute illegals, instead he is opening up new ways for them to acquire citizenship. You see, that is what is really dangerous. A government body that is making decissions for you, and against the popular vote. We the people should regulate the government, not the other way around. The government is there to serve us, by our consent, remember that. [ 03-27-2006, 10:32 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]
  7. There is absolutly no regualation needed. Any regulation is just another way of taxation. There is also no un-needed products being pushed on the market. The consuer ultimatly decides what's needed and what is not. Just like we have already discussed in a previous thread. You can not force someone to buy what one does not want to buy. Therefore if you put out something that is not needed, people will not buy it, you will lose money, and go out of bussiness. And then, there will be someone else there to take your place and give the consumers what they want. It's that easy. What you are suggesting is some kind of comitee that decides what it will allow the market to sell, and what it will ban. This is just like communism. Communism is an abomination, and anyone who agrees with it is a murderer and a slave driver. As far as this notion of mining the earth of all it's minerals. I don't know where you are getting it from, but it's nothing but fiction. Here's what you do. Look up a picture of the world that is taken from space during the night http://www.pitt.edu/~rps21/world_at_night.jpg . It will show you the the distribution of population in the world. You will notice that about 70% of land masses is unlit. That's because there is no population there. Another thing is, those lights have been enhanced, meaning if you zoom in, the actual space between those lights is going to be empty, which translates into hundreds of miles of sparse population, not sparse like the suburbs, but sparse like towns with population of 5000 and a couple of hundred miles of empty highways/roads till you see another one. So, you know what's in the dark, unlit parts of the world. Resources. All kinds. Forests, mountains and hills filled with ores. You know why people are not there? Because of distances between the resources and a factorys, consumers. We are gathering resources, close to population centers. Why would we go hundreds of miles away from population centers to mine ore or cut timber if it's available 300 miles from a major population center. So we mine that resource, and a little town of a dozen thousand springs up 20 or 30 miles from that resource that will be gathered, processed and shipped to a major population/industrial center for farther product build/refinement/development. I am a pilot. When I fly over US, it's mind boggling how much land is sitting empty between the east and west coasts. Can you even imagine how much land is sitting empty in Russia, and even China. There's so much resources that it will last us thousands of years. So, iron ore running out is the least of our concerns, forget the least, it's not even a concern. Oil. I have heard different estimates about oil. Some I heard way back in the 80's that estimated oil would run out by 2015, others I've heard more recently 2020 to 2030. Either way. Even if we run out of oil, we will have alternate power such as nuclear. We will just have to do massive overhauls of our transportation, including electrical and maybe even steam trains. So, don't worry about that either. Humans are a resourcfull breed, and if we don't kill ourselfs first with nuclear war, which is a much higher probability, we will not only live through, but prosper, when faced with a difficulty. Just like war is the mother of invention, so is what seems like an enormous problem of running out of oil. We don't need to force or regulate energy transitions nor markets. They regulate themselfs. When oil becomes sparse, the market will dictate that we swith over to solar, hydrogen, nuclear, coal, steam, wood, vegetable oil, ect... whatever energy/power source the market will bear. It's just like natural selection, we will adapt to whatever is the best option. There's also no need to regulate the market, production or invention. It's the same thing there, the market will naturally regulate and select what and how much we produce, and what invention is good and will sell or what is useless and will go forgoten. I went to the stoor this weekend and saw a vacuum robot for sale. I liked it. It automatically cleans floors, maps your rooms layout, and recharges itself. However, it only sweeped hard floors. I have hard floors but only in the kitchen, laundry and some coridors, so I didn't buy it, as I have little use for it. Now, if it vacuumed carpets, I would've bought it in a second. See, an invention, might be useless, or it might evolve and become usefull. Time and consumers will show. If there was a comitee regulating it, however, they might have decided for me that they don't want to waste plastic, batteries, silicone, and copper for wires on such a technology. That will actually hurt us, NOT help us. Things that will might make a huge difference, save labor time, increase our standard of living, open new resources, ect... might never make it to the market if there's some regulatory comitee overseeing it. [ 03-27-2006, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]
  8. Kondratieff backed up Capitalism. "What was dangerously unacceptable to his Communist masters was the idea that there was an inherent self-correcting mechanism perpetuating capitalism. He was banished to the Gulag where he was quickly condemned to solitary confinement. He became mentally ill and died." The flaw was the he was trying to prove the notion of finite production. One doesn't exist. It's as if a forester is cutting down his trees for sale, and the demand is so great that he doesn't replant them. Well, if he is the major provider of lumber, and will finally run out of trees because he is cutting them down so fast that he will deplete his supply, there will be a temporary SHORTAGE of lumber, but NOT a collapse. As Kondratieff himself pointed out, there's a self correcting mechanism in Capitalism. Other interpenuers will see the potential profits, especially when there's a shortage, and will step in to fill in that gap. Second. The notion that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer is flawed. The only true part of it is when you have money, it's easier to make more money, when you know how. That's about it. There's plenty of millionaires that have lost it all, and there's even more people that have started with nothing and ended up milliionares. Those who live in poverty, either do not have anything that will allow them o succeed, even if they lived in US, or some of them do, BUT their government is socialist (Mexico for example) and destroys any potential ways that person can start his own bussiness and make his own money. Take Russia for example. It was rotting away, literally. When Socialism was overthrown in 1990's, private bussinesses sprung up left and right. The economy took off. Go to Moscow now, you will see that it resembles big western cities with all the store, malls, ect... Some of my cousins in Minsk have started their own bussinesses, albeit, Belarus is still communist and you are working your own bussiness under constant threat of complete confiscation, so you do it really private, by word of mouth and under the table. So, in Belarus, by comparison to Russia, peoples quality of life is MUCH lower. Although they were both in the same boat in 1990. Just by abolishing socialism Russia was able to make giant strides in improving economy and therefore quality of life, while Belaruss is still stuck in the rotting Communist days. That's your comparison between socialism and Capitalism. The Marxian "problem" is not a problem at all. I work in an industry that wouldn't exist if it weren't for those "rich". Just in my industry alone those "rich" support millions of jobs, paying hunderds of millions, if not billions in taxes. Just like my flight instructor used to say, even if you take all the wealth in the world and re-distribute it equally between everyone. Within 5 years 95% of that wealth will end up with the people who had it before. And it's true. There are those who can make money, run their own bussiness, invent products, and there are those who can perform skillfull labor, and then there are those who can do a job that any person off the streen can do. Guess which one is going to earn more. If you try to treat a person that went through 10 years of schooling so that he can cut people open and fix them, if you are going to treat that person the same as you treat a burger flipper. Guess what. Those people will stop working. If the enventor doesn't get the profits from his invention, he will stop releasing them. If the person who can run a giagantic bussiness will think the compensation is not worth it, he will stop running it. Socialism destroyed countries time and time again. Governments do NOT need to increase the wellfare of their citizens, they need to protect private property of their citizens, protect the rights of their citizens, and leave the rest UP TO their citizens.
  9. Also, let me make a little correction. Instead of Debeers "controlling" the price, I should have said "influences" the price. As it does not matter what you want to sell the product for, it matters only the maximum an end buyer is willing to pay for it. A customer can not be forced into buying something for the price he is not willing to pay. Just like one can not be forced to sell something, for the price he is not willing to accept. Just by this very statement, I have summed up all I the examples I have been giving you. The ONLY time a twisted economy of "selling" at a constant loss and "producing/buying" at a constant loss has been seen, is in SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST countries. That's one of the biggest reasons those countries have collapsed, for NOTHING can function at a constant loss. And since the oil exporting countries are FAR from strugling for money, or having defecits in their economies. It's factual PROOF that we are buying oil for a fair price, that there's no exploitation. The price they are willing to part with it, and the price we are willing to pay. PS. Now we don't need to be coming back to the debate about "labor exploitatoin". The wages are a compromise between what the worker is willing to work for, and the employer willing to pay. The only time you have labor exploitation is when there's forced slavery. [ 03-25-2006, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]
  10. Volio, here's the thing. When you state something, back it up. I told you why Middle eastern countries are not being exploited by oil bought "cheaply". I have given you clues as to where to look for information on how economy works. How production, supply and demand tie into the price. Here's an example. Diamonds. If you were to judge by their production output, they would be a dime a dozen. Why are they so expenise. Two reasons. First one is ammount of skillfull labor that is put into processing rough diamond into a shiny one an end customer would buy. Second, SUPPLY. Debeers controls the supply. They have HUGE underground wearhouses filled with diamonds that they either withhold or release based on the market saturation and conditions. Thus effectively controlling the price. So, how about you think, and draw a paralel between the way Debeers handles the diamond market, and how OPEC handles the oil market. Now, since I am all for debating intelligently, with facts. Why don't you go ahead, "...stand your ground..." and back up your claims that the Middle eastern countires are being exploited and we don't pay them enough for oil. Go right ahead, explain away. We'll take it one thing at a time. So after we are done with this. We'll come back to: 1. "Sectarian fights there are being constantly fed by foreign goverments in middle-east.It's the old "divide and rule"-philosophy, " 2."Crusades... a smoke screen for economic exploitation" I am still laughing at that one. 3. Middle eastern labor exploitation. "I'm also talking about potential labour amongst other resrources. " Although after we get done with oil exploitation, we probably will not need to come back to this one, but then maybe because of this statement "Howcome norwegians are a lot more richer than arabs?" we will.
  11. They are not getting a fair price for it? By whos opinion? It doesn't even matter whos opinion. ROFL. Here's what you do. Open up Yahoo.com and type in "How economy works" "How trade works" "Economic forces" "Production vs. Demand" "Supply vs. Demand" "Price vs. Demand", then sit down and have a read. It is ludicrous that you are even trying to back up your opinion of "they are hostile because their natural resources are being taken away". First we have concluded that they are NOT being taken away, NOW you are trying a second approach that we don't give them a fair price for it. Have you ever traded anything as a kid? You know, given one thing for another. The value of things is in the eye of the beholder. Your toy soldier might cost a buck, while my shiny rock cost nothing. If you however want/like my shiny rock enough, you will be willing to give away your little soldier toy to get it. Your friends might think that the trade is unfair and you didn't get enough for it, but guess what, their opinions are MEANINGLESS. I don't want to help you beyong this tiny introduction into economic trades, the rest is up to you to learn. Second. You mentioned something about "the money not going to the people". Here's the deal about that. Their government is NOT SOCIALISTIC. Now that we understand that, lets also make clear that if US with it's Republican government was the majority oil exporter, the money from that wouldn't be going to the people either. It's called BUSINESS and CAPITALISM. Things that are also easily looked up by using yahoo or google. The fact that they can't afford a car, is the least of our concerns. People in third world countries can't affod shoes. They should take that up with their governments and institute/develop a Capitalistic society. Then they will be able to afford as much as they are willing to put in. If they put in just raw repetitive labor, then thats the value they get back, if they put in their developed skills, their knowledge then they will obviously get back much more. The fact that a person who does not posses any desired knowledge or skill can't afford a car is NOT surprising nor is it something that we should be pointing at as wrongfull. A person WITH knowledge and skill being forced to give up his earnings to pay for the transportation of the one without, however, IS wrongfull. So, now that we established that Middle East is NOT a socialistic society, and therefore we shouldn't be surprised that the money is NOT going to the people, and now that we have explained away as to why they can't afford a car, lets move on towards hatred of the west. Here's the deal about that. Their hatred of the west is not something we should bow our heads to and appologize. If I haven't robbed you, haven't hurt you, and haven't forced you, your like or disslike of me is not my problem. If you however start acting out on your disslike by burning down my buildings, or hurting me in some way, the last thing I would do is try to appeaze you by subjugating myself with appoligies and questions as to why you hate me. Same goes for the middle east. Their populations hate of the western societies is NOT due to our fault, nor should we be making any excuses. They are due to the people in their own government and religious establishments. The same ones who subjugate and derive power from their own population. One of the ways of staying in power is keeping people ignorant of their own potential and worth, the other way is to murder the ones who know their own potential and worth, the third one is to teach them that someone else, not themselfs are responsible for all the wrongs in their lives. If a looter breaks into my house and robs me. I am going to blame myself first for not making it harder to break in, and then I am going to blame myself again, for not killing him. I am NOT going to blame the police department for not being there to catch him. That's what those who are in Middle eastern government and prominent figures in Islam are doing. They tell people that it's not their fault they have no electricity, it's not their fault they have no medical care, it's not their fault they have no cars. They keep them ignorant that to have electricity they need to WORK at it, that to have medical care they need to educate their men AND women, that to have cars they need to build them. And to make ALL that possible, they need to overthrow their governments AND shed their religious shackles. So, how is any of that the wests fault? And last. As to your eluding to the difference in labor pay. It's all covered in the first two paragraphs. It's the same way that China can make trinkets and sell them in US cheaply. A factory worker in US, making plastic widgets would require at least $30,000 dollars a year to make ends meet. Which means that plastic widget that he made would have to sell for $4.99. The same worker in China would require a $10,000 a year salary to enjoy an equivalent standard of living as the same worker, performing the same labor in US would. A widget HE made would have to sell for $1.49. Does that make sence to you now why their labor is cheaper? ROFL. If they were getting paid the same as a Norweigian worker did, they would have 3 story homes and two car garages, all on the pay of a Norweigian burger flipper. Fourth. Secterian fights are NOT being fed by foreign governments any more than they are being fed internally. Let me clarify that even more. Those same secterian fights have been going on for thousands of years. Their profet Muhammad has led his armies in secterian fights. So stop blaming the world, anything and everything for the problems that they themselfs have developed. It's like saying that a dispute between two cities is a fault of the third one. As far as Christian crusades go, and you saying that they weren't in response to Muslim invasions but rather a smokescreen to economic expansion, it leaves one baffled as to what kind mazes and dead ends of convoluted fictitious "history" you had to read to conjure that up. http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/crusades.stm "Since the time of Constantine, Christians had gone on pilgrimages to the Holy Land. Even though Moslems had ruled Jerusalem since 638, Christians were still allowed to visit the city. By the 11th century, however, the situation had changed. Just as the number and frequency of pilgrimages to Jerusalem was at new peaks, the Seljuk Turks took over control of Jerusalem and prevented pilgrimages." Also, important to note. The actions of the religious followers in those days were attrocious. ALL religions. TODAY, however, there none but ONE religion that still calls it's followers to holy expditions, genocide, conquests, pillages and murders. Is that an interpretation to my liking, or do would you like a link to that?
  12. You are talking like the western world is breaking into the middle east and taking their resources (oil) by force. ---"...It is very obvious, no matter what religion or ideology you represent, that when your national(and scarce) resources are being exploited by foreign nations, you'd try to resist, no matter what...." So, lets correct that. The oil is being BOUGHT from them. That means it's an exchange where value is given for value. With that money, they build/maintain their infrastructures, militaries, and keep their economies clicking. Thier economies depend on oil sales. So we are not some bad guys exploiting their national resources. Far from it. We are the good guys, buying it from them, all the while giving them technology to improve their oil industry. You do know that the western society BUILD the oil pumping stations and refineries in the middle east, FOR THEM. And second... ---"It has all been just conflict of semiglobal cultures where islam is losing. .....The oppression(although varying in level of seriousness) has continued ever since." + previous paragraph. If you were familiar with history, you would know that this portrayal of Islam as some dissadvantaged religion that is being discriminated against is complete BS. Here's a short version of events from Russias point of view. We already know that Islam was build around the raid and conquer philospphy, as is portrayed by the prophet Mohammed when after a multitude of raids that he himself led, he said that god has allowed them to live through those raids because he APPROVES of this. That included the ransacking and conquiering of cities in the middle east. When Islam eventually extended up to the Russias southern border, they brought their way of conquest and raiding with them. In the heart of Islamic nation, it might have been Socrates and Aristotle, in the outluying territorires it was the primal "we ransack and conquer you" Islam. Anyway, after continued conflicts, Russia had enough. The choice wasn't even of just holding them back at the border, as their raiding runs were getting out of hand. The choice was a full military move down into Islamic south, to conquier and pacify them. It worked, as it put a buffer border between old Russia and raiding Islamic nations. Now if there was any conflicts, they were fought out in the conquered southern territory. There's a reason that Crusades started AFTER 1000 AD. The Crusades were an answer to constant Islamic invasions and raids. Islam is the only religion in the world where successfull violence is justified and encouraged by sayings that if it's successfull then God approves of it. Who do you think there is murder happening in the name of Islam, to this very day. Name the last time a Christian has sacrificed a sheep in the name of god, let alone a human.
  13. Soback

    Quotes on Iraq

    We knew Cc plenty. Cc, if I recall correctly, was banned TWICE before.
  14. Soback

    Quotes on Iraq

    He is a previous bannee, returning with a different handle. In any case. Since you made a reference in another thread how Remo banned the liberals from here. It is precisely because of the what you are pulling off right here. It seems like the libs are not even smart enough to know that they have been banned for lack of intelligence which results in poor manners. Not only are you coming back and starting to annoy people with stupid comments like that, but, why don't you go ahead and tell us why a guy that works has to pay for your health care with his labor. When you will be able to make a coherent statement without calling people names or flying of on some tangens, then Remo will stop banning you from these forums.
  15. Yeah, and for a good reason. It seems like their only answer to a debate is thier feelings, how it feels right, or how it feels wrong, and when those feelings get smashed by facts and logic, they resort to insults. Derek should check your IP. Based on the few posts made made with your new handle, you seem to have been previously banned.
  16. Soback

    Quotes on Iraq

    I don't understand why people have to justify the war in Iraq as humanitarian. Why should we have a problem admitting that first and foremost, the war in Iraq is self serving, and the secondary benefit is higher standard of living and freedom for Iraq citizens. It would be foolish to spend trillions of dollars on something such as overthrowing a dictator. No, not foolish, insanely idiotic is more like it. On the other hand. It wouls be smart to spend trillions of dollars to overthrow a dictator with a goal of transforming a hostile country in a hostile region, into an oasis of wester values. Over the long run, we gain a foothold in the middle east, we gain influence, we create stability because at the negotiating table a single word from a neighbor with a strong back up(Iraq) carries more weight than a sentence from that same back up across the globe. As a US citizen, I see the benefits that Iraq war has to offer us in the long run. It breaks up the congremolate of the middle eastern threat. If there were to be a conflict in the middle east, or an immenent threat. A country that would aid western powers would face the wrath of majority of Islamic nations. Now that we have overthrown Iraq, the process of gaining influence and transforming it into a western society will obviously take more than a decade. It will take at least a generation if not two. So, to sum it up. Lets be realistic. US started a war in Iraq to profit US. That's why initially European countries that didn't participate in the war weren't allowed the re-construction (read bussiness deals, major profits, new markets) contracts. It's too bad the the alliance of those who did participate caved in to the loud mouthed European socialists, and let them reap the rewards of our risks, no matter how little. However, you can not argue that Iraq did not benefit from our selfish reasons. Iraq people weren't even allowed to own cell phones under Sadam. He was a dictator just like Stalin. Stalin murdered millions. He treated Russian people worse than slaves, if that's even possible. So did Sadam. Yes they had power, so did Russians under Stalin. Yes they had water, so did Russians under Stalin. To think that if they wanted help, they would rise up and overthrow Sadam is foolish. Stalin murdered millions for the sole purpose of elliminating all possible oposition, so did Sadam. Today Iraq citizens are re-building their country. The rest of the middle east, or more like the elite monarchs do not and will not like it, which is understandable as they can see the threat a westernized Iraq would present to their power thrones. So, the rewards are two fold. We benefit from the influence, which equals power, which equals potential wealth. Iraq citizens benefit by getting freedoms and the higher standard of living for themselfs and their children, something they couldn't even hope for under Sadam and his like. PS, I've just read Nomads post. Seems he posted right before me. What he is saying is right. We DO need to watch, very carefully, the people who get elected into positions of power. As all what we have been trying to achieve might crumbell if the wrong people get the power. Instead of expanding western influence, we will get more Iranian influence. So instead of a pack of wolves fighting each other (the middle eastern nations), we will have one big wolf with the pack following him (Iran). Pulling the troops out of Iraq would be the equivalent of just giving the neighboring middle eastern nations a free bid at a land rush (Iraq), which would mean a complete and utter waste of trillions of dollars. Plus, a bigger threat in return.
  17. To start off. We are a sovereign country. The sooner we start acting like one, the better. Close the borders completly. Nobody gets in, or out, without proper paperwork. A country is like a home. You wouldn't let people wander in and out of your house without your permission, would you? Why do you let them do that in YOUR country? Then, mop up the illegals in the US. Remember, the 9/11 hijackers had expired visas. Other countries stringently keep track of foreign visitors within their borders. You want to try and overstay a visa in Thailand? How does prison sound? We treat those who violate our laws with white gloves. President HAS to put a stop to that. It's bad enough that our own citizens dissrespect the laws of our country, why would you go easy on a foreigner? It's like letting your guests spit on the floor and put their feet on your dining table. Fine them, send them to their home country, and put them on the list as in-elligible for re-entry. Domestic terrorism is on par with treason. Treason carries a death sentence. Those who have aided 9/11 hijackers, in full knowledge of them being illegals, have commited a crime. Aiding an illegal should carry a jail sentence and heavy fines. Aiding an enemy is treason, carries a death sentence and should be enforced. You do not need the Patriot Act for that. You need to streamline the court process and make it a high priority in law enforcment to catch and prosecute the citizen criminals that aid illegals. Not only will you cut down on illegal immigration, lower un-employment, strenghten the economy, BUT you will also net the traitors that aid the enemy. Once a couple of executions take place, the traitors will realize that the Constitutional laws are enfoced (one of the signs are liberals doing monkey dances while screaming that it's inhumane), then we can be safe. This is just scaping the surface. There are more CONSTITUTIONAL ways of protecting our contry. Instead, we have let the democrats eat US away from the inside with their liberalism, equality, humanitarism, ect... This is the results of that today, and instead of fixing the problems, the Republicans are just creating new ones by signing an abomination that is the Patriot Act, violating the Constitution, which threatens YOU the citizen. Just like anything, it takes time for the policy to take full effect, everything grows and matures. The thing is, would it grow like an oak tree, make us stronger and better (the Constitution) or will it grow like cancer, eating away from the inside, making us weaker (liberalism, socialism, Patriot Act) Liberals have been saying that sealing the borders is immoral, violation of human rights. What did we do? For decades we have been letting the illegals get in. The liberals have made a joke of US laws. What happened? Violations such as overstaying a visa carried no consequences (hijackers weren't caught and kicked out). The liberals have been teaching us that everyone is equal, everyone is entitled, everything is aceptable, we have to be tolerant. What have we reaped? The 9/11 hijacker that was caught is still on trial, we have to be understanding. The treasonous US citizen that was caught in Afghanistan is in air conditioned prison cell, we have to accept his motives. The child rapers are getting off with probation, we have to be tollerant. Illegals are flooding US, taking the low paying jobs, while the citizen recieves wellfare, they are entitled. We enfoce our existing laws. We fix our country. And we will not have another 9/11. We can do it all WITHOUT the temporary patch of the illegitimate Patriot Act.
  18. First, I do have a copy of the Constitution. Second, the Constitution was written so that a lame man could understand it. If you can't understand the quotes such as "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." and ".nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" then you shouldn't even be able to vote. Third. It doesn't matter if they were to revoke 100 licenses or 1 license. You seem to completly gloss over the fact that they are VIOLATING THE LAW and there's NO RECOURSE. Police and TSA are COMPLETLY DIFFERENT. Police, can't just arrest you and throw you in jail. Heard about REASONABLE CAUSE? Yeah, that Constitutionals thing again. It applies to police. If they have reasonable cause to arrest you, you HAVE TO BE ABLE TO SEE THE JUDGE WITHIN 3 DAYS. It's called DUE PROCESS. TSA does not abide by the law. They can revoke your licenses, violate your freedoms. WITHOUT any due process, NOR can you challenge their decissions. Understand? If there's an error, and they label you as a danger, for whatever reason, which you can not even find out as to why. You are DONE. That's it. No court, no judge, NOTHING. Now go back to the Constitution and tell me if that's legal. You are aware that any law that contradicts the Constitution is UNCOSTITUTIONAL. Is Patriot Act, therefore, Constitutional? It's plain out ILLEGAL. And Bush should be impeached just for signing it, because he violated his oath of office when he did that. Fourth. It is NOT legal to confiscate and arrest without the due process. When they can revoke your licenses without re-course, it's not due process. Therefore it violates the Constitution. Also, by the mere fact that you say "...It does violate privacy (in a very minor way)..." you already know that the Patriot Act is illegal. Fifth. Posted by Black Ghost "---No, you left a critical bit out. It presumes a citizen guilty UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT. So unless you are hiding a bomb in your bag you have nothing to fear. Simple concept." ---- ROFL, have you ever heard about Innocent un-till proven guilty? No? Nevermind then. Nice to see that at least you have the guts to stand up and say that you support an illegitimate law that presumes a citizen guilty until proven innocent. Good to know your enemies. Sixth. Good to know that you support searches and confiscation of property of citizens who are first presumed guilty, then labeled guilty without the process of courts and him denied the ability to defend himself. Seventh. Posted by Soback "Then, it grants powers to the TSA to take away drivers licenses, commercial drivers licenses, pilots certificates, ect.... AND YOU CAN NOT CHALLENGE THAT IN COURT." Posted by Black Ghost----Damn strait. If you are a terrorist or a bad guy- that is the minimum that should be happening to you. ----- Are you following the trail of though here? Did you not understand that you can be totally innocent, but as soon as TSA decides that you are not, you are done. You can not challenge the TSA's actions against you. You can not even find out as to why you were labeled as a suspect. If it's a misstake, you can not correct that misstake. Can you understand that? Eight. Posted by Black Ghost. "-Many had good reason to have those certificates confiscated. All had made a mistake, whether it was something they said or done that would have made them seem to be a suspect. You also forget that most pilots got those certificates back after a while and were given a retribution for the trouble caused to them." --- Name at least one good reason. You know how I know that you can't. Because the information as to why they had their certificates taken away was never released. All attempts to take them to court were rejected. There was no reparations, (I am sure you meant that instead of "retribution") because TSA is immune from doing wrong. You obviously do not know about the "Government can do no wrong" law. 1 http://www.fa-ir.org/ai/nowrong.htm http://www.fa-ir.org/ai/monopoly.htm It protects government from lawsuits by citizens, for damages caused. If a police officer smashes into your car, while he is on a chase, or even on duty, he is NOT LIABLE FOR DAMAGES CAUSED TO YOU. Now, based on what I said above, why don't you go ahead and explain where you pulled the information about the "most pilots go their certificates back", "All had made a mistake, whether it was something they said or done that would have made them seem to be a suspect." and "were given a retribution for the trouble caused to them". Oh, don't bother, we already know where you pulled it from. Keep your mind out of the gutter, I meant the newspapers, TV, and your imagination. Right? [ 03-20-2006, 02:24 AM: Message edited by: Soback ]
  19. I'll re-post what I have said before. "Someone should go read the Constitution. Section 9. Limits on Congress. OR how about the Fourth Amendment, are you familiar with it? Let me quote you... "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." then there's the Fifth Amendment "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;...". You don't know about the TSA much do you. Well, I guess you don't know that TSA has the power to take away your Commercial drivers license, your pilots license, ect... WITHOUT any explanation, NOR are you able to challenge their actions in court. Where is the due process when they deprive people of their liberty and property? You want the Patriot Act. That's fine. First you need to repeal those Constitutional ammendments. Then go ahead and create new ones that declare the government as the ultimate entity, allowing it searches, violations of privacy, ability to arrest, confiscate and revoke things, all without due process. Then you can have your Patriot Act. Right now, that act is nothing but a bastard law that violates the Constitution, forced upon us by criminal career politicians with the mob boss on top signing it." --- Now. There's your facts. The Patriot Act violates the Constitution by presuming a citizen guilty. Then, it grants permission for searches based on "probable cause" that that said citizen is guilty (the guilty verdict was given without an arrest, without due process, without being charged, hell, that citizen wouldn't even be given an explanation). Then, it grants powers to the TSA to take away drivers licenses, commercial drivers licenses, pilots certificates, ect.... AND YOU CAN NOT CHALLENGE THAT IN COURT. Here's an example. When TSA was first established, they revoked some pilots certificates. Those pilots tried having the decission challenged. They were told that they couldn't. Those pilots couldn't even get their files from the TSA to find out what information ABOUT THEM led to the revokation of their own certificates. They were presumed guilty, had their property (pilots certs) confiscated, ALL without due process. It takes the power away from YOU, the Citizen. If the hammer hapens to fall on you, even if it's a misstake, you have absolutly no possible way to clear that up. None, None whatsoever. You can not take them to court, you can not challenge their decission, you can not even find out what their decission was based on. All you will have, is the consequences of their decission, and no recourse. Your Patriot Act gives them that power. Ultimate, and without checks and balances. If you have known this, and were praising Bush for signing the Patrion Act. Then you deserve what you get. The government that is in complete control of you, not you in control of the government. If you didn't know that. Then you haven't researched the Patriot Act beyong what is said in the newspapers and TV, which is not much besides the propaganda that "...it will help us capture terrorists..." So, I will repeat, again: "You want the Patriot Act. That's fine. First you need to repeal those Constitutional ammendments. Then go ahead and create new ones that declare the government as the ultimate entity, allowing it searches, violations of privacy, ability to arrest, confiscate and revoke things, all without due process. Then you can have your Patriot Act. Right now, that act is nothing but a bastard law that violates the Constitution, forced upon us by criminal career politicians with the mob boss on top signing it." Say good by to "From the People, By the People, and For the People"
  20. Black Ghost, sometimes you shouldn't let people know what you think, as you might be embarassed to find out how little meaning it has. Your thoughs reveal that you have no understanding of the Patriot Act beyond the propaganda, published in some third rate newpaper or what is told by the empty shells staring at you from TV. So it is you who should do a little more research. But not into the Patriot Act, rather the Constitution of the United States and maybe some reading on the meanings of Individualism, Egoism, and how that differs from Socialism, Egotism and Altruism. For extra points, you can read of the Roman empire, how and what kind of people lived when it was born versus how and what kind of people "lived" there when it crumbled and died. It is understandable that the meaning of this posting will dissapear from your memory ten minutes after you read it. The reality of life, however, will prevail, and one day the growing, un-named disease which infests US will stare you blankly in the face. It's a shame that some can not learn the first time, nor the second, but then again, what do you expect of people who barely know history and foundation of their own country. Understandable though, when the Superbowl, People's magazine and Monica/Clinton is what acounts for history this days.
  21. A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of the redistribution of wealth. She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his. One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school. Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying. Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?" She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus, college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over." Her father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA." The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!" The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the Republican Party."
  22. Kalshion, don't tell me to research the Patriot Act. I have been personally affected by the Patriot Act. Also, don't give me the choice between "constantly under attack" or "safe, but lost freedoms". It's the same choice that a mugger gives his victim, "Your life or your wallet". My freedoms are not yours to take, nor are they yours to grant me. They are MINE. You on the other hand, should go and research a country called The United States of America, a document called The Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence. Some reading of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand would help you understand what being an individual is. Those who seek to harm me, are criminals, just like those who seek to take away my freedoms while claiming to grant me "safety" in return. The choice is not between one or another. The choice is NEITHER.
  23. Just because you are not doing anything illegal doesn't mean that it's ok for the government to go snooping through your private life. Someone should go read the Constitution. Section 9. Limits on Congress. OR how about the Fourth Amendment, are you familiar with it? Let me quote you... "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." then there's the Fifth Amendment "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;...". You don't know about the TSA much do you. Well, I guess you don't know that TSA has the power to take away your Commercial drivers license, your pilots license, ect... WITHOUT any explanation, NOR are you able to challenge their actions in court. Where is the due process when they deprive people of their liberty and property? You want the Patriot Act. That's fine. First you need to repeal those Constitutional ammendments. Then go ahead and create new ones that declare the government as the ultimate entity, allowing it searches, violations of privacy, ability to arrest, confiscate and revoke things, all without due process. Then you can have your Patriot Act. Right now, that act is nothing but a bastard law that violates the Constitution, forced upon us by criminal career politicians with the mob boss on top signing it. And don't forget. Bush - Clinton, Clinton - Bush. Who said that? Bush did. Any conservative that thinks he is voting conservative when he casts his vote for a Republican is diluding himself. "Bush - Clinton" "Republicans - Democrats" can go to hell, it's nothing but a third party that wants to bring back and enforce the Constitution from now on.
  24. Soback

    Just Another Tax On Smokers

    Another childlish statement. This time it's from the Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/2378.html "Eleven unions representing more than 7,000 workers at the Environmental Protection Agency are calling for a national moratorium on programs to add fluoride to drinking water, citing what they call a possible cancer risk. "
×