Evils of the World

POSTED BY: theheroofcanton
UPDATED: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 12:57
VIEWED: 16503
PAGE 1 of 1

THEHEROOFCANTON

Friday, April 9, 2004 1:16 AM

Who do you think is the evilist company, person, tv station, etc. in the word? FOX and Saddam are my best bets.

"You see the man hanging out of the spacehip with the really big gun, well its his will y'all should be thinking about now."

"I'm not immortal, I'm Infinitly prolonged."-Douglass Adams Spin off

My Best Friend can beat up your best friend.

My dad can outsmart your dad.

So they want to kill my men? Well, two can play at that game.

SPIKEANDJEZEBEL

Friday, April 9, 2004 2:43 AM

Not to make this thread a political debate, but I'd actually put George W. pretty close to the top of my list, over Saddam even....

"I like smackin' 'em!" - Jayne Cobb

KMAN

Friday, April 9, 2004 2:47 AM

I'm not disagreeing with either of you, but I have a question:

If Saddam and George W. got in a fight, who would win?

--either way, it would be fun to watch.

GINOBIFFARONI

Friday, April 9, 2004 2:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kman:

If Saddam and George W. got in a fight, who would win?

Either way Haliburton would turn a profit out of it.....

Just toss a couple grenades into the room and I'd buy a ticket

" Thats not fair !!!!
I didn't even have a soul when I did that!"

TEELABROWN

Friday, April 9, 2004 3:33 AM

Quote:
I'm not disagreeing with either of you, but I have a question:

If Saddam and George W. got in a fight, who would win?

The people. If they both ended up dead, everyone.

_____________
"Freedom is the Freedom to say that 2 plus 2 make 4. If that is granted, all else follws"-Winston, 1984
Teela Brown, keeper of bad typing.
"No one reads these things any way."- Bart on Blackboard

FIREFLYTHEMOVIE

Friday, April 9, 2004 3:48 AM

Quote:
The people. If they both ended up dead, everyone.

Hah! I was going to say "Society", but you beat me to the concept...

DOCTORTAM

Friday, April 9, 2004 4:26 AM

3. Wal-Mart
2. The Toronto Maple Leafs
1. FOX!!!!!!!!!!!

Fortunately, #2 will be out very soon

Why doesn't it ever go smooth?

HERO

Friday, April 9, 2004 4:46 AM

I'm surprised that anyone who likes Firefly would dislike George Bush so much as those responding to the 'who is the most evil' question.

Seems one of Firefly's themes is that some things are worth fighting for. Another is that if its going to be a fight there's no point being all nice about it, shoot to kill before they shoot to kill you (ie preemptive war). The Alliance was a John Kerry French Utiopia while the Browncoats have a whole lotta west Texas in their fabric.

I can understand holding a political disagreement with the President, but he is far from the focus of evil in the world.

Now stop insulting our fighting men and women, some of whom are here on this board, by claiming their Commander in Chief who sent them into harm's way is more evil then the murdering fanatical bastards they're saving the world from. It aint polite.

H

DOCTORTAM

Friday, April 9, 2004 4:50 AM

Hero is right. W isn't evil, just flat out dumb.

Why doesn't it ever go smooth?

INVISIBLEGREEN

Friday, April 9, 2004 4:51 AM

?! What?

SEVENPERCENT

Friday, April 9, 2004 5:52 AM

Quote:
I'm surprised that anyone who likes Firefly would dislike George Bush

Well, let's see- One of the biggest Whedon tenets about Firefly is that, and I quote, "It's not about the people who make history, it's about the people history stepped on"- I'm not necessarily going to call GW evil, but he's everything FF is opposed to-

1. Big, rich people who dont care about working stiffs
2. Greedy corporations with sneering 'behind-the-scenes' men (Halliburton and Ol' Dick)
3. Attacking someone without adaquate reason (and before this turns into a flamewar, yeah, I know Saddam was a bad, bad man; but correct me if I'm wrong-and I know I'm not- none of the Sept 11 boys were Iraqi, and no WMD's have been found)

So if anyone was going to be hostile to GW, it's FF fans-

Also, and I think Static will back me up here, just because I dont think well of GW or his decision-making doesnt mean I'm insulting the troops- Got nothin' but love for you guys

-

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

FIREFLYTHEMOVIE

Friday, April 9, 2004 6:47 AM

Hear, hear. And I never called him evil. I said society would be better of without him (or at least without him in power.) Part of being in the military means taking orders, regardless of whether you agree with them, or risk dishonorable discharge. I understand that, and I'm very glad we have the armed services. I don't even necessarily disagree with going into Iraq, and I certainly agree with going into Afghanistan. It's how the whole things been handled by the administration (the diplomacy or lack thereof, the mishandling of the transfer of power, etc.) that turns my stomach. But if a hand steals a loaf of bread (very loose analogy here, bear with me) I blame the person, or if we have to narrow it down to a body part, I blame the brain. Never the hand, right?

ARAWAEN

Friday, April 9, 2004 6:53 AM

I have disliked George W. since he appeared in the Republican primary four years ago. He has always struck me as insincere, arrogant and selfish. I don't think American soldiers have been sent to Iraq to defend my life nor my liberty, but rather they are to secure financial opportunities for corporate donors. I feel very badly for our men and women in uniform who are being put in harm's way so that some rich men can get richer and America can have a oil-rich puppet state in the Middle East. Long before Bush America and the whole-world began mishandling the Middle East region. Neither America nor Bush can be held accountable for the genesis of the problems in this part of the world, but our continued foreign policy (and this predates Bush by a longshot) that puts our own interests ahead of (and at the expense) of the people in that region is going to find nothing but continuous bloodshed.

While I have no warm fuzzy feelings for Saddam the world is no safer with him gone when the leaders of the world are still willing to back others like him whenever it suits our interests. As long as we are willing to sell weapons of mass destruction. As long as we are going to overlook atrocities. As long as the developed world is willing to support brutal dictators in the developing world in the name of profit, control or convenience we will have no shortage of 'Saddams'.

Now don't think I am excusing politicians from the other side of the isle just because I am critical of Bush. I despised Clinton and I think Kerry is a wishy-washy, 'politics as usual' candidate whom I will never bring myself to vote for. Too many of the politicians and governments opposed to the war are just as much motivated by self-interest as those who supported it (including the blasted French).

I am proud of my country because it was founded on principles, 'French Utopian' principles as it were. When our leaders abandon or compromise those principles it is not something I feel can be soothed with a balm of false nationalism. Concepts like 'due process', 'habeas corpus', 'innocent until proven guilty' have been seriously compromised in the name of security.

It is true that dissent of the war and the policies of our Commander in Chief can give an unintended morale boost to the enemy because they know that they don't necessarily have to win, merely turn public favor. This is why it is so important in a democracy not to resort to war when you don't have the support of a real majority of your people (not just a simple majority).

I don't generally hold with the notion of people being evil, rather I think of them as consenting to evil methods or having evil motivations. I genuinely don't believe Bush cares about the people he is sacrificing to accomplish his goals. I seriously believe he used family connections to avoid combat duty in Vietnam (which is no better or worse than dodging the draft), most of his cabinet and advisors similarly took steps to make sure they wouldn't be sacrificed for their country. In fact everytime Bush gives a speech about the sacrifices that need to be made in the 'war on terror' I can't help but think of the line from Schrek where the Lord says, 'Some of you may not return, but that is a sacrifice I am willing to make.' Now Saddam did horrible things that Bush will never come close to; most of those things wouldn't work for Bush as he is in different circumstances (and as been his whole life) but even I give him the benefit of the doubt. Bush and the knee-jerk response for security has proven far more of a threat to liberty and human rights than Saddam or Osama have been.

The reason some of us who like Firefly hold Bush in such contempt might be because there is a lot of Texas in the Alliance and no shortage of good ol' French liberalism in the Browncoats. The Alliance takes away your freedom supposedly in exchange for security, prosperity and convenience (though through a combination of bureaucracy and corruption a multitude are denied even these). Classical liberalism holds that a government only has

ZOID

Friday, April 9, 2004 12:00 PM

Hero o' Canton wrote:

Quote:

Who do you think is the evilist (sic) company, person, tv station, etc. in the word? FOX and Saddam are my best bets.

Most Evil:

1. Satan, and those who do his bidding (i.e., the guy/gal in your shaving/makeup mirror)

2. Everything about this thread, including this post

It's a dangerous thing to judge people's soul without a clear vision into it, and then call them 'evil'. We're all evil at least once a day...

Respectfully,

zoid
_________________________________________________

"River didn't fix faith. Faith fixed River."

- Senator Richard 'Book' Wilkins, Independent Congress
author of A Child Shall Lead Them: A History of the Second War of Independence

HKCAVALIER

Friday, April 9, 2004 1:26 PM

I was as hesitant as anyone to call G. W. evil until he announced that he wanted to amend the Constitution of the United States in the name of hate. The Constitution is something of a sacred document. There isn't any hate in it. Banning one segment of our society from the rights and priviledges of the rest of society based on their sexual identity is discrimination, pure and simple. His proposed amendment to ban gay marriage is driven by his hatred of homosexuality. That is as close to a fact as an emotional reality can be. And that is just evil. If he were to manage to get his amendment written into law, he would taint one of the sacred documents that belong to the people of the Earth. Y'see what I'm saying? That would be an evil day for us as human beings. And Bush is doing his part to make that day a reality.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, April 9, 2004 2:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
1. Big, rich people who dont care about working stiffs

The largest tax cut for the poor since Reagan suggests this isn’t true.

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
2. Greedy corporations with sneering 'behind-the-scenes' men (Halliburton and Ol' Dick)

What constitutes a “greedy corporation” in your world? One that makes a lot of money or one that wants to make a lot of money? Because every business falls into one or two of these categories; even if all they do is fly around looking for work. This has nothing to do with Bush.

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
3. Attacking someone without adaquate reason (and before this turns into a flamewar, yeah, I know Saddam was a bad, bad man; but correct me if I'm wrong-and I know I'm not- none of the Sept 11 boys were Iraqi, and no WMD's have been found)

17 UN Resolutions, 2 invasions of neighboring states, an attempt to assassinate a former American president, the murder and rape of millions of innocent people says you’re wrong.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I was as hesitant as anyone to call G. W. evil until he announced that he wanted to amend the Constitution of the United States in the name of hate.

You mean amend the Constitution for State’s Rights. At the base of the gay marriage issue is not whether the Constitution should forbid a certain group the right to perform certain action. What is at the heart is whether a judge in one state has the right to tell every other state how to govern themselves. That is precisely the concept behind the history that Firefly was based on, according to Whedon.

KNIBBLET

Friday, April 9, 2004 2:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Now stop insulting our fighting men and women, some of whom are here on this board, by claiming their Commander in Chief who sent them into harm's way is more evil then the murdering fanatical bastards they're saving the world from. It aint polite.

Sorry, that bucket of logic holds no water. I support the troops.I want them to live. I want them to succeed.

However unlike the people who can't look at the dead and maimed without clinging to the flimsiest justification to give the sacrifice meaning, I'll admit that the mission they are on is a lie. Our President and his entire pack of war profiteers are liars.

He's killing our troops for a lie and that lie is built around revenge, money, oil and power. Throw in a dash of fundamentalist Dominionism and you've summed up the smirky liar's cabal.

I want our troops to come home safely. Come home to the families who love them and the nation that needs them to vote the murdering millionaires out of the white house.

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS -- IMPEACH BUSH

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

ROCKETJOCK

Friday, April 9, 2004 2:37 PM

Unfortunately, any thread discussing who is the most evil person in the world cannot help but devolve into a political discusssion.

For the record, anyone interested in where our Duly Appointed President fits into the top ten evil list should read a book entitled Fortunate Son: George W. Bush and the Making of an American President by J.H. Hatfield, Soft Skull Press, and make their own decisions. The original St. Martin's Press edition is hard to find, as the company shredded most of it under pressure from the current administration. Welcome to the Land of the Free.

By the way, enjoy your vote while you have it. The washington power brokers are pushing for Electronic Voting w/out a paper trail; the company most likely to get the contract is ChoicePoint. If the name sounds familiar, it's because they handled the 2000 election in Florida.

A constitutional republic. It was a good idea while it lasted...

"You can't enslave a free man. The most you can do is kill him." -- Robert A. Heinlein

TEELABROWN

Friday, April 9, 2004 2:46 PM

Quote:
I'm surprised that anyone who likes Firefly would dislike George Bush so much

I actually feel sorry for him. People (Me included, but very little) always lampooning him.

Very sorry.

My Evils of the World:
Microsoft and Windows.

P.S. Hero- I now need a new nickname for theheroofcanton.

_____________
"Freedom is the Freedom to say that 2 plus 2 make 4. If that is granted, all else follws"-Winston, 1984
Teela Brown, keeper of bad typing.
"No one reads these things any way."- Bart on Blackboard

APEMAN61

Friday, April 9, 2004 3:26 PM

Well whether or not you like bush, I think he's much better than kerry. You may not agree with his ideas, but at least he has them and sticks to them. Kerry seems to go back and forth on everything he says. At one moment he's for the way at another he's against it and claiming that he never was a supporter of the war. It's insane. you dont like bush's stand on gay marriage, well at least he has one. Kerry just dances around it. Me personally I support Bush. I think what he's doing in Iraq and Afganistan is the right thing. He taking evil men out of power.
It drives me insane when people compare bush to saddam. Did Bush have a damn torture center inside our Olympic headquarters? Does Bush use virtually all the country's money to build palaces for himself? does bush murder his own people? So how the fuck does he compare to Saddam?

SEVENPERCENT

Friday, April 9, 2004 3:54 PM

I'll take these one at a time

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
The largest tax cut for the poor since Reagan suggests this isn’t true.

Ahh, yes, the tax cut for the poor- Of which the poor saw almost nothing; His middle class tax cut (of which I am firmly in the middle class and saw no change) which only weakened the economy- He's a real trooper for the impoverished, that guy- His failure to provide adaquate education for poor children (no child left behind is not helping them)

Quote:
What constitutes a “greedy corporation” in your world? One that makes a lot of money or one that wants to make a lot of money? Because every business falls into one or two of these categories; even if all they do is fly around looking for work. This has nothing to do with Bush.

Let's see, Enron's secret dealings with its former officer, Ken Lay, and the VP Dick Cheney over energy; of which we later saw Enron tank and burn its employees with nothing even resembling a just punishment for those responsible (see GW about the poor, above)- Oh, and while we speak of Cheney, I'll just drop Halliburton, who somehow manages to land all these contracts that no one else gets to bid on- Oh and I almost forgot Rumsfeld's connection to the company that sold nuclear reactor parts to Korea- These are all facts, look them up (I suggest tompaine.com, or something similar, I dont think you'll find them on the White House website)

Quote:
17 UN Resolutions, 2 invasions of neighboring states, an attempt to assassinate a former American president, the murder and rape of millions of innocent people says you’re wrong.

First, one of the attempted invasions of other countries you're referring to better not be Iran, because if you remember, we helped them in that one- We gave Saddam the key to the city of Detroit in the 80's to honor him- Also, not to defend the evil piece of shit, but we used to try to assassinate folks too (it's only recently we gave that up, and GW wanted to repeal that Exec. Order that stops us-)- As far as the murder of innocent people? Dont you dare use that argument- If you think Iraq is the greatest civil rights violator in the world, you dont even deserve to post on this thread- Besides, not to sound callous, but they were his own people, and it's not like they helped us take him down- It's not like they started a revolution and we helped them; those people sat and watched while we did it, cheered that he was gone, and then started killing US troops-

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

KNIBBLET

Friday, April 9, 2004 4:06 PM

Quote:
Questions posed originally by Apeman61:

Q.Did Bush have a damn torture center inside our Olympic headquarters?
A. No, his torture center is at Guantanamo Bay. Sending suspects to allied countries with poor human rights records to be questioned also counts against him in my books.

Q. Does Bush use virtually all the country's money to build palaces for himself?
A. No, but he is spending $70 Billion to prop up his buddy Dick's Halliburton.

Q. Does bush murder his own people?
A. No, but he's willing to set them up for murder and through that exposure, kill other Americans. The exposure of a CIA operative working in counter terrorism came from inside the White House.
Valerie Plame, wife of retired Ambassador Joseph Wilson, was exposed when her husband dared to point out that the President was using intelligence which had proven to be crude forgeries.

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, April 9, 2004 4:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Apeman61:
It drives me insane when people compare bush to saddam. Did Bush have a damn torture center inside our Olympic headquarters? Does Bush use virtually all the country's money to build palaces for himself? does bush murder his own people? So how the fuck does he compare to Saddam?

This is a good point.

I know that some people disagree with Bush. I don’t mind honest disagreements. But there is a big difference between honest and fair criticism and lacking such a basic understanding of the world that you are unable to recognize the difference between Bush and Hussein. Comparing the two, much less placing Bush below Saddam makes you look fanatical and silly. Not to put too fine a point on it.

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Ahh, yes, the tax cut for the poor- Of which the poor saw almost nothing; His middle class tax cut (of which I am firmly in the middle class and saw no change) which only weakened the economy- He's a real trooper for the impoverished, that guy- His failure to provide adaquate education for poor children (no child left behind is not helping them)

Actually the poor saw the largest percentage of the cut, in fact over twice the percentage given to the wealthy. And following the tax cut the economy began to pick up which suggests that the tax cut was one of, if not the sole, reason the economy improved. And public education has never been adequate for underprivileged schools. No Child Left Behind may or may not be working, but at least it was an attempt to change things.

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Let's see, Enron's secret dealings with its former officer, Ken Lay, and the VP Dick Cheney over energy; of which we later saw Enron tank and burn its employees with nothing even resembling a just punishment for those responsible (see GW about the poor, above)- Oh, and while we speak of Cheney, I'll just drop Halliburton, who somehow manages to land all these contracts that no one else gets to bid on- Oh and I almost forgot Rumsfeld's connection to the company that sold nuclear reactor parts to Korea- These are all facts, look them up (I suggest tompaine.com, or something similar, I dont think you'll find them on the White House website)

I don’t need to look them up, I know where you are getting all this stuff. But none of it is an indictment of the Bush Administration. I can give you a list a mile long of the appearance of as well as evidence of impropriety in the Clinton Administration. Some was legitimate, some wasn’t. Stated without corroborating evidence and direct association, it is basically just an anti-capitalist conspiracy theory.

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
First, one of the attempted invasions of other countries you're referring to better not be Iran, because if you remember, we helped them in that one-

We did not make the decision for him. Saddam Hussein made the choice to invade a neighboring country. That had absolutely nothing to do with the US.

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
we used to try to assassinate folks too (it's only recently we gave that up, and GW wanted to repeal that Exec. Order that stops us-)-

So, what difference does that make? Attempted murder of a former American president is still cause for war.

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
As far as the murder of innocent people? Dont you dare use that argument-

Why shouldn’t I dare use that argument? Because you have no legitimate counter? Saddam Hussein is responsible for the intentional and unprovoked targeting and murdering of hundreds of thousands of innocent people including women and children. I’m sorry that you feel these people were not important enough to be angry about, but I do.

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
If you think Iraq is the greatest civil rights violator in the world, you dont even deserve to post on this thread- Besides, not to sound callous, but they were his own people, and it's not lik

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

MERLINDREA

Friday, April 9, 2004 4:15 PM

Quote:
It's not like they started a revolution and we helped them; those people sat and watched while we did it, cheered that he was gone, and then started killing US troops

For everyone interested in reading what Iraqis think about the whole situation, there is a great blog: healingiraq.blogspot.com by a young Iraqi dentist. He also links to several other blogs, both Iraqi and American soldiers in Iraq. It shows that - like always - only the ones with the shouting voices (and hostages) are heard, not the much bigger population of folks who just want to live in peace.

One comment regarding the Bush vs Saddam comparison. I agree that Bush's deeds cannot be compared with Saddam - he, as far as we know, didn't torture anyone, for instance.

However, the issue is that Bush, with probably the best intentions, I give him that, has unfortunately much more power to wreak havoc on the whole world. Look what we have now in Iraq - its no longer a problem of only Iraqis, not even only the Middle East, but the whole world - japanese hostages, Madrid bombings, suspected planned attacks in Rome... Somehow the world, that was largely united just after 9/11, is more fractionated than ever...

It depends on how you define "evil" I guess. It goes back to one of the big philosophical questions: Is evil to do evil with good intentions? Or is evil to do good but with evil intentions?

Merl

SIGNYM

Friday, April 9, 2004 4:24 PM

Hmm... 500 ppl own 50% (yes, 50%) of the world's assets. So 4 billion folks (not counting China and Russia) work for the benefit of 0.00000001% of the population, while the the infrastructure tanks and the world approaches thermal runaway.

Any system that allows that is evil. You fill in the blank as to what that system is.

Don't forget, the basis of FF is that the old earth was "used up" (I actually wonder if they don't mean "blown up"... the source of all those planetoids circling a star at about earth distance), and we are heading in that direction.

Yippee hooray for the people.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, April 9, 2004 4:33 PM

The situation in Iraq has devolved only because pro-totalitarian forces within Iraq are afraid of what might happen if a legitimate Iraqi government is installed. There has always been terrorism and hostages. The Iraq war didn’t start these things. Prior to an invasion of Iraq there were dozens of terrorists groups; many of them acting worldwide against Spanish, Italian, Japanese, American, ect interests often with little to no substantial impediment. Today many terrorist networks are retaliating against what is a real and substantial threat to their existence.

One should not expect terrorists and criminals who seek to kill innocent people for their bigoted views to disappear quietly, and one should also be careful of labeling the fight against such violent bigotry as evil.

SEVENPERCENT

Friday, April 9, 2004 4:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I know where you are getting all this stuff. But none of it is an indictment of the Bush Administration. I can give you a list a mile long of the appearance of as well as evidence of impropriety in the Clinton Administration. Some was legitimate, some wasn’t. Stated without corroborating evidence and direct association, it is basically just an anti-capitalist conspiracy theory.

Not indicting him, just telling you why folks dont like him- Also, do not put me in the camp of the tinfoil hat brigade because you dont like the facts- I am neither anti-capitalist nor am I uncritical of the Clinton administration- The facts are that the administration has close ties to several corporations that are running roughshod over the American people and doing irreparable damage to the working class- You're using fallacies here, and you're busted-

Quote:
We did not make the decision for him. Saddam Hussein made the choice to invade a neighboring country. That had absolutely nothing to do with the US.

So let me get this straight- If we help a country that invades another, we're not responsible? Since we provided Saddam with nerve agents he used on his own people, we're not responsible for their deaths? We supply the guns and ammunition to fight a war and it has nothing to do with us? To quote a movie line, "Sorry Hans, wrong guess" - We may not be pulling the trigger, but the blood is on our hands too-

Quote:
As far as the murder of innocent people? Dont you dare use that argument-

Why shouldn’t I dare use that argument? Because you have no legitimate counter? Saddam Hussein is responsible for the intentional and unprovoked targeting and murdering of hundreds of thousands of innocent people including women and children. I’m sorry that you feel these people were not important enough to be angry about, but I do.

You took that quote out of context, it went with the other that said there are worse human rights violators in the world that we arent attacking(try China, try N. Korea)- And if you go back, I never said that Saddam was a saint, nor did I compare GW to him- If you use the argument that you and you alone care about the suffering of little children, I'll pass your sainthood recommendation along to His Holiness asap- Of course I care, you're just being asinine here- We all care about innocent people being killed, but the answer is how to help them best and stabilize the region while protecting ourselves, and to that end we are sorely lacking-

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

HKCAVALIER

Friday, April 9, 2004 4:53 PM

Here's a sad story from a friend of mine who likes to travel. He was on a plane sitting next to a soldier stationed in Iraq. This soldier told him that they only get one meal a day over there and that his family had to raise the money to pay for his bullet proof vest. So where's all the billions of dollars going that we're supposedly spending on the war? Somebody's getting rich.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

APEMAN61

Friday, April 9, 2004 4:58 PM

This is getting a little heated eh? Maybe we should all just calm down a bit. And agree to disagree as it were. 'Cause it looks like everyone has their own opinions and arguing ain't going to do anything. The way it is is the way it is and it's not going to be changed by yelling at eachother.

HKCAVALIER

Friday, April 9, 2004 5:01 PM

Oh, and I make about 22 thousand dollars a year, which qualifies me as poor. And I saw nothing like a tax break last year. Nothing. I owed.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

SIGNYM

Friday, April 9, 2004 5:36 PM

Speaking of heat....

Temperature is a subjective thing (albeit within a limited range for neurotypical ppl). What feels hot to you may feel warm to me. Fortunately, we have thermometers where we can look at a thrid thing and agree on a numerical value, no matter what it "feels" like.

I suggest we stick to facts as much as possible. Where someone has a fact (not an opinion) that counters ours, let's try to resolve exactly WHAT we're talking about, before resorting to baseless assertions, ad hominem arguments, and insinuation.

And where we DO have an ethic that is driving our opinion (and we all do) let's try to be honest about it.

My ethics are:

There is only this world... don't expect the supernatural to reward, punish, or rescue us.

Reward promotes work, punishment promotes avoidance.

Humans are a SOCIAL species, with all of the biology that goes along with cooperation, competition, rank, and exclusion. "Human nature" (human neurology) includes within it intrinsic rewards for cooperation (the opiate centers "light up" by fMRI) as well as rewards for competition.

What we reward, and what we punish, determines what kind of society we build. We often call on the supernatural or human nature to support our self-created definitions of "evil" and "good", but these appeals to a higher authority are baseless.

Many people acting together is not the same as the average of all these people acting individually. We create systems that outlive us by many generations, as we need to understand and govern these systems.

LIZ

Friday, April 9, 2004 5:39 PM

some extra info on costs
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3775686/
and on the flip side
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3072945/

edit: oh, btw, this in reference to equipment costs for soldiers

SAMURAIX47

Friday, April 9, 2004 6:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RocketJock:
By the way, enjoy your vote while you have it. The washington power brokers are pushing for Electronic Voting w/out a paper trail; the company most likely to get the contract is ChoicePoint. If the name sounds familiar, it's because they handled the 2000 election in Florida.

IIRC they had problems with the paper ballot system thay had in place that required people to punch out a paper chad on a punch card... the punch cards can then be read electronically. With the punch cards they can do manual recounts. The big problem was that people were confused by the ballot form and how the chads maynot have been punched out completely (hanging chad).

Hopefully they've instituted changes in FL to correct their problems.

In Rhode Island we used to use the old fashioned flip-the-switch ballot booths until 1998 where we switch to optical scan ballots that are easy to read, easy to mark and can be rescanned or manually recounted.

I can see where a paper-less voting system can be hacked all to easily... you may as well go play a video slot machine... it would be like nothing more than a video game that's rigged so the house wins.

Jaymes

SPIKEANDJEZEBEL

Friday, April 9, 2004 6:17 PM

As Apeman61 said - "And agree to disagree as it were. 'Cause it looks like everyone has their own opinions and arguing ain't going to do anything. The way it is is the way it is and it's not going to be changed by yelling and eachother."

I couldn't agree more - people generally have their positions on things, and arguing in a chat room won't change that. It's still kind of fun, though...

Would this be a bad time to bring up my hatred of the corruption in the Catholic Church? :-)

"I like smackin' 'em!" - Jayne Cobb

SIGNYM

Friday, April 9, 2004 6:25 PM

Before you change the world, you have to change your mind, or the minds of others.

Why were the pyramids built? Wouldn't the people have been better off digging more irrigation canals? They were built because of an IDEA.

Why did the Catholic Church become such a power? Wouldn't the world have been better off if the Pope had actually followed Jesus' precepts and actually helped the poor? It was all because of an IDEA.

Why do we allow corporations to run roughshod over almost everyine in the world, and at the same time destroy the biological diversity that we all depend on? Because of an IDEA.

It's important to disagree and to discuss. People do sometimes unchain their minds.

SAMURAIX47

Friday, April 9, 2004 6:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Oh, and I make about 22 thousand dollars a year, which qualifies me as poor. And I saw nothing like a tax break last year. Nothing. I owed.
QUOTE]

HK, I don't know if you have kids or not but we got ours...
From the www.irs.gov website...
http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=111546,00.html

We have 2 children... and probably paid out more in taxes than HK did and so we wound up getting money back... it was basically an extra refund that came in during the summer. And it wouldn't have mattered if we made $50K, $100K or $1 mil. It was a set amount for the number of children. So $400 is a larger percentage comparatively for lower income than for larger income.

Jaymes

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

SIGMANUNKI

Friday, April 9, 2004 6:32 PM

I think that there is one fundamental fallacy that is in this thread. Namely, that GW is the president. There was a Scottish newspaper that described him as the unpresident and I tend to agree. After all, aren't presidents voted in?

And yes, I do think he is evil.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2004/01/2
6/hsorensen.DTL

----
"If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!" -Me
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, April 9, 2004 7:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I think that there is one fundamental fallacy that is in this thread. Namely, that GW is the president. There was a Scottish newspaper that described him as the unpresident and I tend to agree. After all, aren't presidents voted in?

And yes, I do think he is evil.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2004/01/2
6/hsorensen.DTL

This is such tired old propaganda. George Bush, whether you agree with him or not, legitimately won the election. He was not appointed. He had more votes in Florida then Gore and he won Florida, thereby winning the Electoral College. This is a fact. It is also a fact that Gore tried hard to get re-count after recount in primarily Democrat-supporting counties of Florida and suppress largely pro-Bush military ballets, which was an attempt to push the election in his favor. The Supreme Court did not appoint George Bush; it put an end to Gore’s attempted hi-jacking of the election, preserving Bush’s lead.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, April 9, 2004 7:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Not indicting him, just telling you why folks dont like him- Also, do not put me in the camp of the tinfoil hat brigade because you dont like the facts-

What facts? I put you in that category because you don’t have any facts. What you have is supposition, the bases of any good conspiracy theory.

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
So let me get this straight- If we help a country that invades another, we're not responsible? Since we provided Saddam with nerve agents he used on his own people, we're not responsible for their deaths? We supply the guns and ammunition to fight a war and it has nothing to do with us?

Like I said we didn’t make the decision for him to invade Iran. He did that all on his own. That had nothing to do with us.

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
You took that quote out of context, it went with the other that said there are worse human rights violators in the world that we arent attacking(try China, try N. Korea)-

They don’t have 17 UN Resolutions against them, do they?

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
And if you go back, I never said that Saddam was a saint, nor did I compare GW to him- If you use the argument that you and you alone care about the suffering of little children, I'll pass your sainthood recommendation along to His Holiness asap- Of course I care, you're just being asinine here- We all care about innocent people being killed, but the answer is how to help them best and stabilize the region while protecting ourselves, and to that end we are sorely lacking-

Stop with the self-righteous BS, you’re the one who tried to dismiss Saddam’s atrocities with the old “they deserved it” line. I’m not going to support you if you intend to paint with such a broad brush. The majority of the people Saddam killed were innocent women and children, not militants. And that is the difference between us and them.

SIGMANUNKI

Friday, April 9, 2004 7:32 PM

Finn:
I find it interesting that you comment on my voted in comment, but fail to address the evil comment.

Also, could you provide a link supporting your claim please.

----
"If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!" -Me
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, April 9, 2004 7:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Finn:
I find it interesting that you comment on my voted in comment, but fail to address the evil comment.

Also, could you provide a link supporting your claim please.

Attempts to label Bush, or any American President, as “evil” are generally fanatical comments driven by a one-sided political agenda. Throwing up a link and yelling fire will probably not get my attention.

As for you request of a supporting material I offer, to start with, US Supreme Court Case, Bush vs Gore.
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

SAMURAIX47

Friday, April 9, 2004 8:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Ahh, yes, the tax cut for the poor- Of which the poor saw almost nothing; His middle class tax cut (of which I am firmly in the middle class and saw no change) which only weakened the economy- He's a real trooper for the impoverished, that guy- His failure to provide adaquate education for poor children (no child left behind is not helping them)
Quote:

See my previous post about the 2003 Advanced Child Tax Credit.

And as far as education is concerned... education begins in the home. Barring that, hopefully you can find really good daycare that is more than just a babysitting service... a pre-school that encourages fun in learning... I don't mean a pre-school that tries to have kids ready for college by First Grade. I've seen some of those where 4 yr olds have homework to do. But one that give kids a way of experiencing the things around them and promotes their creativity individually and collectively as a class.

Here is a fact sheet on No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020108.html
Excerpts:
— Accountability for Results: Creates strong standards in each state for what every child should know and learn in reading and math in grades 3-8. Student progress and achievement will be measured for every child, every year.

— Unprecedented State & Local Flexibility & Reduced Red Tape: Provides new flexibility for all 50 states and every local school district in America in the use of federal education funds.

— Focusing Resources on Proven Educational Methods: Focuses educational dollars on proven, research-based approaches that will most help children to learn.

— Expanded Choices for Parents: Enhances options for parents with children in chronically failing schools - and makes these options available immediately in the 2002-03 school year for students in thousands of schools already identified as failing under current law.
-------------------------------------------------

The fed gov may give out $$$ for education but their job is not to micromanage the education system in the country. Their job is to set equitable policies that we can abide by. They set up some standards... if the education systems can meet those standards then that is adequate. If they are below then they have problems. If they exceed, then they've got it goin on.

Any blame for inadequate education systems should be directed to those who are immediately responsible, the teachers, the school administration, the city or town school boards who control the money. If they are not getting the job done, more times than not, it's not how much money they spend, but how they are getting the kids to learn. I've seen schools adopt curriculums that don't work, but they won't see the result of it right away. Look at the Whole Word/Phonics situation that happened in California as the best example.

I don't know how local and state funding work for your local area, but I do know that for Rhode Island it leaves much to be desired. Historically, the State Board of Ed. has little real control over how money is utilized in the individual town school budgets. The state does not have an equitable distribution of funds to each town's school system. Each town's School Board controls the budget, the hiring of teachers, and some of the curriculum. Each town has to negotiate teacher contracts with the teacher's union. The high school curriculum in some towns have only 2 years of English, social studies, and math as a minimum and physical education is 4 yrs. Some towns have had to drop music and art from the curriculum, oh but they kept athletics.

I'm just so glad that my town cares about the whole education of the kids. My daughters' elementary school has a great reading program that goes beyond just the textbook. And I just co-officiate the 4th grade spelling bee and the kids had to go to the end of the 5th grade word list before we wound up with a winner.

A cpl yrs ago Massachusetts next door instituted MCAS testing for high school

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

SAMURAIX47

Friday, April 9, 2004 8:18 PM

Sorry, not a extra refund for 2002, but an advance on our 2003 tax refund which was just filed yesterday...

Quote:
Originally posted by SamuraiX47:
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Oh, and I make about 22 thousand dollars a year, which qualifies me as poor. And I saw nothing like a tax break last year. Nothing. I owed.
QUOTE]

HK, I don't know if you have kids or not but we got ours...
From the www.irs.gov website...
http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=111546,00.html

We have 2 children... and probably paid out more in taxes than HK did and so we wound up getting money back... it was basically an extra refund that came in during the summer. And it wouldn't have mattered if we made $50K, $100K or $1 mil. It was a set amount for the number of children. So $400 is a larger percentage comparatively for lower income than for larger income.

Jaymes

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

SIGMANUNKI

Friday, April 9, 2004 8:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Attempts to label Bush, or any American President, as “evil” are generally fanatical comments driven by a one-sided political agenda. Throwing up a link and yelling fire will probably not get my attention.

Well, did you read that article and the article that it linked to. If you did you would realize that at least there are some significant points made. And you analogy is rather extreme, don't you think.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
As for you request of a supporting material I offer, to start with, US Supreme Court Case, Bush vs Gore.
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

I'll read this one after I've done my work for the day and comment on it later.

But, the way in which you chose to respond to this specific request wasn't exactly friendly and one could say that it had a touch of arrogance to it. I only asked for evidence, which is entirely acceptable, IMHO. So, lets tone it down a touch, we're all browncoats here.

----
"If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!" -Me
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, April 9, 2004 9:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Well, did you read that article and the article that it linked to. If you did you would realize that at least there are some significant points made. And you analogy is rather extreme, don't you think.

Yes, I read the article. I don’t know about “the article that it linked to”. The article was basically trying to draw comparisons between Nazi Germany and the Bush Administration, which is not only hackneyed but also ridiculous. We are not Nazi Germany, ipso facto. I don’t appreciate these drive-by attempts to paint the Bush Administration as Nazis or Bush as Hitler. And that is an extremist one-sided view. It is exactly like my analogy. Such views are nothing short of screaming fire when there is no fire.

If you have an opinion, then write something up and present it to the board for consideration, and if it is intelligent and I have time, I’ll respond to it. But you can’t expect me or anyone else to respond to every crazy article you can pull off the web. That’s just impossible, you know? It’s got nothing personally to do with you.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
But, the way in which you chose to respond to this specific request wasn't exactly friendly and one could say that it had a touch of arrogance to it. I only asked for evidence, which is entirely acceptable, IMHO. So, lets tone it down a touch, we're all browncoats here.

“I didn’t fight in no war.” --Jayne.

I thought I was being very friendly, consequently. And your request for evidence was very acceptable, which I responded to.

ZOID

Friday, April 9, 2004 10:48 PM

Wow, really great invective, you guys! Keep up the hate!

Reminded me of some more of my most detested things about being in this world, in no particular order:

1. Ideological slaves from the far left who demonize everyone else for the evils of the world.

2. Ideological slaves from the far right who demonize everyone else for the evils of the world.

3. Fence-sitters in the middle who demonize everybody, right and left, for the evils of the world.

Umm, while I believe in political discourse, whether or not it's sane and educated, don't they have someplace else you can go and do it? You're all tying up precious bandwidth with regurgitated dogma, when this website is supposed to be about Firefly.

Go to MSN or Yahoo and vent spleen 'til you're red or blue in the face, depending upon affiliation; then pick up a party-sponsored placard and march; then face off against the counter-protestors and shout epithets at each other; then start throwing things -- bottles, rocks, etc. Meanwhile, the returning heros of our armed forces -- the ones who defend your freedom of speech from all enemies of Democracy with their lives -- are thinking, "What the f**k!?!".

Stubborn refusal to allow other people the right to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions: It's the American Way!

Oh, and if someone tries to make a point, BE SURE AND SHOUT THEM DOWN and insult them. That's sure to win them over to your way of thinking...

Now, imagine stating the opinions expressed here in Saddam's Iraq...

Respectfully,

zoid
_________________________________________________

"River didn't fix faith. Faith fixed River."

- Senator Richard 'Book' Wilkins, Independent Congress
author of A Child Shall Lead Them: A History of the Second War of Independence

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, April 9, 2004 11:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
Wow, really great invective, you guys! Keep up the hate!

I may be somewhat new, but I don't see any hate here. I think 'hate' might be a little strong. I see disagreements. I think disagreements are acceptable, though. We all see the world from different points of view. It's not necessary that we agree with each other, or even respect each other's point of view, but we should respect the evidence and each other. And I see nothing to believe that is not being done. But as I said, I'm new.

SIGMANUNKI

Saturday, April 10, 2004 1:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
but we should respect the evidence and each other.

Quite frankly I don't see you doing that with regards to our particular discussion. Perhaps it is just the widening gap between our two cultures.

In Canada aggressive tones in discussion make it an argument. Since I tend to see a lot of aggression in your posts, this is an argument. I have tried to post without any aggression in them and I hope that they were taken as such.

To close, here is the link in which I referred.
http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/timeline/nazifica.htm

And I hope that we can meet in another thread, in another discussion, on more hospitable terms.

Until then.

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
Wow, really great invective, you guys! Keep up the hate!

I take offense to that.

----
"If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!" -Me
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River

APEMAN61

Saturday, April 10, 2004 1:24 AM

So when Bush annexes Poland war will break out? I did not see that one coming.

HKCAVALIER

Saturday, April 10, 2004 1:37 AM

Hey Zoid, now I think you're a little out of line with that last post. If you have spent any time at all on this board, you'd know that what unites us is our love of this tv show Firefly, but what we talk about on the forum is pretty much whatever we feel like. I don't see hate being slung here. At worst I would call it "snottiness" or maybe "condescension." It's a freekin' online debate, surely you've seen the like?

Accusing people of "ideological slavery" feels an awful lot like your own brand of "demonizing" to me. Get off your high horse and share an opinion that isn't meant to make us all look like idiots or crazy people, m'kay?

Oh, and another thing, I hate (ooh, I used the word hate), I say I hate this jingoistic reply people have to any serious criticism of the current administration: "Try voicing that opinion in Iraq." We have a right to question our leaders, Zoid. Period. Not everyone here believes that American men and women are dying in Iraq to protect that right. Some of us believe that their lives are being wasted. Some of us hold the present administration responsible.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, April 10, 2004 1:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
but we should respect the evidence and each other.

Quite frankly I don't see you doing that with regards to our particular discussion. Perhaps it is just the widening gap between our two cultures.

In Canada aggressive tones in discussion make it an argument. Since I tend to see a lot of aggression in your posts, this is an argument. I have tried to post without any aggression in them and I hope that they were taken as such.

I don’t think it’s fair to say that I haven't respected you or the evidence. And yes, I am sometimes confrontational in a discussion. And, no your arguments haven’t been free of confrontation. But that’s okay. I respect you and the evidence, all the more. I have no reason not to. You seem like an intelligent person. But you shouldn’t take that to mean that necassarily I agree with you.

I don't respect opinions that seek to broadly paint people as racists or fascist without adequate support for such claims. That’s not a respectable opinion. That’s defamation, possibly libel, maybe Anti-Americanism. I would ask that you not tie yourself too closely to this article before you understand the facts.

SIGMANUNKI

Saturday, April 10, 2004 2:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I don't respect opinions that seek to broadly paint people as racists or fascist without adequate support for such claims. That’s not a respectable opinion. That’s defamation, possibly libel, maybe Anti-Americanism. I would ask that you not tie yourself too closely to this article before you understand the facts.

Since things are hospitable I'll just say this. Before you say that I don't know the facts etc. you should know where I am coming from.

My wife is German. They learn *a lot* about what went on during the world wars to quell any such ideas from coming up again. I think it is safe to say that it has been effective. Also, she has told me that that article has a ring of truth to it.

When Hitler was rising to power in Germany there were people that spoke out against him and tried to get the people of Germany to see what was really going on. But, when the people finally did it was too late.

Now before we start screaming and yelling here, I am not saying that Bush is Hitler. What I am saying is that people in the US and around the world are screaming that something is horribly wrong with the US and what they are doing around the world. This can *not* be taken lightly. It speaks volumes that this is happening with such numbers. This is a warning. What will happen if people in the US don't listen and do something about it is for the fates to know now and us to find out later.

Basically, my point is something *is* wrong and it is up to the citizens of the US to question and find the root cause and kill it.

----
"If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!" -Me
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River

TEELABROWN

Saturday, April 10, 2004 2:24 AM

Sorry, don't have time to read them all. Making quick little point.

Sometimes I can hardly remember the meaning of politics. (Now it's drilled in since I've looked it up so many gorram times!) This is why I don't do much politics. Sure, historical politics and economics. Just go back 50-150 years or so, and that's what I do. My voting style: Voting against someone. If that's impossible, I'll flip a coin. When I do vote, I'll figure out somethin'.

End of random history-type learning. Now back to your regularly posted thread.

_____________
"Freedom is the Freedom to say that 2 plus 2 make 4. If that is granted, all else follws"-Winston, 1984
Teela Brown, keeper of bad typing.
"No one reads these things any way."- Bart on Blackboard

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, April 10, 2004 3:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
My wife is German. They learn *a lot* about what went on during the world wars to quell any such ideas from coming up again. I think it is safe to say that it has been effective. Also, she has told me that that article has a ring of truth to it.

Wonderful, but I have yet to see any of this truth. What I see are people making broad characterizations. I can find similarities in anything if I make my characterizations broad enough.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
When Hitler was rising to power in Germany there were people that spoke out against him and tried to get the people of Germany to see what was really going on. But, when the people finally did it was too late.

And every time there has ever been an election in this country there are people for and against the elected president. Just because people disagree with the president’s policies doesn’t make the US a fascist nation. Europeans didn’t have any love for Clinton either. But it is time that some of this petty politics is put aside.

There is something wrong, though. Rogue nations and terrorist networks are attempting to dictate world politics through bribery and terrorism. They are in control of countries and oppressing innocent people, and apparently there are a lot of people in the world whose response to this is to ridicule the nations trying to stop terrorism. I think that is foolish, and it is fanatical. The US is not a fascist nation because it suits the politics of certain people who think that the failed policy of appeasement should take precedence over the rule of civilization. Iraq flaunted the UN for a dozen years, and finally someone had the balls to do something about it. Bin Laden organized and instigated a half dozen terrorist attacks but it wasn’t until the attack that killed 3000 people before anyone took him seriously. There is an analogue to Hitler and Nazi Germany here, but it is not the US, and I think it is time that some people come to terms with the realities of the world.

I do agree with you on one thing. It took a lot of people a long time to realize the danger that Rogue states like Nazi Germany posed, and by the time they got around to it, it was, in many cases, too late. And it seems that that is a lesson of history that has been ignored by a lot of people. It's unfortunate that it took 9/ll to light a fire under the ass of the Bush Administration, but thankfully, they have chosen not to rely on appeasement and the policy that made Nazi Germany so powerful.

And that's my opinion.

HERO

Saturday, April 10, 2004 4:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Yes, I read the article. I don’t know about “the article that it linked to”. The article was basically trying to draw comparisons between Nazi Germany and the Bush Administration, which is not only hackneyed but also ridiculous. We are not Nazi Germany, ipso facto. I don’t appreciate these drive-by attempts to paint the Bush Administration as Nazis or Bush as Hitler.ble, which I responded to.

I agree. I hate when the Bush-haters call him a NAZI. I wish someone would just round them all up and exterminate the lot of them. But nobody is going to do that, because we're not NAZIS.

Now those bad guys we're at war with, they like to round disagreeable types up and kill em. Hitler would have loved Saddam and Bin Ladden.

Good thing Bush is President.

As for the whole war issue, it goes like this:

Option 1: Fight (The Bush approach)
Option 2: Don't fight (The anti-war crowd)
Option 3: Pretend to fight (The Clinton era solution)

We know the option our enemies have chosen.

H

ROCKETJOCK

Saturday, April 10, 2004 4:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

This is such tired old propaganda. George Bush, whether you agree with him or not, legitimately won the election.

Sorry, but I choose to dispute the legitimacy of his victory; a single example as to why: The ChoicePoint company gave Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris a list of 57,000 felons prior to the election of 2000; as a consequence, she ordered the removal of those individuals from the voting rolls. Unfortunately, 95% of those listed weren't felons! By the time the error was corrected, those 54,000-plus people had found themselves disenfranchised.

Noteworthily, the vast majority of those people were guilty of something -- most of them were either People of Color, Democrats, or both. Big Gorram Crimes, in a Bush-controlled state, apparently.

54,000 votes, in the closest contest in American Presidential Election History. Stolen. And what was ChoicePoint's punishment for this? Surprise surprise, ChoicePoint is one of the big prize winners sucking at the Federal teat in the War on Terrorism. Crime pays, provided the man in the oval office is your accomplice.

Yes, perhaps Bush could have won legitimately. But he chose not to. And that, friends, is why I refer to him as "Our Duly Appointed President."

"You can't enslave a free man. The most you can do is kill him." -- Robert A. Heinlein

ROCKETJOCK

Saturday, April 10, 2004 5:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

As for the whole war issue, it goes like this:

Option 1: Fight (The Bush approach)
Option 2: Don't fight (The anti-war crowd)
Option 3: Pretend to fight (The Clinton era solution)

Or Option 4: Attack the Actual Enemy.

The war on Afghanistan is defensible; they aided Bin Laden, and gave Al Queda a training and staging area. I supported Bush in this.

But Iraq, no matter how evil a bastard Saddam is, no matter what atrocities he had commited, Iraq didn't attack us, and apparently wasn't preparing to!

For the record, most of the 9/11 suicide terrorists were Saudi. You know, Saudi Arabia, the country George Bush and Dick Cheney are in bed with.

So why aren't we at war with them? Well, they hadn't embarrassed Our Duly Appointed President's sweet old daddy. So we decided to blow the go se out of Iraq instead. After all, they look just like the people that hurt us. What the hell, it's close enough for Joe Sixpack.

Maybe Saddam deserved to be deposed. But it wasn't our gorram job to decide that! If we think we can be the cops of the world just because we've got the biggest stick, I fear for my country. For the Gods do not take kindly to bullies.

"You can't enslave a free man. The most you can do is kill him." -- Robert A. Heinlein

SIGMANUNKI

Saturday, April 10, 2004 5:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
When Hitler was rising to power in Germany there were people that spoke out against him and tried to get the people of Germany to see what was really going on. But, when the people finally did it was too late.

And every time there has ever been an election in this country there are people for and against the elected president. Just because people disagree with the president’s policies doesn’t make the US a fascist nation.

You miss my point. I know that there will always be people against the current admin. This happens in all countries. But when it happens in the numbers that we see today...

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Iraq flaunted the UN for a dozen years, and finally someone had the balls to do something about it.

And without due cause. Many people have made many points such as:
Where is the WMD?
etc.

Basically, the US had failed to show that Iraq was a clear and present danger. And the world at large said no, which kind of says a lot.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Bin Laden organized and instigated a half dozen terrorist attacks but it wasn’t until the attack that killed 3000 people before anyone took him seriously.

But, he was trained by the CIA. Yes, he was ignored by the world at large for along time, but, you are wrong that no-one took him seriously until 9/11. Wasn't it the Russians that attempted to get the Taliban out a little while ago? And wasn't Bin Laden among them? Aren't they still there and retaking territory?

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
There is an analogue to Hitler and Nazi Germany here, but it is not the US, and I think it is time that some people come to terms with the realities of the world.

And which country is that? And what realities are those?

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
It's unfortunate that it took 9/ll to light a fire under the ass of the Bush Administration, but thankfully, they have chosen not to rely on appeasement and the policy that made Nazi Germany so powerful.

It seems as though you are trying to tie 9/11 to Iraq. I know this can't be because even the FBI and CIA have stated that Iraq had no involvement there.

The fact of the matter is that terrorism is here to stay. There will always be crazies that will try to use these tactics to meet there own whacked out ends. But, what we in the civilized world can *not* do is to cave into that fear. If we do then they have already won.

We can't create xenophobic policies because "the terrorists might get us" nor will they work. We must go on with our daily lives as if it wasn't there. And no I'm not saying we should put on blinders and ignore it altogether. We should do something about it but not to the point where it degrades the amount of freedom for the individual.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
- Thomas Jefferson

"They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Bejamin Franklin

I really do think that on a very fundamental level we agree, but, entirely disagree about how to go about it. ie You seem to support the invasion of Iraq where as I condemned it from the start as I viewed that other methods should have been applied first.

Anyway, I seem to be nodding off, so...

----
"If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!" -Me
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River

SEVENPERCENT

Saturday, April 10, 2004 5:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:

Wow, really great invective, you guys! Keep up the hate!

Reminded me of some more of my most detested things about being in this world, in no particular order:

1. Ideological slaves from the far left who demonize everyone else for the evils of the world.

2. Ideological slaves from the far right who demonize everyone else for the evils of the world.

3. Fence-sitters in the middle who demonize everybody, right and left, for the evils of the world.

Umm, while I believe in political discourse, whether or not it's sane and educated, don't they have someplace else you can go and do it? You're all tying up precious bandwidth with regurgitated dogma, when this website is supposed to be about Firefly.

Go to MSN or Yahoo and vent spleen 'til you're red or blue in the face, depending upon affiliation; then pick up a party-sponsored placard and march; then face off against the counter-protestors and shout epithets at each other; then start throwing things -- bottles, rocks, etc. Meanwhile, the returning heros of our armed forces -- the ones who defend your freedom of speech from all enemies of Democracy with their lives -- are thinking, "What the f**k!?!".

Since it was Finn and I that got this off to a rousing start, and I was at work when you posted this, I would like to respond- I dont know about Finn, but to me we were having a rational argument about politics, which started over a FF question- Yeah, there was a little sarcasm thrown in by both sides, but I hold nothin' against him- If he can go shot for shot with me, I respect him- There's no hate here, just a discussion- If I suddenly called Finn a jackoff and where to stick GW, that's hate and too far, but I didnt and wouldnt- Respectfully, it's you that brought real insults into it, by suggesting our discussion to be unsane and uneducated and telling us to leave a forum and go march- Dont like the posts? Dont read 'em, dont post to 'em- If Haken's worried about bandwidth, he'll let us know-

Finn, I still love ya baby-

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

LEMAT

Saturday, April 10, 2004 7:04 AM

Hey, y'all.

Umm, yeah...

I just throw what I have been thinking about this whole debate, and then answer the question the thread addresses.
Personally, I have to say that I do think Bush was as duly elected as can be expected. Florida was not the only place where voting irregularities occurred, and this is not the only election that it has happened in. That we have not worked harder to address this problem after an election that both candidates worked hard to steal says more about us than it does about W.

Bush is not Hitler, and Saddam very nearly was. This, however, does not mean that we as a people cannot question the reasons our administration gave for going to war. The WMD's have not been found, and very possibly won't be found. This means that: a) Saddam's scientists were ninjas and we will never find weapons that did exist; b) the weapons may have existed some time ago, but not during the war or the build-up for war; or c) we were told a bald-faced lie. I tend to lean to B personally, but cannot discount the other two out of hand. This, plus the fact that alot of the world either hates us, fears us, or distrust us because of the war (well, some people already hated/feared us, but the numbers certianly have increased), means that we as a people have to decide if the president who dragged us into this should stay in office.

On that note, the men and women of out armed forces are out there risking their lives in Iraq because of administration policy. That doesn't make me a bad person for saying that they should not have been sent there in the first place. If people decide that they need to vote out an incumbent official, or that his policies are bad and should be discussed or protested, they should do that. The freedom to criticize officials or remove them form office via legal means are requirements for a constitutional republic to function. As I said above, Bush ain't Hitler. That does not mean that we should just blindly accept what he (or any other president or offical for that matter) says at face value. We need to judge our political circumstances for ourselves, skeptically, but not cynically. That, IMHO, is what really does stop us from being like NAZI Germany. If we abandon that...

Jon

P.S.

Zoid seems to miss interpreted y'all's discussion above. Go a little easy on him. From my perspective, it did look a little shrill, even if y'all understood it to be reasonable. Just sayin, is all.

LEMAT

Saturday, April 10, 2004 7:11 AM

Crap, forgot to say who was evil. Yup, theheroofcanton, FOX and Saddam are pretty bad.

You know else is evil? Anyone not loving my Houston Astros.

Go America; go 'Stros.

Jon

SIGMANUNKI

Saturday, April 10, 2004 6:15 PM

Since this misunderstanding has happened (at least to me) above I'll say this. Please read this with the voice in your head *not* angry. I have no intention of being aggressive here. Just thought I'd throw that out there

Quote:
Originally posted by LeMat:
Bush is not Hitler, and Saddam very nearly was.

I have no idea where you are coming from here. The only things that I know that Saddam did are to his own people (and the last incident was in 1988 I believe) and when he tried to annex Kuwait. Other than that I'd like to hear some justification that Saddam was nearly Hitler. After all, Hitler tried to take over Europe and the world, where as Saddam seemed quite content running his little world.

Quote:
Originally posted by LeMat:
b) the weapons may have existed some time ago, but not during the war or the build-up for war; or c) we were told a bald-faced lie. I tend to lean to B personally,...

I concur, partially. I agree with B. After all the US (and other countries too I believe) sold him the stuff to make or just the chemical weapons outright. But, I must say that I think C has been proven. After all, the biggest point that the Bush admin made for war was WMD and they said that they had proof. Proof means that they can show us the WMD and they didn't... still haven't.

Quote:
Originally posted by LeMat:
This, plus the fact that alot of the world either hates us, fears us, or distrust us because of the war (well, some people already hated/feared us, but the numbers certianly have increased),

Correction, alot of the world didn't like the US prior to anything to do with the war, and that number has increased and made that dislike far more intense. (Note: I'm using US in the country sense, not necessarily any one person in it.)

The one thing that this has really done for me is to bring to light what you guys down there are feed through your so called news stations. I really feel sorry for you guys (no I'm not being sarcastic here, I'm serious).

I lived in the Bay Area during the build up to and the war and was horrified at such blatant pro-US propaganda that the Americans were feed (and I still am today). I was forced to get my news on-line or through the parental units on the phone to get anything reasonable. For those who care I found the BBC the most balanced and informative.

Quote:
Originally posted by LeMat:
On that note, the men and women of out armed forces are out there risking their lives in Iraq because of administration policy.

Excellent point.

Quote:
Originally posted by LeMat:
That does not mean that we should just blindly accept what he (or any other president or offical for that matter) says at face value.

Again, excellent point. Thinking is up to the individual and if people stop doing it we are all in a heap of trouble. I'd like to point out that people stopping thinking *is* happening. And although I know that the US is at least leading Canada in this area we as a world body are going in this direction. I say this because of certain high school policies that have been brought to my attention.

Basically, if we don't expect our kids to learn they won't and without learning they cannot think logically and without that we end up is said big heap of trouble.

Quote:
Originally posted by LeMat:
We need to judge our political circumstances for ourselves, skeptically, but not cynically.

I disagree. I do think that we should judge cynically. After all, politicians are typically slimy bastards that cannot be trusted. Cynicism could save us.

----
"If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!" -Me
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River

APEMAN61

Saturday, April 10, 2004 7:20 PM

No offense but how about we let americans worry about american politics...oh and dont feel sorry for me. Oh and this thing is just going to keep going, everyone has there own opinions. people are just going to say stuff back and forth and nothing will come of it except people getting offended, even if it's not the intended goal.

LEMAT

Saturday, April 10, 2004 9:39 PM

Cynicism could destroy us, too. Not all politicians are evil scum bags, just enough of them to make the voting public not trust any politicians. (BTW, I ain't saying that politicians as a group are saints, just not evil scum bags.) Cynisism could cause people to desire an abandonment of politics altogether, opening the door for populist leaders who will attempt to become the center of political power.

The American media worries too much about two things: one, getting stories that sell, and two, not pissing off the public. Americans fear criticising, even constructivly criticizing, the policies of a sitting president in time of percived crisis. People sat through 50 years of Cold War, thinking that the nation had to put up a united front against communism, and that dissenters were contributing to the New World Communist Order, or some such. This fear of not being unified on national defense issues has lead to a fear of dissent, (a fear that manifests itself in the media) and the reluctance of Congress to be proactive in reigning in the executive.

Your right, Saddam was not Hitler. I only used Hitler because he was mentioned in relation to Bush by others. No, Saddam was much more like Stalin. He is reported to have been an admirer of Stalin's, and like Ole' Joe, he did not try to conquer the whole region, just some (well in Stalin's case, most) of his neighbors. He reigned terror down upon the populace and his military and civil service. He conducted purges, he killed liberal activists, ethnic activists, and a whole bunch of people who never did him any harm. He was still a very, very, bad man, and one of the few good things to come out of this war was his removal from power, which we might have had to do at some point anyway.

Jon

SIGMANUNKI

Sunday, April 11, 2004 12:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by APEMAN61:
No offense but how about we let americans worry about american politics...

The problem with that is that American politics are starting to affect the world body. Perhaps the US should start listening to, if not to the world, to its' own populace.

Quote:
Originally posted by APEMAN61:
...nothing will come of it except people getting offended, even if it's not the intended goal.

The only people that will become offended are those that cannot even attempt to see the others point of view. Those that can won't become offended until an insult is sent there way. Which won't happen if we all remain civil

Quote:
Originally posted by LeMat:
Cynicism could destroy us, too.

True, but what I meant was that a balance would be most beneficial.

Quote:
Originally posted by LeMat:
opening the door for populist leaders who will attempt to become the center of political power.

Isn't GW trying to do that now. It just seems to me that he is and has *really* thrown his weight around. Fortunately, the rest of the world isn't buying it.

Quote:
Originally posted by LeMat:
The American media worries too much about two things: one, getting stories that sell,

True

Quote:
Originally posted by LeMat:
and two, not pissing off the public.

Too much so, all I see on CNN and what not is pro-American propaganda. So much so, that once someone looks into things, they find out that so much of the info has been left out of the story, that it basically becomes a lie. But, technically not. Kind of a very dangerous half-truth.

Quote:
Originally posted by LeMat:
Americans fear criticising, even constructivly criticizing, the policies of a sitting president in time of percived crisis.

And GW and his cronies have promoted this.

Quote:
Originally posted by LeMat:
People sat through 50 years of Cold War, thinking that the nation had to put up a united front against communism, and that dissenters were contributing to the New World Communist Order,...

Now this is something that should be fought. Freedom of speech is something that the US has put out the world that they stand for and criticism is part of that. Someone put forth a mention of anti-Americanism. *This* is anti-Americanism.

Quote:
Originally posted by LeMat:
He conducted purges, he killed liberal activists, ethnic activists, and a whole bunch of people who never did him any harm. He was still a very, very, bad man, and one of the few good things to come out of this war was his removal from power, which we might have had to do at some point anyway.

Well, we agree that he did these bad things. And I definitely agree that he should have been removed from power, but, *not this way*. Yes, he is gone, but, since no-one has been put in power and the US is using an iron fist to try to keep the peace, everything is going to hell in a hand-basket.

This next little while will be interesting to watch, eh?

----
"If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!" -Me
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River

AURAPTOR

Sunday, April 11, 2004 1:52 AM

Thats about the mindless and idiotic thing I think I've ever seen on this thread. Congrats.

Unless you think FDR was more evil than Hitler...oh, of course not. FDR was a Democrat...riiiiiight.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. Worked that out myself. "

LEMAT

Sunday, April 11, 2004 2:51 AM

Huh?

Who are you responding to, AUraptor? I typed FDR into 'find' on my browser, and your post was the only one that mentions him.

Jon

LTNOWIS

Sunday, April 11, 2004 3:19 AM

Damn, I knew I should've gone on yesterday. Then I wouldn't be so late to this board.

Quote:
I'm surprised that anyone who likes Firefly would dislike George Bush so much as those responding to the 'who is the most evil' question.

I hated Bush since around April 2000, based on intuition. Now I actually have a reason. Mainly, I'm against deficits, because people my age are going to be the one's paying for them. (I'm 14.) I'm also against the gay marriage ban. Even though I think homosexuality is a small sin, it doesn't hurt anyone, and should be legal. And then there's the 600-some Americans who came home from Iraq in flag-draped coffins. I don't think the Iraq war was a good idea, and Bush certainly isn't handling it well.

On the other hand, I'm in favor of the invasion of Afganistan and the Moon base, and I dislike Kerry.

Anyways, Bush probably isn't too evil, just wrong about lot's of things.
Bin Ladin: very evil
Hussein: incredibly evil
Al quada: all evil/brainwashed
Iraqi insurgents: I'd probably do the same in their position.
Edited to correct font

LTNOWIS

Sunday, April 11, 2004 3:39 AM

Quote:
You may not agree with his ideas, but at least he has them and sticks to them.

I never understood the problem people have with so-called waffling. The way I see it, it takes a mature person to change their minds about something upon further contemplation, or new info. Bush could've said "I was wrong about the WMDs," but he never did. That said, Kerry isn't really changing his position on gay marriage, he's simply not expressing a firm one, for political reasons. (That's bad.)

Quote:
It drives me insane when people compare bush to saddam. Did Bush have a damn torture center inside our Olympic headquarters? Does Bush use virtually all the country's money to build palaces for himself? does bush murder his own people?

That was Saddam's sadist son Uday, not him or his non-sadist son/ no, but those are some mighty big deficits/ if he did, we wouldn't know. But yeah, Saddam's evil is infinitely greater than Bush's.

LTNOWIS

Sunday, April 11, 2004 4:42 AM

Quote:
The article was basically trying to draw comparisons between Nazi Germany and the Bush Administration, which is not only hackneyed but also ridiculous.

I gotta disagree with you there. While it would be ridiculous to say that Bush is similar to the Nazis, it's perfectly ok to "draw comparisions." I could draw comparisions between Jesus and Hitler: They both had strong feelings about Jews, they both were historically important, etc. It's like when someone on another board said that evolution was bad because Hitler believed in it, and someone said he also probably liked chocolate. Just because you can compare Bush and Hitler, it doesn't mean the German guy should freak out.

LTNOWIS

Sunday, April 11, 2004 4:47 AM

Quote:
Iraq flaunted the UN for a dozen years, and finally someone had the balls to do something about it.

Yeah, that certainly was the main reason for attacking Iraq. Because he flaunted the UN.

Quote:
Bin Laden organized and instigated a half dozen terrorist attacks but it wasn’t until the attack that killed 3000 people before anyone took him seriously.

When Clinton fired cruise missiles at Al quada after the embassy bombings, he was accused by Republicans of diverting attention from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Of course, he should've just flaunted public opinion and sent in troops, but politicians all want to be liked.

Edit: sorry for the quad-post. It's my style.

SIGMANUNKI

Sunday, April 11, 2004 5:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by LtNOWIS:
Just because you can compare Bush and Hitler, it doesn't mean the German guy should freak out.

Maybe it's because I'm tired but which German guy? Just want to understand before I respond.

----
"If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!" -Me
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River

AURAPTOR

Sunday, April 11, 2004 11:50 PM

LEMAT,I was responding to SPIKEANDJEZEBEL's post :

"Not to make this thread a political debate, but I'd actually put George W. pretty close to the top of my list, over Saddam even...."

How it got attribituted to your post, I have no idea. The response is self explanitory. This is why I get so annoyed when folks bring politics onto these types of messageboards. While we may not agree on some things,can't we at least agree on Firefly? There is an entire net out there for us to be at odds with each other. Can't this be one place where we can agree on something?

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. Worked that out myself. "

SOUNDHACK

Monday, April 12, 2004 1:20 AM

Hmm Im not going to add my own opinions about who is more evil, Bush, Saddam, or Hitler, but I have another point of view.

I dislike immensely the need to label something "evil." Its like just by calling something evil you can close discussion about something or can justify anything without any rationality. "Why did you attack him?" "oh, well he was evil. end of story". I think labeling something evil is a cop out, much like McCarthyism labeled anything not within a narrow viewpoint Communist.

Evil should be left to things like religion, fiction/movies, etc. It's much too simplistic to call something in real life evil. Remember, to Islamic fundamentalists we (the US) are considered evil. You might laugh and think its obvious we arent and that they are, but I'm sure they are just as sure of the other point of view.

Anyway, to bring this discussion back to Firefly (where i think it IS safe to say something is evil-come on its just fictional entertainment) While I think its understood that the Alliance is "evil", apparently for a good number of people (even Inara) it was better than alternatives. Sometimes I think of that and go hmmm... Though provoking to say the least....

ARAWAEN

Monday, April 12, 2004 4:02 PM

Apeman61 wrote
I think what he's doing in Iraq and Afganistan is the right thing. He taking evil men out of power.

As soon as he invades China I will believe that removing evil has anything to do with his motivation. Plus several of his cabinet members/advisors share responsibility for putting Saddam and Osama into power.

Have to agree with you on Kerry though, I actually considered voting Democrat this year, but after the primary I am going to have to go third party again.

It would be nice to see a candidate state that he will not support a brutal dictator in any way and for any reason. That he will not permit our nation to sell WMD technology or WMDs themselves to any nation. That we will support democratically elected leaders even when they are opposed to our current economic agenda.

Arawaen

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

ARAWAEN

Monday, April 12, 2004 4:10 PM

SevenPercent wrote
....we used to try to assassinate folks too (it's only recently we gave that up, and GW wanted to repeal that Exec. Order that stops us-)

I may be wrong but I believe it was Jimmy Carter that stopped political assassination and Bill Clinton who put it back on the table. Pretty sure that Clinton authorized the assassination of Osama, though I can't guarantee that he repealed the executive order.

My belief in the Golden Rule makes me side with Jimmy Carter. I hold nations to a body of individuals and what applies to individuals, applies to nations in terms of morality.

Arawaen

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

ARAWAEN

Monday, April 12, 2004 4:18 PM

RocketJock wrote: The war on Afghanistan is defensible; they aided Bin Laden, and gave Al Queda a training and staging area. I supported Bush in this.

I think it would have been more defensible if we made a formal declaration of war before invading a sovereign nation. I think a declaration would have been justified for the reasons you gave.

I also think we need to take responsibility for supporting the Islamic extremists in Afghanistan when they were fighting the Russians (one of those groups was the Taliban). If you see the footage of [our] military advisors training them, using, exploiting and feeding their extremist ideology.

Arawaen

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

ARAWAEN

Monday, April 12, 2004 4:25 PM

How could China ever get a UN resolution against it, it has veto power? The U.S. is always blocking resolutions against Israel, that is the reason there are no U.N. resolutions against that nation. I wouldn't be surprised if China blocks resolutions against N. Korea.

Iraq simply lacked a buddy on the security council (or actually lost their buddy, that being us). This is not to say that Iraq didn't deserve those resolutions and more.

Arawaen

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

THEHEROOFCANTON

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 8:22 PM

Well I agree with all of you and you have good opinions, but are we all in agreeance that FOX is at least evil?

"You see the man hanging out of the spacehip with the really big gun, well its his will y'all should be thinking about now."

"I'm not immortal, I'm Infinitly prolonged."-Douglass Adams Spin off

My Best Friend can beat up your best friend.

My dad can outsmart your dad.

So they want to kill my men? Well, two can play at that game.

THEHEROOFCANTON

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 8:23 PM

Well I agree with all of you and you have good opinions, but are we all in agreeance that FOX is at least evil?

"You see the man hanging out of the spacehip with the really big gun, well its his will y'all should be thinking about now."

"I'm not immortal, I'm Infinitly prolonged."-Douglass Adams Spin off

My Best Friend can beat up your best friend.

My dad can outsmart your dad.

So they want to kill my men? Well, two can play at that game.

SIGMANUNKI

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 9:45 PM

Hmmm, FOX canceling excellent shows in favor of reality crap. Sure, I'm on board

----
"If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!" -Me
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River

DORAN

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 9:52 PM

I like George Bush. I feel much safer with him and his cabinet in office than the alternative.

BADGERSHAT

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 10:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DoctorTam:
3. Wal-Mart
2. The Toronto Maple Leafs
1. FOX!!!!!!!!!!!

Fortunately, #2 will be out very soon

Why doesn't it ever go smooth?

Yes, indeedy, the Leafs are up there... along with the Philadelphis Flyers... but I digress...

I think Fox, 20th Century Fox, Fox Searchlight, and any and all Fox affiliates.

--The Hat

***************************
"I like smackin 'em"--Jayne

BADGERSHAT

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 10:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by spikeandjezebel:
Not to make this thread a political debate, but I'd actually put George W. pretty close to the top of my list, over Saddam even....

"I like smackin' 'em!" - Jayne Cobb

You stole my signature!!!

I challenge you to a doo-ell!!!!

--The Hat

***************************
"I like smackin 'em"--Jayne

LTNOWIS

Wednesday, April 14, 2004 12:33 PM

Quote:
Maybe it's because I'm tired but which German guy? Just want to understand before I respond.

I honestly have no idea what I was writing. I guess I was tired too. Actually, now that I think about it, I meant the German guy quoted in the Bush = Nazi article.

LTNOWIS

Wednesday, April 14, 2004 12:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Doran:
I like George Bush. I feel much safer with him and his cabinet in office than the alternative.

Not to insult you, but that doesn't mean there's any real secuirity. One book I highly recommend for everyone is "If you ride alone, you ride with Bin Ladin," where some angry, patriotic guy rages at the problems with some American viewpoints. It's pretty expensive, so get it at the library.

Quote:
Arawaen says: I wouldn't be surprised if China blocks resolutions against N. Korea.

I'm not sure they're on friendly terms, what with the DRK's pariah status and the steady stream of Korean refugees into China.

Quote:
Arawaen again: Have to agree with you on Kerry though, I actually considered voting Democrat this year, but after the primary I am going to have to go third party again.

Of course, this'll just help Bush win. Though I dislike Kerry too.