Menchise

Maybe I should create a similar thread for the Australian Federal Election that's coming up. [ 11-03-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote:People are still shy about publicly confronting certain "protected" groups, and may be reluctant to criticize Shabazz openly. That may be why he gets the publicity that he does, because there is no loud, national opposition voice to challenge him. Just one question: How does Shabazz get so much publicity if the so-called 'liberal media' ignore his entire forum? quote:I don't think hate crimes are constitutional. I never said that they were. Were you replying to my post, $iLk? quote:As far as Shabazz (these names are so silly, I bet his real name is alfred or something) he threatens murder on all "whites and police officers" That's a crime in itself. You cannot threaten to kill someone - it isn't protected by free speech. I agree. Death threats are out. So we seem to have one person who is not behaving himself in public. The only potential problem with this issue is where the line between dramatic expression of dislike and death threat would be drawn. There isn't much doubt that Shabazz was threatening death since he's so overt about it, but there are some grey areas in different situations. For example, could the burning of an effigy be interpreted as a death threat? By the way, what are the details of the law that forbids death threats (ie official title of the law, punishment etc.)? Just curious (no, I haven't done anything ). [ 11-03-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote:This is an oxymoron IMO. Since when has the klan ever behaved themselves? I said if they behave themselves. quote:The village idiot should declare all malcontent organizations within the US (Greenpeace, NBP, KKK, ACLU, AFL-CIO, Libertarion party, NOW, etc.) as terrorist organizations and clean house You're joking, right? Right?

Another example is the 1968 election, which was a lot closer than the election in 1992. Nixon: 43% Humphrey: 42% Wallace: 13%

Shabazz can be as loud as he wants to be as long as he's not involved in deliberately causing any terrorist activities or hate crimes. Unless strong evidence is found of this (from what I've read, that is a likely possibility), he can't be arrested on the grounds of any anti-terrorism legislation. In order for the concept of free speech to have any meaning, it must have consistency and equality. I have little doubt that Shabazz is racist (he sounds like the opposite extreme of the KKK), but having racist thought is not a crime (if it was, at least a quarter of the populations of Australia and America would be in prison right now). Racism is only criminal when it's applied to infringing on civil liberties and/or alienating groups from participation in the community. From what I've seen, I think the New Black Panthers should receive the same treatment as the Klan: allow them to speak, even in public if they behave themselves, but they cannot act upon what they're saying or incite other people to act upon it. Whether one agrees with their reasons or not, to do what they urge is wrong.

Definitely mice. Tribbles are too passive, and rats have too much bite. By the way, who came up with the "Bunnies" reference?

Hehe.

Here are some other examples of reused ST actors. Mark Lenard played a Romulan captain before taking the role of Sarek. Ethan Phillips played a Ferengi doctor in TNG before joining the cast of Voyager as Neelix. Armin Shimerman played at least two other Ferengi in TNG before he played Quark in DS9. Max Grodenchik played a different Ferengi in TNG (the one who was pursuing Vash) before he played Rom in DS9. Aron Eisenburg (Nog in DS9) played a Kazon boy in an early episode of Voyager. The actor who played David Marcus (Kirk's son) in ST 2&3 was also in the TNG episode "Symbiosis" as one of the Felisium addicts. Diana Muldaur (Polaski in TNG) played an officer in a TOS episode where she, Kirk, and Spock were inhabited by three survivors of an alien apocalypse. Michael Dorn (Worf in TNG and DS9) played the lawyer defending Kirk and McCoy during the Klingon trial in ST 6.

I'm not $iLk, I'm Menchise!

quote: I've lifted the central square, makes it better somehow. Menchise, I need you to lift your spot by one click... and i think you should hide the window over it. Done.

quote: Now why are the two most liberal stations favorites of the Taliban? Ask them. I don't really care which TV stations the Taliban prefers. They all sound the same to me.

I checked the old thread where we argued the issue of Allende, and it turns out that the debate was never resolved. Here is where we left off... ARAMIKE: Sure, but most people in the country didn't want those changes. Should a nation be formed based upon the opinions of the minority? ME: I need to write my posts more carefully. Anyway, here is my answer. Allende became the President of Chile with his 36% vote in addition to the votes received from other left wing candidates with which he formed a coalition. Therefore, his government did have the support of the Chilean majority, because while the majority did not vote for Allende specifically, they did vote for similar candidates who became supporters of Allende. And then... ARAMIKE: Allende's socialist government didn't ASK the people they were taking from ME: Allende's government was taking from people who were using property for individual profit instead of serving the needs of everyone. If the complaints of those people were valid, they could have lobbied to have Allende removed at the next election. Pinochet took away the Chileans' right to lobby for anything. Shall we continue?

You know, there is a forum called "General Fleet Discussions" that was made for all this recruiting stuff. Use it. P.S. Join the Insurgents.

Hehe

quote: Heh Broken link. quote:Who says they have to listen to us in how to use the aid? What happens when anyone doesn't listen in how to use aid? They don't get any more of it, the deal is withdrawn, and the aid goes to the other side. quote:In any case, even if your analogy was correct, it'd be a TERRIBLE idea. If you like, I could try again.

I think he's referring to "Akira's place" near the Spectre Embassy.

quote: I'm not trying to. The analogy had, in fact, NOTHING to do with the people involved. It had to do with the US persuing its interests, a point which you've missed. We persue our interests in the middle east (including Iraq), we're condemned. We don't, we're condemned. We persue our interests ANYWHERE, we are condemned. We don't, we are. Just a little too much anti-US rhetoric this time? I didn't miss any point about pursuit of interests. It is the extent to which one is willing to go in order to pursue those interests that leads to condemnation. My anti-US arguments didn't just come out of thin air. They come from discovering a history of a nation contradicting with its own founding principles and ethics in order to pursue private interests. I use Chile as an example because it's one of the most damning of them all (democracy itself was violated with the support of the "leader of the free world", damnit!). It is for the aggressive pursuit of self-interest to the extent of endorsing unacceptable actions that causes the USA to be condemned just as Iraq is condemned. By convincing me that Saddam has proven himself unworthy of anything but condemnation, you have also strengthened my resolve that the USA should also be condemned for endorsing similar actions. After all, Iraq is only pursuing its own interests just as America is. Why should only one side be condemned? I don't hate the USA, I'm disappointed by what it has become. I am particularly disappointed by how the USA declares in one minute that the principles of freedom and liberty made it such a great nation, and then throws those principles away the next minute when they get in the way of self-interest. That is not how a "great nation" behaves. That is how a corrupt nation behaves. Realists would probably say that the corruption is due to the necessity of adapting to circumstances. Many agree. I don't. If that makes me anti-American, then so be it. Personally, I think I'm more "American" than most pro-Americans think I am, because I dare to be appalled when the USA breaks its own rules.

quote:I am one of the few (about 5 last count) that actually enjoyed Episode 1 Make that six. It wasn't the best of the series (more of a three star movie), but it was good.

Picking up from where I left off... quote: If it wasn't for American Capitalism - you would be speaking Japanese. If it wasn't for American Capitalism, Japan wouldn't have tried to make me speak Japanese. The causes of Japanese militarism in the 20th century date back to the 19th century. More specifically, 1864. By the middle of the 19th century, Japan's borders had been closed to Europeans for over a hundred years, after the missionaries stepped in and told everyone that their main religions (Shintoism and Buddhism) were wrong, and tried to run things themselves. Meanwhile, America was joining the club of imperialist powers (Britain, France, Spain, and Portugal) in their quest for new markets and sources of capital. One of the objectives was to find open ports and supplies of coal for naval vessels in the Pacific Ocean. President Fillmore set his sights on Japan. In 1864, Fillmore sent a polite letter full of subtle threats by courier (read: a fleet of warships under Commodore Perry) to the Japanese emperor. The tone of the letter wasn't difficult to detect (before you ask, I have read the letter): open the ports to American vessels and supply them with coal, or face Perry's warships (for starters). The emperor reluctantly accepted, Japan became a "land of opportunity" for US and European interests, and the Japanese people were suppressed. It was this violation of Japanese land and dignity that motivated the nation's desire to become a superpower. Within 50 years, Japan became the most powerful nation in Asia and one of the most powerful nations in the world, all for the sake of making sure that they weren't forced to surrender anything again. Obviously, they went too far. In conclusion, one of the main causes of Japanese militarism in the 20th century was the forced opening of Japanese ports by Fillmore and Perry. If that didn't happen, there would have been little motivation for Japan to build its own empire to such an extent. By the way, thanks for saving my ass in WWII.

A maintenance upgrade for the AW 3.2 Browser has been released (Build 397). Over 500 posts. Yay!

quote: We've tried that. He employed chemical weapons. The operation failed miserably. I think that we should just go in there ourselves and displace him. It wasn't tried with much conviction. Explain to me how the US actively supported the Kurds and the Shiites in their fight against Saddam, apart from the "No Fly Zones". quote: But at any rate, doesn't that suggestion default your argument on how the US should stay out of other nation's matters (read: Chile)? What kind of an analogy is that?! Comparing Allende to Saddam is totally ridiculous! Allende was democratically elected, he didn't oppress the people, and he didn't have chemical weapons! Pinochet, on the other hand, killed off his political opponents (including Allende) and oppressed the people. He is/was on Amnesty International's wanted list for human rights violations. Pinochet was a mass murderer defended by US military aid! You say that Saddam is hopelessly unpeaceful? Fine, you've convinced me. But DO NOT try to convince me that Pinochet was not. That is a direct contradiction.

I've been pre-occupied with the other debate threads. I'm not finished yet.

quote: Menchise, that's a TERRIBLE idea! That would be like giving aid to Hitler killing Jews in order to stop him from invading Poland. No. It would be like aid to Hitler (Taliban) to attack Stalin (NA) while the Jews (Afghans) are armed and trained in secrecy. quote: This is why we are putting together a coalition government, that will be elected by the people after it has firmed itself up, and have helped the people. The Northern Alliance will NOT be in charge per se, but they are providing the manpower. Exactly, the NA will have a large proportion of the military power. Would you trust these guys not to use it against a civilian government? They're only supporting the coalition government proposal as long as it suits their ambitions, their current ambition being to destroy the Taliban. As soon as that obstacle is out of the way, the civilian government will be next. quote: Already done and done, military sanctions have been lifted, and Pakistan is being VERY cooperative. Of course they are. They got exactly what they wanted. What happens when the war is over and the Pakistanis have an itch to scare India? Does the US impose military sanctions again? Do that, and Pakistan will never cooperate again without some very serious coercion. quote: This is give them arms and then destroy them later with and untrained southern rebellion. We tried this in Iraq, didn't work. We needed to supply air support, there is no way it would happen all by itself. Yes, civilian rebellions have failed before, but they have also succeeded before, some of them even succeeded when outside help was against them. The most famous example was the French Revolution, when the untrained Parisians defeated the 12,000 military reinforcements from Austria. They were outnumbered, outgunned, outtrained, and on their own, but they still won. Secondly, apart from establishing the "No Fly Zones", the US didn't do much to support the Shiite rebellion. Obviously, the Afghans would need outside help, but success is still possible, and victory would have more significant advantages than it would with the plan that's in operation now: 1) The Afghan people would be fighting to create their own government instead of bowing to the next one that comes along. 2) Afghanistan would be a stronger nation, and a formidable ally against neighbouring oppressors. 3) Islamic Fundamentalists and terrorists in other countries would lose face with their civilian supporters, because one of their biggest supporting states was overthrown by an Islamic revolution. In other words, they were defeated by a Jihad! With the plan that's being implemented now, the US is repeating the same mistakes that they made when they thought that the Taliban could be kept in check.