PDA

View Full Version : macs and politics, v.2


Pages : [1] 2

jefhatfield
May 13, 2002, 04:11 PM
fire away!

cleo
May 13, 2002, 04:16 PM
100% GREEN!

Ensign Paris
May 13, 2002, 04:29 PM
well, all i know that is I HATE Tony Blair because he is doing a BAD job of running out country, and basicly he is never actually in our country.

This is what I want:
Remotely decent Railways
Good NHS
Student Grants (Not Loans)
No EURO!

I suppose I have to except the but that doesn't make me like it (It will cause damage to out country)

Ensign

Ensign Paris
May 13, 2002, 04:30 PM
I knew I had this picture somewhere:

jefhatfield
May 13, 2002, 04:37 PM
i liked mr blair's speech when the 9/11 attacks hit us

i don't know his politics, though

Ensign Paris
May 13, 2002, 04:50 PM
He seemed to handle Sept. 11th very well, but his internal runnings of the country is poor. It is mostly because he is just an actor controled by 2 other men who really run out country.

Ensign

cleo
May 13, 2002, 04:51 PM
Blair's a bit conservative for my tastes, but I can say one thing. He is a very intelligent, wel-spoken individual - much more than can be said for the leaders of other world superpowers! ::cough::

mcrain
May 13, 2002, 04:58 PM
I personally can not wait until we get a minority and/or female into the office of president.

Preferably, one with a good controversial background.

Hey Cleo, wanna run for office. I'd volunteer to be your VP.

imct
May 13, 2002, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by Ensign Paris
well, all i know that is I HATE Tony Blair because he is doing a BAD job of running out country, and basicly he is never actually in our country.

This is what I want:
Remotely decent Railways
Good NHS
Student Grants (Not Loans)
No EURO!

I suppose I have to except the but that doesn't make me like it (It will cause damage to out country)

Ensign

And why in the world don't you like the Euro currency? Aren't you European?

jefhatfield
May 14, 2002, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by mcrain
I personally can not wait until we get a minority and/or female into the office of president.

Preferably, one with a good controversial background.

Hey Cleo, wanna run for office. I'd volunteer to be your VP.

hey you guys, hire me as your chief of anti-zealots:D

Mr. Anderson
May 14, 2002, 01:47 PM
Sorry just had to say that. But my stance lately on politics has gone down hill lately, especially with the last US election with Bore and Gush.

I'm leaning more towards political apathy, hopefully something will get it going again, and I'm not talking about controversy or sensationalism. A good, charasmatic leader can make a huge difference. They just seem to be in short supply.

Ensign Paris
May 14, 2002, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by imct


And why in the world don't you like the Euro currency? Aren't you European?

I am not a European, I am English or better yet, British. I dislike the currency (for economic reasons) I could give you several pages of reason why it is a weak currency.

I dislike the idea of a 'Euro Super State' because its only objective (although they will not admit this) is that they want to be bigger than the US.

Ensign

Ensign Paris
May 14, 2002, 02:03 PM
oh yeah, my other reason is that Tony Blair bums Microsoft, he openly pushes windows in to the faces of the education. He is a control freak although he is a total fake because it is his press office that controls him. Every speech he makes is written by other people, he is not in control of this company. People who offer him money are.

Ensign

cleo
May 14, 2002, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by dukestreet
I'm leaning more towards political apathy, hopefully something will get it going again, and I'm not talking about controversy or sensationalism. A good, charasmatic leader can make a huge difference. They just seem to be in short supply.

Read Stupid White Men by Michael Moore. Then go run for an elected office. Or at least get involved with a local progressive party and help someone else get elected.

The only people who have a right to complain about the state of our democracy are those who truly participate in it; they don't because they know that it can be changed, and relatively easily.

cleo
May 14, 2002, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by Ensign Paris
Every speech he makes is written by other people, he is not in control of this company. People who offer him money are.

At least he can adequately read and pronounce those speeches, though. :D

Gelfin
May 14, 2002, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by Ensign Paris
He seemed to handle Sept. 11th very well, but his internal runnings of the country is poor. It is mostly because he is just an actor controled by 2 other men who really run out country.


Hey, at least you haven't (to my knowledge) had a PM who is a professional actor. We in America were always told that the great thing about our country was that anyone could become President. Now we're all grown up, and we realize (with no small amount of horror) that truly anyone can become President.

The Democrats are currently sending Martin Sheen ("I'm not a President but I play one on TV...") around Florida to campaign for actual candidates. The creepy thing is that there is no doubt in my mind this strategy will work with the American people on the whole.

It's a scary, scary time. Politically, I'm sort of a radical moderate. I think both the right AND the left are trying insanely to drag the country around without giving a moment's rational reflection to the idiotic party lines they toe, and I think followers of both political extremes should be sent to their rooms to think about what they've done.

Mr. Anderson
May 14, 2002, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by Gelfin


The Democrats are currently sending Martin Sheen ("I'm not a President but I play one on TV...") around Florida to campaign for actual candidates. The creepy thing is that there is no doubt in my mind this strategy will work with the American people on the whole.


OMG, that's so friggin funny. Of course it will work, West Wing is doing good and the name/face recognition is more than enough to get some votes. As president on TV (I don't watch the show) what party does he belong to? I'm guessing Democrat, but it would be funny if he was a Republican.

cleo
May 14, 2002, 03:22 PM
On the show he's a Dem. Hence, campaigning for Janet Reno (perfect logic).

I for one would much rather see Jed Bartlett (Sheen's character) or David Palmer (the candidate on 24) in office than our current "President" Bush. :D

spuncan
May 14, 2002, 03:48 PM
Hmm currently Im a republican and anti-conservative (?) What I mean is I have republican view pointes (Gun Control/Small Gov't./Better Weapons) yet I think both parties have some pretty dumb views. By anti-conservative means I want changes made to the gov't. This is all relating to the U.S. gov't.

stromie952
May 14, 2002, 04:56 PM
The US has had a president that was a professional actor....
RONALD REAGAN! :D
Nothin' wrong with that

edesignuk
May 14, 2002, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by Ensign Paris
well, all i know that is I HATE Tony Blair because he is doing a BAD job of running out country, and basicly he is never actually in our country.

This is what I want:
Remotely decent Railways
Good NHS
Student Grants (Not Loans)
No EURO!

I suppose I have to except the but that doesn't make me like it (It will cause damage to out country)

Ensign

Save our pound!!! 's forever! :D

Ensign Paris
May 14, 2002, 05:23 PM
yey! Long Live the Pound!

Ensign

Mr. Anderson
May 14, 2002, 05:46 PM
Excuse my lack of knowledge on the subject, but even with the euro in circulation, isn't the pound still accepted? And how do you deal with the rate changes between the two currencies?

Macette
May 14, 2002, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by cleo
100% GREEN!

yes indeedy.

green and pink.

jefhatfield
May 14, 2002, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by stromie952
The US has had a president that was a professional actor....
RONALD REAGAN! :D
Nothin' wrong with that

nixon and ford were much better presidents...and more alert

and i am a democrat:p

kettle
May 14, 2002, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
i liked mr blair's speech when the 9/11 attacks hit us

i don't know his politics, though

You'd start getting sus' when you'd seen that same speach and sentiment for Lady Di to Poor local election performance to the Queen Mum all the way to Tax rises. Releasing the poor old IRA TERRORISTS to excusing Railway and Health Failings. Even uses it while Pretending he doesn't want to be President of the United States of Europe.

stromie952
May 14, 2002, 10:38 PM
I am also a big fan of Nixon and Ford, but I think that Reagan did more for our country than Nixon or Ford. Although Ford did help to keep our country together after Watergate.

And, I am a proud republican :D

mcrain
May 15, 2002, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by stromie952
I think that Reagan did more for our country than Nixon or Ford.

Maybe, but that is like saying a rusty el camino is better than a yugo or a pinto. True, but it doesn't really say very much.

The other thing I have to point out is that "proud republicans" love to point at Reagan as if he was such a wonderful president because of all that happened during his presidency, yet can't bear to acknowledge any accomplishments of any democrat president, let alone Bill Clinton. Why is that?

Me, I'm a militant hindu, christian with radically conservative tax views that would scare both republicans and democrats, and moderately liberal viewpoints on most everything else. (What is a militant hindu you ask? Someone who is intolerent of intolerence.)

Mr. Anderson
May 15, 2002, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by mcrain
The other thing I have to point out is that "proud republicans" love to point at Reagan as if he was such a wonderful president because of all that happened during his presidency, yet can't bear to acknowledge any accomplishments of any democrat president, let alone Bill Clinton. Why is that?

Not only did they point at Reagan, but they named practically everything they could after him. Being in DC I got to see if first hand, Ronald Reagan National Airport, The Ronald Reagan Building, on 14th (huge building, I have to add). But they were memorializing him and he was still alive. It was the Republicans attempt to bring back nostalgia during the all the Clinton years, remember when .....

Don't you just love politics?

Backtothemac
May 15, 2002, 09:40 AM
Well, I am a card carying member of the Republican party. I also have a degree in Political Science with an emphasis in Terrorism-Counterterrorism / and Defense Policy. I also have a second degree in Military History. So, with that background it is obvious where my political ties lie. As for the debate of Regan / Ford / and Nixon. Regan was by far the best of the three. He united the Nation, and brought back a sense of patriotism that had been missing in the country since the Nixon era. Also, he spent the Russians into submission. How much more difficult would the war on terror be if Russia was still Communist? Just image.

Ok, now that everyone knows I am a republican, I have my pie suit on. Oh, and Cleo, I love you and all, you know that right.... I am sorry, but Michael Moore is a friggin idiot. I would rather have Al Gore give the toast speech at every event for the rest of my life than listen to 10 seconds of Micahel Moore's propaganda.

B2TM ducks for cover.....

Backtothemac
May 15, 2002, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by mcrain
The other thing I have to point out is that "proud republicans" love to point at Reagan as if he was such a wonderful president because of all that happened during his presidency, yet can't bear to acknowledge any accomplishments of any democrat president, let alone Bill Clinton. Why is that?

Would you mind listing some of those great accomplishments? Really, I am all ears?

mcrain
May 15, 2002, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Would you mind listing some of those great accomplishments? Really, I am all ears?
I rest my case. Typical republican.

Rather than getting into a debate about the merits of the different presidents, what is more interesting, and really a better question, is why did republicans hate Clinton so much? I mean, never before in politics did we have changes like we experienced when Clinton was in office. (Changes in the way the game of politics was played).

I'm sure some blame can be placed on the media and its power, and the effect it has when used by politicians, but there had to be something more. Right? Or was it just nothing more than we don't like the guy, so we can do whatever we want? I just don't get it.

mcrain
May 15, 2002, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
How much more difficult would the war on terror be if Russia was still Communist? Just image.

Ok, here's a hypo if I've ever heard one. You are assuming that we'd be in a war on terrorism if the USSR hadn't collapsed under the weight of crazy spending and social reform.

Here's a mind twister. If Reagan hadn't pushed the Russians to spend like they did, would they have had the resources to provide necessary services to their people to prevent some of the social unrest? Would they have had the resources to better support their military in Afganistan? If so, would there have ever been an Al Quaida? If the USSR was still supporting countries antagonist to our interests, would they have allowed Iraq to invade Kuwait knowing the potential for a global conflict? Would we see the kind of pressure being put on the US to look for a middle ground peace between Isreal and the people who call themselves "Palestinians, or would we merely support Isreal against the people supported by the USSR? If the terrorist incident of 9/11 still occurred, would we be looking at some schmuck in a turbin to blame or would we be looking at the USSR?

Unfortunately, I don't think there are any simple answers to any of those questions.

Backtothemac
May 15, 2002, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by mcrain

I rest my case. Typical republican.

Rather than getting into a debate about the merits of the different presidents, what is more interesting, and really a better question, is why did republicans hate Clinton so much? I mean, never before in politics did we have changes like we experienced when Clinton was in office. (Changes in the way the game of politics was played).

I'm sure some blame can be placed on the media and its power, and the effect it has when used by politicians, but there had to be something more. Right? Or was it just nothing more than we don't like the guy, so we can do whatever we want? I just don't get it.

Not at all. Of all of the Presidents, I, and most republicans that I know would rather meet Clinton than anyone. He would by all means be the most fun to hang with. Every democrat talks about great things that Clinton did, but can never name any of them, other than saying "the great things that Clinton did". He did nothing. The economic success that came out of the 90's had everything to do with Intel, Microsoft, Apple, Sun, Cisco, the internet, and many other economic factors. In fact Fortune 500 give more credit to the Regan / Bush, and Bush / Quayle presidencies for effecting the 90's economy in a postive way than they do Clinton / Gore. In fact of 50 factors that caused the success of the 90's, they Clinton / Gore, were dead last!!

As far as changing politics in Washington, your right. Nothing like Chinese campaign contributions.

Loaded for round two.

Mr. Anderson
May 15, 2002, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by mcrain
Ok, here's a hypo if I've ever heard one. You are assuming that we'd be in a war on terrorism if the USSR hadn't collapsed under the weight of crazy spending and social reform.

9/11 wouldn't have taken the same form as it did. The Russians would have still excerted pressure over their part of the world and Afghanistan would have been able to pressure Russia. Who knows, if the Russians had been able to stay in Afghanistan, they would have been bombed first. It could have ended up a lot worse, because if we were supporting the Afghans (which we did during the Russian occupation) and they attacked Russia directly, that would have implicated us, at some level.

Bad mojo there.

Backtothemac
May 15, 2002, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by mcrain


Ok, here's a hypo if I've ever heard one. You are assuming that we'd be in a war on terrorism if the USSR hadn't collapsed under the weight of crazy spending and social reform.

Here's a mind twister. If Reagan hadn't pushed the Russians to spend like they did, would they have had the resources to provide necessary services to their people to prevent some of the social unrest? Would they have had the resources to better support their military in Afganistan? If so, would there have ever been an Al Quaida? If the USSR was still supporting countries antagonist to our interests, would they have allowed Iraq to invade Kuwait knowing the potential for a global conflict? Would we see the kind of pressure being put on the US to look for a middle ground peace between Isreal and the people who call themselves "Palestinians, or would we merely support Isreal against the people supported by the USSR? If the terrorist incident of 9/11 still occurred, would we be looking at some schmuck in a turbin to blame or would we be looking at the USSR?

Unfortunately, I don't think there are any simple answers to any of those questions.

One at a time....
1) Yes we would still be in the war on terror. Shall we forget the foundations of it that started in 1982?
2) Yes, the Russians would have had plenty of resources to kill the masses into submission.
3) No, Afganistan was their Vietnam. And yes, Ossama would still have done his crap.
4) Yes, they would have supported Iraq, hell they almost did anyway.
5) Yes, on the Peace issue, because we are the only country with any power over Isreal.
6) Yes, we would still be looking for a schmuck in a turbin, because Russia would have never sponsored an act that would allow us to retalliate on a country. You would see a differnent response from the military than in the current operation.
7) They are simple answers, and any sophmore in Poli Sci could answer them.

Any questions?

mischief
May 15, 2002, 10:46 AM
From a Canadian/Patriot's prespective:

My mother was a Canadian my Father's family has been in the US since 1650 or so. Therefore I am a Canadian and a Patriot. I feel that political parties, when run by a hegemony in a dualistic game of international "Good cop/Bad cop" has emense power and is subject to the obvious cliche vices there of.

As it stands: Republicans want to be a ruling class of Merchants and Democrats want an educated and socialist state. It all goes back to Adams and Franklin forming two parties and allowing their personal disagreements about representative versus populist rule.

Oh yeah: Republicans like to forget Kennedy, Carter, Adams, and the like .... all prominent Democrats who contributed vastly to America's civic improvement and image abroad. Democrats like to forget Hoover, either Roosvelt, Reagan and the like.

Republicans are dangerous with their use of Spin, They're always warning you against "Brand X" and selling you "New and Improved Shiny Business-Friendly Politics".

Democrats have all the failings of an Academic.

The US is Dynamic because of the push and pull of the Selfishness of the Republicans and the Concience of the Democrats.

mcrain
May 15, 2002, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
The economic success that came out of the 90's had everything to do with Intel, Microsoft, Apple, Sun, Cisco, the internet, and many other economic factors. In fact Fortune 500 give more credit to the Regan / Bush, and Bush / Quayle presidencies for effecting the 90's economy in a postive way than they do Clinton / Gore. In fact of 50 factors that caused the success of the 90's, they Clinton / Gore, were dead last!!

As far as changing politics in Washington, your right. Nothing like Chinese campaign contributions.

Loaded for round two.

Oh, let's see. Fortune 500 as an unbiased analysis of republican vs. democrat presidencies. Gee, considering the source, I'm not the least bit surprised about the results.

Of courst a president is not "responsible" for the economy, as the buying public and businesses are what make up the economy. However, if Reagan and Bush caused the good things under Clinton, couldn't the same argument be made that every good thing Repubs like about Reagan's presidency was a result of Carter? And so on and so on?

As for my question, you didn't answer it. Instead, you point to a campaign finance controversy and say, see, we were justified in not liking him.

(As a side note, why then do republicans typically disfavor campaign finance reform? Could it be fear that the money advantage the republican party has might go away, and then it would be harder to convince people who are in the lower tax brackets that the republican party would benefit them.)

I ask you again, why did republicans hate Clinton so much that they thought it was ok to go after him for 8+ solid years? I always thought we were supposed to stand united behind the president, with disagreements about policy and decisions.

When did it become ok to try to make the President of the United States look bad in the eyes of the world?

Btw, Clinton's charisma assisted the peace process in the middle east, Ireland, etc... (not responsible, just assisted). Clinton had the cajones to raise the issue of nationalized health care (granted, his plan stunk, but he got people talking about it). Unemployment went down, welfare went down, inflation was kept under control, infrastructure improvements were made, even the tech of the military was improved (although Clinton was by no means a military oriented president). His foreign policy was refined and he was respected dispite his detractors attempts to make him look bad.

So, again, rather than debating the merits of the presidents, I ask you again, why did the republicans decide it was ok to hate the president (not clinton, the president - there is a difference)?

mcrain
May 15, 2002, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
One at a time....
1) Yes we would still be in the war on terror. Shall we forget the foundations of it that started in 1982?
2) Yes, the Russians would have had plenty of resources to kill the masses into submission.
3) No, Afganistan was their Vietnam. And yes, Ossama would still have done his crap.
4) Yes, they would have supported Iraq, hell they almost did anyway.
5) Yes, on the Peace issue, because we are the only country with any power over Isreal.
6) Yes, we would still be looking for a schmuck in a turbin, because Russia would have never sponsored an act that would allow us to retalliate on a country. You would see a differnent response from the military than in the current operation.
7) They are simple answers, and any sophmore in Poli Sci could answer them.

Any questions?

Wow, that's amazing. I could come up with "answers" too, but they are just hypothetical answers to hypothetical questions based on assumptions that may or may not apply to the specific sutuation. Yes, any poli sci sophomore could "answer" the questions, but as any poli sci person should know, there are few "easy" answers in real world situations. Then again, you are a poli sci person, so you're probably used to dissecting situations with 20/20 hindsight. You do know of course that 20/20 hindsight isn't available in the real world.

mischief
May 15, 2002, 11:06 AM
" Yes we would still be in the war on terror. Shall we forget the foundations of it that started in 1982?"

They actually started much earlier during the mid 70's with George Herbert Walker Bush running the CIA. Operatives leaked Carter's marines-raid in 1979 to discredit Carter.

" Yes, the Russians would have had plenty of resources to kill the masses into submission."

Not their style. The Russians were grabbing resources as fast as they could. They made more deals than they took by force, unlike the US. Cuba comes to mind. Repulican business men hate traditional Communism because they end with all the businesses being siezed by th state and invariably happened in Banana republics.


" No, Afganistan was their Vietnam. And yes, Ossama would still have done his crap."

Absolutely correct. The Power mongers in Saudi Arabia have been spreading terrorist-style politics with Oil money since they first put up Rigs.

" Yes, they would have supported Iraq, hell they almost did anyway."

************.

" Yes, on the Peace issue, because we are the only country with any power over Isreal."

Other way around. A LOT of money goes to Israel in a year through equivalent organizations to those "tything or charity" groups now under investigation for backing Al Qaida. Supporting Genocide in Israel is just as bad as supporting Global Terrorism. Yes, Jews went through an episode of Mass Genocide. One problem: If you continue to use Genocide as your justification PERPETRATING IT HURTS YOUR CREDABILITY. A LOT of money is pushed into soft money funds in BOTH parties to keep the US passive in response to Genocide in Palestine.

" Yes, we would still be looking for a schmuck in a turbin, because Russia would have never sponsored an act that would allow us to retalliate on a country. You would see a differnent response from the military than in the current operation"

Correct. Russia never had cause to back Palestine OR the False Jyhad.

Backtothemac
May 15, 2002, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by mcrain


Oh, let's see. Fortune 500 as an unbiased analysis of republican vs. democrat presidencies. Gee, considering the source, I'm not the least bit surprised about the results.....

They are actually reguarded as very non-biased in the media comunity.

[i]

As for my question, you didn't answer it. Instead, you point to a campaign finance controversy and say, see, we were justified in not liking him. [/B]

I did answer your question. I personally like him, just not his politics, and morals.

[i]
(As a side note, why then do republicans typically disfavor campaign finance reform? Could it be fear that the money advantage the republican party has might go away, and then it would be harder to convince people who are in the lower tax brackets that the republican party would benefit them.)[/B]

um, right. The democrats have more money than do the republicans. Check with their fundraising reports. Believe me, the democrats raise far more money from the poor, and then give them nothing in return.

[i]
I ask you again, why did republicans hate Clinton so much that they thought it was ok to go after him for 8+ solid years? I always thought we were supposed to stand united behind the president, with disagreements about policy and decisions.
When did it become ok to try to make the President of the United States look bad in the eyes of the world?[/B]
As soon as the constitution was signed.

[i]
Btw, Clinton's charisma assisted the peace process in the middle east, Ireland, etc... (not responsible, just assisted). Clinton had the cajones to raise the issue of nationalized health care (granted, his plan stunk, but he got people talking about it). Unemployment went down, welfare went down, inflation was kept under control, infrastructure improvements were made, even the tech of the military was improved (although Clinton was by no means a military oriented president). His foreign policy was refined and he was respected dispite his detractors attempts to make him look bad.
[/B]

You have got to be kidding me right. F nationalized heath care. Ask mischief how well that works up there. Welfare, went up! Dude, don't talk to me about the tech of the military. Clinton took a 600 ship navy to just over 300 ships. Show me the policy actions that caused unemployment, and inflation to be controled. His foreign policy was refined. Refined to make everything easier for those that wanted to do harm to this county.

Backtothemac
May 15, 2002, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by mcrain


Wow, that's amazing. I could come up with "answers" too, but they are just hypothetical answers to hypothetical questions based on assumptions that may or may not apply to the specific sutuation. Yes, any poli sci sophomore could "answer" the questions, but as any poli sci person should know, there are few "easy" answers in real world situations. Then again, you are a poli sci person, so you're probably used to dissecting situations with 20/20 hindsight. You do know of course that 20/20 hindsight isn't available in the real world.

Those answers are educated guesses based on the real world experience that I have gained through the years in various employment positions.

michief, dude you are right in some ways. In others, no you're wrong.

One word for you? Stalin? If threatened Bresnev, Krushev would have pulled a Stalin, count on it. Also, Russia was very scared to support the US in the Gulf. The reason. Think of the Muslium population in that country especially in the smaller countries that were breaking off during that time. They were scared S**tless!

mischief
May 15, 2002, 11:18 AM
Until NAFTA of course. Health care is garenteed in the Canadian constitution. It only began to SUCK once it was being dissassembled. It cost my mother $12.00 CAD for Diapers to have me. It was a SERIOUSLY complicated Cesaran. Roughly 50% of a Canadian's income goes to Taxes with1 important difference to the US: We see it again. :p

Backtothemac
May 15, 2002, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by mischief
Until NAFTA of course. Health care is garenteed in the Canadian constitution. It only began to SUCK once it was being dissassembled. It cost my mother $12.00 CAD for Diapers to have me. It was a SERIOUSLY complicated Cesaran. Roughly 50% of a Canadian's income goes to Taxes with1 important difference to the US: We see it again. :p

That is the difference that I was suggesting. To work and half 50% of you income go to taxes. Hell no! I don't even think there should be a federal income tax here in the States. Our goverment taxes the hell out of people, and if we had federal health coverage, good God that would be painful in taxes. But, hey, dems are known for that right.

Look, the fact is that the democrats tell the lower classes, that they want to help them. Vote for me and I will fight for you in DC. It is crap. More republicans voted for the civil rights movement than did democrats. It is a fact. Go look at the voting records. More republicans voted for the ERA than did democrats. Fact, again go look at the voting records. For some reason both parties are associated with the radicals in their parties. Most repbulicans.

I think that it boils down to one thing for me.

The democratic party will fight for your right to have an abortion, and will in the same breath defend the life of a convicted kill and speak out against the death penalty.

So basically, it is ok to get rid of someone that has never harmed anyone, but you have to protect the life of the murder? That is some screwed up logic in my opinion.

mischief
May 15, 2002, 11:32 AM
"One word for you? Stalin? If threatened Bresnev, Krushev would have pulled a Stalin, count on it."

And what do you mean by that? Stalin wanted to be Csar. He WAS a Csar. He was also in the postion of having been betrayed by all his allies. First Germany, then the US. He was Nuts and afraid.

" Also, Russia was very scared to support the US in the Gulf. The reason. Think of the Muslium population in that country especially in the smaller countries that were breaking off during that time. They were scared S**tless!"

They also have one of the largest Petroleum supplies on the Globe. They could give a **** if George Bush's Oil cronies lost some $$$ when Iraq (a US ally supported by Reagan/Bush) nationalized Kuwait's Oil.

Backtothemac
May 15, 2002, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by mischief
And what do you mean by that? Stalin wanted to be Csar. He WAS a Csar. He was also in the postion of having been betrayed by all his allies. First Germany, then the US. He was Nuts and afraid.
Yes, and he killed more of his people than did the Germans.

[i]They also have one of the largest Petroleum supplies on the Globe. They could give a **** if George Bush's Oil cronies lost some $$$ when Iraq (a US ally supported by Reagan/Bush) nationalized Kuwait's Oil. [/B]

Yes, they have a massive suppy, with not a lot of resources for tapping it. Also, that war was not about Kuwaits oil, but about Saudi Oil.

Mr. Anderson
May 15, 2002, 11:38 AM
50%!!!!:eek:

That definitely sucks, and I thought the US was bad. Even if you do see some of it again, what happens if you're lucky enough never to be sick? All that money, damn.

As for Dems and Reps, the line blurs sometimes too. I'd love to see another party, but that won't ever happen, the two big parties are too entrenched.

Did you know that in the first several Presidential Elelctions, the loser, or if there was more than one, the Candidate with the second most votes became Vice President. It was an interesting way to balance power inside the Oval Office. I wonder why/when they got rid of it?

Backtothemac
May 15, 2002, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by dukestreet
50%!!!!:eek:

That definitely sucks, and I thought the US was bad. Even if you do see some of it again, what happens if you're lucky enough never to be sick? All that money, damn.

As for Dems and Reps, the line blurs sometimes too. I'd love to see another party, but that won't ever happen, the two big parties are too entrenched.

Did you know that in the first several Presidential Elelctions, the loser, or if there was more than one, the Candidate with the second most votes became Vice President. It was an interesting way to balance power inside the Oval Office. I wonder why/when they got rid of it?

Actually it is closer to 70% for those who make more money up north ;)

Also, they changed it when someone realized that "wait a minute. I finished second, but if I kill that guy, then I am the pres." See what I mean. :confused:

mischief
May 15, 2002, 11:47 AM
"To work and half 50% of you income go to taxes. Hell no! I don't even think there should be a federal income tax here in the States. Our goverment taxes the hell out of people, and if we had federal health coverage, good God that would be painful in taxes. But, hey, dems are known for that right."

When did I ever endorse the Democrats? 50% between ALL taxes, federal AND local.Each tax funding a Government service directly related to the source of the $$$. US Federal Income tax is illegal. The Tax Code is indeed encryption, the Tax Laws, when read in plain language apply that tax ONLY to federal workers and those in Federal Territories. Federal Healthcare is CHEAPER per-patient because there are more Generic drugs and less redundancy. The US has the LOWEST per-person taxes on the planet and the lowest per-citizen return on tax dollars per dollar invested in the government of any "Democratic" nation.


"Look, the fact is that the democrats tell the lower classes, that they want to help them. Vote for me and I will fight for you in DC. It is crap."

Correct, though not for Malice, just through inneptitude. Democrats mean well, they just assume the Game is Fair.

"More republicans voted for the civil rights movement than did democrats. It is a fact. Go look at the voting records. More republicans voted for the ERA than did democrats. Fact, again go look at the voting records. For some reason both parties are associated with the radicals in their parties. Most repbulicans."

Refresh my non-poli-sci memory: ERA?




"The democratic party will fight for your right to have an abortion, and will in the same breath defend the life of a convicted killer and speak out against the death penalty.

So basically, it is ok to get rid of someone that has never harmed anyone, but you have to protect the life of the murder? That is some screwed up logic in my opinion."

Neither is for us to decide. We, as humans have no right to declare who lives or dies but the rights of Citizens only extend as far as their birth record. That is the nature of non-religeous law.

Capital punishment has NEVER worked as a deterrant and the Penal industry has no interest in reforming potential repeat cutomers. The Prison Lobby is an evil blight on the face of US politics that the rest of the world views with horror.

Backtothemac
May 15, 2002, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by mischief
Refresh my non-poli-sci memory: ERA?

Neither is for us to decide. We, as humans have no right to declare who lives or dies but the rights of Citizens only extend as far as their birth record. That is the nature of non-religeous law.

Capital punishment has NEVER worked as a deterrant and the Penal industry has no interest in reforming potential repeat cutomers. The Prison Lobby is an evil blight on the face of US politics that the rest of the world views with horror.

The ERA was the equal rights amendment. I am not judging the merits of Capital punishment as a deterennt. To do so, they should go back to public executions. That would be a deterent. Quite frankly the rest of the world can kiss my A$$. I don't care what other countries think about our prison system. It is ours. Period. Every county has laws that determine the prision system in that county.

As a father, believe me. If someone ever harmed my little girl, my wife, or a family member, it would never go to court. I would be the judge, jury and executioner, and I would deal with my maker when I met him.

jefhatfield
May 15, 2002, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


Would you mind listing some of those great accomplishments? Really, I am all ears?

i do not have my BA in political science, but i have my BA from a good business school, worked for the pentagon on the west coast, and have been self employed since 1989, so you know where MY political ties are! republican?....nope, I am a democrat..he he

accomplishments of presidents...and i lived thru them

nixon...effectively put an end to the cold war by making an alliance with china

ford...got us completely out of southeast asia

carter...i can't think of too much while he was president but he is a great elder statesman for peace today

reagan...economic prosperity on a level not seen since the 20s...that's where my biz education can monitor that one

bush...beat iraq in most one-sided victory in us history

clinton...economic prosperity on a level unseen in us or world history...the numbers are there...statiscial analysis (abstract) of the united states...found at any library...or just look around at many who prospered during this time

bush...off to a good start against terrorism

hey, backtothemac, one of the local colleges here in monterey, ca, the naval postgraduate school, is looking for people for their free master's degree program

they pay you for the two years in the digital security degree, called the computer assurance MS degree, and let you work as a temp for two years in alexandria, virginia in computer Q and A for uncle sam fighting computer terrorism

you won't get rich being a federal employee, but it will be a chance to serve your country for the national security agency with this experimental degree...my best friend is co-chair of computer department and the school is accredited, and the degree program will hopefully get accredited, too...it'still a new program but it's a free degree like west point or the naval academy

i thought of this degree myself but being more of a cilivian based computer business and educator, i am working on my vendor certifications and computer-telecomm engineering degree

if you have any questions, email me at unicorn@mbay.net

Backtothemac
May 15, 2002, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
hey, backtothemac, one of the local colleges here in monterey, ca, the naval postgraduate school, is looking for people for their free master's degree program

they pay you for the two years in the digital security degree, called the computer assurance MS degree, and let you work as a temp for two years in alexandria, virginia in computer Q and A for uncle sam fighting computer terrorism

you won't get rich being a federal employee, but it will be a chance to serve your country for the national security agency with this experimental degree...my best friend is co-chair of computer department and the school is accredited, and the degree program will hopefully get accredited, too...it'still a new program but it's a free degree like west point or the naval academy

i thought of this degree myself but being more of a cilivian based computer business and educator, i am working on my vendor certifications and computer-telecomm engineering degree

if you have any questions, email me at unicorn@mbay.net

Actually my sister was telling me about something that sounds similar to that. She is oricle certified and works for the DOD. I have an MCP + Internet, and am working on my MCSE. Yes, I hate microsoft, but they do keep money in my pocket. We are just treading water until my wife graduates, then we will move on. DC is the logical choice, as I did an internship up there back in 91. Very volunteer, but very friggin cool!!!!

I agree with most of your observations except the cold war. I think it ended with Kennedy. The reason I say that is that both sides realized after the bay of pigs, that they could never even fight a conventional war for fear of escalation. That was when it was really over.

jefhatfield
May 15, 2002, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


Actually my sister was telling me about something that sounds similar to that. She is oricle certified and works for the DOD. I have an MCP + Internet, and am working on my MCSE. Yes, I hate microsoft, but they do keep money in my pocket. We are just treading water until my wife graduates, then we will move on. DC is the logical choice, as I did an internship up there back in 91. Very volunteer, but very friggin cool!!!!

I agree with most of your observations except the cold war. I think it ended with Kennedy. The reason I say that is that both sides realized after the bay of pigs, that they could never even fight a conventional war for fear of escalation. That was when it was really over.

it's ok to have a microsoft certification...it does not make you a traitor...LOL

the government will pay you $29,000 for two years of school and two more years of work...but now that i found out you are microsoft certified, that changes the picture a little

as you know maybe, i am a MCP working towards MCSE and CCNA, and these stupid-ass letters M.C.S.E. mean more in terms of pay in the "IT world" than an AA, AS, BA, BS, MA, MBA, MS, PhD, or any proper degree...it's called the war of vendor certifications

...if you get cisco's version of the MCSE, called the CCIE, come here to san jose and your starting salary is $120,000 a year...the only CCIE i know made 2 mil last year!

so i guess working for uncle sam would be a slight pay cut:p

ps - send your sister to oracle here in silicon valley asap...she can buy you a new jaguar and she is way too over-qualified to work for uncle sam, unless like me, she felt an obligation to help the us...i loved clinton and i felt in some small way, that i was working for him...i almost got chosen to be a white house intern in 1995...i would have seen monica lewinsky...he he

Backtothemac
May 15, 2002, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield


it's ok to have a microsoft certification...it does not make you a traitor...LOL

the government will pay you $29,000 for two years of school and two more years of work...but now that i found out you are microsoft certified, that changes the picture a little

as you know maybe, i am a MCP working towards MCSE and CCNA, and these stupid-ass letters M.C.S.E. mean more in terms of pay in the "IT world" than an AA, AS, BA, BS, MA, MBA, MS, PhD, or any proper degree...it's called the war of vendor certifications

...if you get cisco's version of the MCSE, called the CCIE, come here to san jose and your starting salary is $120,000 a year...the only CCIE i know made 2 mil last year!

so i guess working for uncle sam would be a slight pay cut:p

ps - send your sister to oracle here in silicon valley asap...she can buy you a new jaguar and she is way too over-qualified to work for uncle sam, unless like me, she felt an obligation to help the us...i loved clinton and i felt in some small way, that i was working for him...i almost got chosen to be a white house intern in 1995...i would have seen monica lewinsky...he he

OMG that would have been hillarious! Hey baby, I got someth.... nevermind. Yea, my father was 23rd Air Force, and my sister is X Amry. I was Navy, but hense bone disease and disqualified. I know about that CCIE. I want that thing sooooo bad. 2 mil!!!! That is friggin sick. Damn, ok, that is it. I have a new goal in life. CCIE. Also, I agree on the whole vendor cert war. It is crazy.

jefhatfield
May 15, 2002, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


OMG that would have been hillarious! Hey baby, I got someth.... nevermind. Yea, my father was 23rd Air Force, and my sister is X Amry. I was Navy, but hense bone disease and disqualified. I know about that CCIE. I want that thing sooooo bad. 2 mil!!!! That is friggin sick. Damn, ok, that is it. I have a new goal in life. CCIE. Also, I agree on the whole vendor cert war. It is crazy.

i knew this guy, with his BA in english (technical writing), his MBA in accounting, his CPA in california, and was a former VP of a high tech company and he made only 35K a year at a big five acct firm

then he got his MCSE and with that alone on his resume, he made 100K+ in his first year living in san jose, ca

life is not fair...it is rather brutal, especially in silicon valley and a CCIE is the "king" of the jungle and among something like a hundred thousand IT workers in san jose alone, the two thousand or so CCIEs in silicon valley get the frigin cherry on the cake

and now that the dot.com thing died, the CCIE and MCSE were the only things left standing after the shootout at the dot.com ok corral and wall street

at one time, the number one job in silicon valley and the us was web designer and kids in high school in san jose were making 100 dollars an afternoon after school making websites for everyone and their grandmother in san jose who thought they would be the next webvan, ebay, or IPO in six months

website designers were once like gods here

now the CCIE and MCSE are the gods...novell fell off the map, and oracle, lotus, apple, and comptia are good feathers to have with your msce and college degree...add two to five years experience and then you can write your own ticket and become your own startup here

and you can thumb your noses at the dot.com people because they rode a trend while you actually learned something lasting...like network administration...boring. yes. but practical and lines of people willing to use your services

other good practical jobs in the valley:

accountant or tax lawyer
financial planner
operations manager

mcrain
May 15, 2002, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by mischief
When did I ever endorse the Democrats? 50% between ALL taxes, federal AND local.Each tax funding a Government service directly related to the source of the $$$. US Federal Income tax is illegal. The Tax Code is indeed encryption, the Tax Laws, when read in plain language apply that tax ONLY to federal workers and those in Federal Territories. Federal Healthcare is CHEAPER per-patient because there are more Generic drugs and less redundancy. The US has the LOWEST per-person taxes on the planet and the lowest per-citizen return on tax dollars per dollar invested in the government of any "Democratic" nation.

Oh my good God, a tax protester! Sorry Mischief, but you are wrong as wrong can be. Oh, and you don't read the tax code in plain language (or as interpreted by one of the tax protester books) because that will send you straight to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

Oh I am laughing my butt off right now. I thought backtothemac's refusal to explain the republican's treason during clinton's presidency was laughable, however, this takes the cake.

Backtothemac
May 15, 2002, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by mcrain


Oh my good God, a tax protester! Sorry Mischief, but you are wrong as wrong can be. Oh, and you don't read the tax code in plain language (or as interpreted by one of the tax protester books) because that will send you straight to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

Oh I am laughing my butt off right now. I thought backtothemac's refusal to explain the republican's treason during clinton's presidency was laughable, however, this takes the cake.

Wait a minute. He is right. Take the time and actually read the real, original income tax code. It was designed to levy taxes on foriegn investments, and income derived from those investments.

Secondly treason? ? WTF? You have to have a tounge in cheek to say that. Treason. Look at slick Willy himself to find actions of treason. Perjury and much, much more! I would not have a problem with Lieberman, Gore, Dashel, and other people who could represent the party with actual character, but Clinton. Come on, how can you defend his actions, and then say that the republicans commited treason.

Hey, I know what Mcrain needs for his birthday. A dictionary. That way he can understand the meaning of words before he uses them.

mischief
May 15, 2002, 01:21 PM
I understand your position, after all..... if Tax laws made sense and had no obfuscation you would have to find another branch of law to study.


PS: I understand that not paying means prison, which is why I pay every year. I just acknowledge that it's gotten through trickery.

jefhatfield
May 15, 2002, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by mischief
I understand your position, after all..... if Tax laws made sense and had no obfuscation you would have to find another branch of law to study.


PS: I understand that not paying means prison, which is why I pay every year. I just acknowledge that it's gotten through trickery.

when i clerked for a tax firm, i was among other things the librarian of the tax library at a big five

80,000 pages of tax code and new additions daily...what an amazing amount of stuff to figure out

the most i have ever heard of people paying in taxes was 39.6 percent for federal, some more for state, fica, social security, taxes on gains from bonuses and stocks, options, etc. and it came out to half their money being taken away

but by the time one makes that much, they still have nothing really to complain about being that half the world makes less than $1,000 a year (usd) per capita and many people in the world have never had three square meals

being a techie, i eat every chance i can to keep up with the image of a fat, smart, butt crack showing, non tie wearing silicon valley tech...ala woz, baby

mcrain
May 15, 2002, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Wait a minute. He is right. Take the time and actually read the real, original income tax code. It was designed to levy taxes on foriegn investments, and income derived from those investments.

Secondly treason? ? WTF? You have to have a tounge in cheek to say that. Treason. Look at slick Willy himself to find actions of treason. Perjury and much, much more! I would not have a problem with Lieberman, Gore, Dashel, and other people who could represent the party with actual character, but Clinton. Come on, how can you defend his actions, and then say that the republicans commited treason.

Hey, I know what Mcrain needs for his birthday. A dictionary. That way he can understand the meaning of words before he uses them.

Ok mr. smarty, treason is the legal term for various acts of disloyalty, including acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign, a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state or the betrayal of a trust or confidence, breach of faith or treachery. That being said, the U.S. Constitution has a specific definition of treason which is different. Article 3 of the Constitution states that treason consists only in levying war against the United States or in giving aid and comfort to its enemies.

Obviously, the Republican's efforts at overthrowing a duly elected president could arguably fall within the definition of treason (attemption to overthrow one's government), however, would not fall under the definition as found in the Constitution.

The point I am making is that never has politics turned into a witch hunt before, like it did with Clinton. The Repubs tried everything under the sun to try to find a reason to get rid of him or discredit him, and after millions upon millions of dollars and thousands of hours of investigation and hearings, the only thing even they could point to was that he lied about getting a hummer (and, correct me if I'm wrong, but it wasn't from his wife, and he's married!)

So, in summary, we have a group of politicians who are supposed to be working for the country, but instead take it upon themselves to attempt to topple the executive branch for their own political gain.

Rather than putting their personal differences aside, and having intelligent political disagreements and policy disputes, and relying on their ability to convince the public that their opinions and policies are correct, they try to dig up something on the president, and then vote to impeach straight down party lines. If it was a high crime or misdoemeaner (sorry about the spelling), then it wouldn't have been straight down party lines.

Now, since I've shown you that I know the terms that I'm using, maybe you'll also understand that the "original" income tax code isn't in existance today. Rather, we have a tax code from 1986, and amended constantly, that has been repeatedly reviewed by the courts. That tax code (the one we have today!) is not designed to levy taxes on foriegn investments, and income derived from those investments.

Now, you stated that "slick willy" might have committed purjury. Hmmmm... read the definitions again, and tell me who needs a dictionary. What Clinton did was commit purjury, and he was accused of committing purjury in a manner that constituted a high crime or misdoemeaner.

So, I still stand by my argument, and still haven't gotten an answer as to why it was ok for the republicans to go after a president like that.

jefhatfield
May 15, 2002, 02:04 PM
i think going after clinton was a witch hunt, maybe not a vast right wing conspiracy, but a witch hunt

and all this over monica smoking the baloney pony...get real

what about the iran contra thing...that was much more terrible in my book

clinton was a good president, and perhaps not very good at monagamy...but that is not what we put him in office for

we all knew he was all hands before we put him in, and tons of republicans voted for him both times

to be fair though, i am impressed with george w bush's job as president so far:D

mcrain
May 15, 2002, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Our goverment taxes the hell out of people, and if we had federal health coverage, good God that would be painful in taxes. But, hey, dems are known for that right.


I couldn't let this slide...

Didn't the great, great most wonderful Reagan "spend" the USSR out of existance? Didn't we end up with trillioins of debt under republican leadership?

So, let's see here. You're trying to tell me that we've spent more on healthcare, welfare, social security which benefit most everyone than the trillions of dollars spent on missiles and military?

Oh, of the 300 or so ships that were decommissioned, how many were scheduled to be decomed prior to Clinton's election?

I thought we got a couple of new carriers recently, and one or two more were in the works? Why build battleships when what you really need are carriers and carrier protect and support ships. Then again, I'm no military expert, so the question is how many ships do we need and what type.

Gee, I almost forgot. Clinton didn't replace those 300 ships, but didn't the republican congress require him to balance the budget? So, the choice was a few ships and balance the budget, or all the ships and nothing else (no medicare, medicaid, SS, roads, state support, aid to other countries). Maybe slick willy didn't do so bad by the military considering the restrictions he was under.

Sure, Reagan and now Bush Jr. will do lots for the military, but they both have/had blank checks. (There goes the budget).

Mr. Anderson
May 15, 2002, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
to be fair though, i am impressed with george w bush's job as president so far:D

Ah, this brings up the philosophical debate:

Does the man make the times, or do the times make the man?

I think George W. is a man of his times. He had to deal with 9/11 and the aftermath, stepped up to the plate, and stayed at bat. The whole September issue galvanized the nation, it wouldn't have mattered much who was in the Presidency at the time (Gore would have had to act in the same way). George W. has done good, I'll be interested in seeing what happens in the next election.

mischief
May 15, 2002, 02:17 PM
I'm perfectly happy with President Gump. I just see the Evil men in his cabinet as a liability. It's almost like they're keeping an assasination plot in th wings so they can place Cheney at the right moment.:eek: :confused:

Backtothemac
May 15, 2002, 02:31 PM
Ok, I am not going to quote you here because that would take an entire page.

1st) I am not saying that they should have, but the Congress at the time took it upon itself based on evidence from the independent counsel to persue an impeachment against Clinton. Legal in every aspect. Nothing near treason.

2nd) The IC was appointed by whom? I think you know so I will save you the embarassment.

3rd) Tell anyone that wanted Nixon impeached that they are traitors. The fact is that Nixon deserved to get impeached and would have. Clinton deserved to get impeached. Just because society changes in its acceptance of the President getting a hummer, doesn't mean that the laws do. Ask Jeff what would happen to him if he commited perjury? Ask any officer in the US military? The topic of the perjury is not important the fact that the act was commited is. Furthermore, obstruction of justice? Man, that is a high crime in my opinion. Should he have been investigated? I don't know, ask Janet Reno.

4th) Regan did spend a crap load of money on defense. Now what would I rather have, national debt or 10,000 nuclear war heads targeted at my country. That doesn't take a slide ruler. Furthermore, who was the last president before Regan to balance the budget?

5th) The arguement of Welfare, and all the social crap is bogus. The purpose of this government is very simple. PROTECT US. That is the purpose of government. To take my money that I earn and give it to someone because the government deems they need it, is friggin wrong. I have no obligation to people who want to freeload, and dont' tell me that some don't. I grew up dirt friggin poor, and have seen the down fall of the modern welfare system. It locks people into a social class that they cannot escape.

6th) Going back to the military, and state roads. The government should build a military, and agencies to support that military. Everything else should be left to the states. Period! Read the 10th ammendment and it should clear it up for you.

This is fun ;)

Backtothemac
May 15, 2002, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by mischief
I'm perfectly happy with President Gump. I just see the Evil men in his cabinet as a liability. It's almost like they're keeping an assasination plot in th wings so they can place Cheney at the right moment.:eek: :confused:

whommp That was blueberry if you were wondering....:D

Has anyone here actually met the Pres? Even when he was in Texas. He would eat **** Cheney for friggin lunch. Remember the Sat. Night live skit when Regan was acting like Regan, and when the cameras left he was a friggin genious? That is the way Bush it. He isn't a great speaker, but he is smart, and very strong. I think that is how they should have settled the election, toe to toe. :eek:

mischief
May 15, 2002, 02:41 PM
"Now what would I rather have, national debt or 10,000 nuclear war heads targeted at my country. "

The USSR never had even 1/10th the conventional OR Nuclear arsenal that the US populus was told they had. A lot of the reason there are "missing" Soviet nukes is because THEY NEVER EXISTED. Red Dawn was a bad movie and thin propoganda.

Yes, it is fun. As long as we all acknowledge it's just debate. ;)

Backtothemac
May 15, 2002, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by mischief
"Now what would I rather have, national debt or 10,000 nuclear war heads targeted at my country. "

The USSR never had even 1/10th the conventional OR Nuclear arsenal that the US populus was told they had. A lot of the reason there are "missing" Soviet nukes is because THEY NEVER EXISTED. Red Dawn was a bad movie and thin propoganda.

Yes, it is fun. As long as we all acknowledge it's just debate. ;)


Actually declassified info says they had between 9,300 and 10,200. The Russians had claimed as many as 12,000. Today they have over 6,000. Without getting into specifics....

mischief
May 15, 2002, 02:44 PM
I call him President Gump because it gets people's attention. I feel that he's probably a very cool guy with fairly nonpartisan views and good character. I also acknowledge that he is in the position of not making many of his own decisions. He's caught in the machinations of his Dad's friends.

Backtothemac
May 15, 2002, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by mischief
I call him President Gump because it gets people's attention. I feel that he's probably a very cool guy with fairly nonpartisan views and good character. I also acknowledge that he is in the position of not making many of his own decisions. He's caught in the machinations of his Dad's friends.

Man, I hate it when I miss ;)

Actually, he takes the ideas that are given to him, and he decides. Believe it or not, the Machinations of his Dad's friends are not his policy. He has already p'oed some of them. But, this is the greatest foreign policy team ever assembled.

mcrain
May 15, 2002, 02:57 PM
1st) The legal act of voting to impeach and relying on the IC is, as you say, legal. Certainly. That wasn't my point. Again, my point is that going after a president like the republicans did (well before Starr was appointed) is an attempt to overthrow the executive. That falls within the dictionary term of treason; even though it certainly isn't treason under the Constitution's definition.

2nd) There wasn't much choice in independent counsel. Put in anyone other than who was "suggested' and you make it look like you are trying to protect the executive, and that's not allowed. Say what you will about Reno, but she did generally follow the rules.

3rd) Nixon commited a crime that involved using his acting as president. He used the power and authority of the presidency to commit a crime. Clinton got a hummer, and republicans used the power and authority of congress to paint him into a corner where he had to answer questions about his sex life. When doing so, he committed purjury. I think there's a difference between what the two did and I personally don't think that Clinton's purjury amounted to an impeachable offense. As for an officer in the military committing purjury... hmmm... that's no different than for anyone else. You get appropriately punished. The difference here is that it is not in Clinton's job description to be asked questions under oath about his sex life. He shouldn't have committed purjury, but then again, the appropriate punishment isn't impeachment IMHO.

4th) I prefer debt to nukes too, but my point was evaded... it's not the dems who are known for spending, it's the repubs.

5th) The purpose of government isn't military. It isn't welfare. It isn't any specific thing like that. The purpose of government is to do for the people that which they can not do for themselves. That's a pretty vast amount of things.

6th) The 10th amendment has been cited by conservatives for the proposition that it limits the federal government in some way, however that was not its purpose. The 10th amendment is rather a very clever way of saying to the states that you can do whatever you want unless the fed says otherwise. Do what you want unless we say you can't. The implication of that is that the Feds COULD preempt every facet of government and make state government nothing more than the means for carrying out federal policy. (At least, that's how the US Supreme Court sees it, and as that is the highest court around, that's a settled issue).

This IS fun
:D :D :D

Oh, as a soon to be Taxen (pun intended), I've had some conversations with Texans, and from what I've heard, W. may seem like a dunce in front of a camera, but he has fantastic interpersonal skills and ability to get a deal done. Unfortunately, some of his get in a closed room, roll up your sleeves and hammer out out differences techniques may not work in a worldwide setting.

jefhatfield
May 15, 2002, 02:59 PM
to me the treason thing is a catch 22

without the ability to lie and lie to everyone for and against you is truly a necessary skill to get to first base in the beltway

we heavily criticized gingrich and clinton in the 90s ...and uncovered all their lies and yes, treasons, but if we all here chose any two people from macrumors to run the white house and congress, do you think they would be any more honest after all the political infighting it would take to reach those lofty heights of president and speaker of the house of representatives

clinton lied about lewinsky...gingrich lied about a book deal (those are the two most often quoted)

try putting a truly honest person in a there..really

jimmy carter was this honest born again (truly religious and not posing) christian and he was by a lot of accounts, a bad president

Backtothemac
May 15, 2002, 03:14 PM
Again won't quote as Arn would have a heart attack and none of us want that.

1) We agree on the legal right of the Congress to impeach, 1 down about 5 to go :D . Clinton, due to his dealings in life, brought a lot of the witchhunt on himself. I think that is well known, especially in Arkansas.

2) Reno, on reports from the Justice department and FBI, recommended the IC. Not repubs.

3) Again, you are missing the point on the perjury and obstruction charges. He was being sued for sexual harassment. He was called to testify. Her lawyers found out about Monica and tried to establish a pattern to his personallity. He lied, under oath, and his lie effected the outcome of that case. Furthermore, he lied before the people of the United states about liying. I don't care if he got a hummer. Hell, it should have been Hillary doing it, but the fact is that if you or me were called to testify as a defendant in a court case and did the same exact thing that he did, then we would still be in jail.

4) Dems spend on social stuff, repubs on military. Always has been that way.

5 and 6) Look, it is pretty well known that the purpose of government is to protect its citizens. That is the one thing that every government has in common, whether dictatorship, or democracy, or communist. It doesn't matter. That is the sole, main, primary purpose of government is to protect you from foriegn aggression. Now as far as the 10th is concerned.

This will be close but not exact.

The ninth and tenth both protect states rights.


AMENDMENT IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

AMENDMENT X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The ninth says that by giving the federal government rights, they will not deny or take away the states rights.
The X says that everything not put into the constitution is given to the States, or the people.
Did you know that the congress was supossed to be elected, and the Senate appointed. The beauty of the Constitution is that is can be changed, and has been, but I think that it has been bastardized to some degree as well. But that is what they ment. Read the federalist papers, you will see.

Man that was wierd calling on my high school debate memories. ;)

mischief
May 15, 2002, 03:41 PM
AMENDMENT IX

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

This just says that Constitutional listing of rights does not exclude Fundamental Rights not in the document. Unfortunately this is impossible to enforce.

AMENDMENT X

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This hinges on the word "it" either:

"it" is the Constitution, in which case the bulk of federal laws on the books could be opted out of by the states electively unless those Laws became amendments.

Or:

"it" is the Federal Government, in which case the Fed has Carte Blanche to build up a body of statutory law to erode the rights of the Citizens and States with no recourse from either.


"Did you know that the congress was supossed to be elected, and the Senate appointed. The beauty of the Constitution is that is can be changed, and has been, but I think that it has been bastardized to some degree as well. But that is what they ment. Read the federalist papers, you will see."

The Federalist papers started the Civil War (First US CorporateWar).

Did you know that in the American Indigenous Tribes from which much of US Democracy was taken the body that became the supreme court was a lodge system of post-menopausal Women? These Women could override other Tibal Elders or Councils with unlimited discression for the good of the Nation.

mcrain
May 15, 2002, 03:47 PM
1) One down sort-of. Clinton may have done some dumb stuff, but most presidents have. It wasn't until the conservatives in 1992 decided that it was ok did a witch-hunt ever occur. This is a chicken/egg question, but IMHO, the black eye this country suffered as a result of the political bickering would not have occured had the republicans just accepted that Bush Sr. lost, and then play political ball under the same rules as had been used for decades.

2) Yeah, gee, the FBI and Justice department are comprised of mostly?

3) He was being sued in state court for conduct that occured when he wasn't president. Usually, that sort of thing is put on hold until the elected official has completed his/her term, however, since staying the proceedings wouldn't accomplish the political goals of the republicans, enormous pressure was put to bear to get the suit heard immediately.

4) 2 down.

5) and 6) That is one purpose of the Government, certainly. However, the government also does many other things, and to insist that it only do one thing and not the others is very nearsighted.

All the talk about the 10th amendment really doesn't mean much considering Congress was given the power to tax and spend, and with those two powers can bend the states and make them do anything they want. (Without a doubt, the power to spend is the most powerful power in the Constitution.)

Perfect quote of the Constitution by the way.

Strangely enough, we are both right on the 10th amendment. The SC had always said that the 10th had very, very little impact on the power of Congress due to the supremcy and commerce clauses, however, the January 11, 2000 decision in Kimel v. Florida BOR clearly indicates that the court is more "state friendly."

We'll just have to see how far the SC is willing to go. Funny thing though is that the current SC will say that the 10th amendment does protect states, but then turn around and issue an opinoin on a purely state issue (Florida election). Very funny if you ask me.

jelloshotsrule
May 15, 2002, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
i liked mr blair's speech when the 9/11 attacks hit us

i don't know his politics, though

sorry to jump in late folks but...

i agree. something he said about the shame of the actions haunting the people forever or something. i forget exactly, but it sounded good...

i voted for nader. but i don't think i'm a green entirely.

as for someone who made a comment (first page) about wanting someone who is charismatic and such... i think clinton had that going for him (to some extent) and to me that's less important than his views and policies. which is why i supported nader. he wasn't a very lively speaker, but he knew his stuff and he stuck by it. he was honest to the people and to himself and so he never got caught up in lies to get elected or anything like that...

as far as michael moore... he's a dingus. after he so strongly supported nader/green, he effectively sold them out after the election by crying about the bush victory, totally ditching the entire nader campaign which said that bush and gore were one in the same corporate owned bitch who would do anything to get elected. i have to read past the first page now, so i might post more.... just a warning. ha

Backtothemac
May 15, 2002, 04:02 PM
Man, these are some huge posts.

1) Agreed. Both were wrong? Can we agree there?

2) Agreed. Most people in the Federal government offices are republican.

3) Would it be fair to deny her the right to take him to a court just because he is the president. I wouldn't want that reguardless if he was dem, repub, green, etc.

4) Agreed on the 10th. The Constitution can be bastardized, however, since you quoted it, the supremcy clause is what is most important.

Florida,,,,, Man that is a can of worms. I agree that the court had to act. It was out of control, and was going to do nothing but get worse.

They counted, recounted, recounted the recount. Changed rules, recounted. And your own arguement of man's falicies kill the process in Florida. Man is flawed, and partial, and the people counting the hanging chads were also partial. Thus, the court had to act on a Federal Election ;) :p :D ;)


You think this is fun now? Wait till Cleo see's what I said about Michael Moore. ;)

mcrain
May 15, 2002, 04:03 PM
Backtothemac...

8 MORE! Let's pick a topic that's a little faster paced and that a good ol republican like you and a good ol devils advocate like me can disagree on...

Church and state?
Women voting or working?
Gun control?
Anything, I'm always up for a good fight (that's what I do)(btw, if you want to argue the dem side for a while and have me argue the repub side, that's cool)

Backtothemac
May 15, 2002, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by mcrain
Backtothemac...

8 MORE! Let's pick a topic that's a little faster paced and that a good ol republican like you and a good ol devils advocate like me can disagree on...

Church and state?
Women voting or working?
Gun control?
Anything, I'm always up for a good fight (that's what I do)(btw, if you want to argue the dem side for a while and have me argue the repub side, that's cool)

Death penalty? My brother is there, so I have a unique perspective. Yes, I come from a very disfunctional family.....

As for gun control. Supremcy clause baby, supremcy clause. ;)

mcrain
May 15, 2002, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Florida,,,,, Man that is a can of worms. I agree that the court had to act. It was out of control, and was going to do nothing but get worse.

Unfortunately, it doesn't matter how messed up it was or could get, that isn't a reason for the SC to step in (at least the last time I checked). I don't personally care about what happened and why, but it sets a dangerous precedent. The SC can now jump in on any purely state law question it wants to. If that isn't sh*ting on the 10th amendment, I don't know what is.

mcrain
May 15, 2002, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac

Death penalty? My brother is there, so I have a unique perspective. Yes, I come from a very disfunctional family.....

As for gun control. Supremcy clause baby, supremcy clause. ;)

How bout the spending clause... no money to any state that doesn't control handgun sales. Try that on for size.

I tell you, spending is more powerful than anything.

5...

Backtothemac
May 15, 2002, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by mcrain


How bout the spending clause... no money to any state that doesn't control handgun sales. Try that on for size.

I tell you, spending is more powerful than anything.

5...

You know what policy is? Policy is what gets funded. Period. The problem with gun laws is that they make it harder for people who deserve to own a gun to get them, and do nothing to stop real criminals from obtaining them.

mcrain
May 15, 2002, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
You know what policy is? Policy is what gets funded. Period. The problem with gun laws is that they make it harder for people who deserve to own a gun to get them, and do nothing to stop real criminals from obtaining them.

Agreed for the most part, but I do have to ask what you mean by "people who deserve to own a gun."

Who deserves a gun? That's sort of an odd way of putting it.

3...

jelloshotsrule
May 15, 2002, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by mcrain
Church and state?
Women voting or working?
Gun control?


hmm, interesting.

i don't think i want to jump in with you big guns, but i'll say that women should vote (why wouldn't they... even if they do work?) and that guns should be controlled. and that there shouldn't be a dealth penalty.

mcrain
May 15, 2002, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
hmm, interesting.

i don't think i want to jump in with you big guns, but i'll say that women should vote (why wouldn't they... even if they do work?) and that guns should be controlled. and that there shouldn't be a dealth penalty.

Women voting is ruining the family values of this country, that and no prayer in school!

mischief
May 15, 2002, 04:26 PM
Raspberry ......... naturally.

Mcrain, that's two. A third will earn you a spin on the wheel o' squishy things. :D

mcrain
May 15, 2002, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by mischief
Raspberry ......... naturally.

Mcrain, that's two. A third will earn you a spin on the wheel o' squishy things. :D

Ha, ha, ha... I guess I deserved that one.

Backtothemac
May 15, 2002, 04:28 PM
Mcrain, I hope that tounge is in cheek, or Cleo and Macette will knock it out :)

Also, women should vote, we should get guns out of bad guys hands, and I am pro death penalty.

As far as people who deserve to own a gun. All law abiding people. Folks like you and me.....

Nothing like the feeling of a Glock 45 in your hand..... :D

mcrain
May 15, 2002, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Mcrain, I hope that tounge is in cheek, or Cleo and Macette will knock it out :)

Also, women should vote, we should get guns out of bad guys hands, and I am pro death penalty.

As far as people who deserve to own a gun. All law abiding people. Folks like you and me.....

Nothing like the feeling of a Glock 45 in your hand..... :D

Of course it was tongue in cheek. I'm always prepared to take on a fight, one side or the other, makes no difference to me.

My crim law teacher once said that it isn't the severity of the punishment that deters crime, but the surety. I personally would throw away the death penalty if there was some way of making sure that we caught and punished people who broke the laws. That being said, punishment doesn't necessarily need to be jail in every case. I mean, drug use is a disease, but we put them in jail.

As for the Glock 45, I like my gun, but there is something that I regularly put in my hand and it feels quite good too....
.
.
.
.
A snowcone!!! Gottcha! :D

2 more backtothemac

Backtothemac
May 15, 2002, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by mcrain


Of course it was tongue in cheek. I'm always prepared to take on a fight, one side or the other, makes no difference to me.

My crim law teacher once said that it isn't the severity of the punishment that deters crime, but the surety. I personally would throw away the death penalty if there was some way of making sure that we caught and punished people who broke the laws. That being said, punishment doesn't necessarily need to be jail in every case. I mean, drug use is a disease, but we put them in jail.

As for the Glock 45, I like my gun, but there is something that I regularly put in my hand and it feels quite good too....
.
.
.
.
A snowcone!!! Gottcha! :D

2 more backtothemac

I agree with you on the failure of the rehabilitation aspect of the criminal justice system. It needs a major overhaul. To make capital punishment a way to deter crime, then I think public executions would be the way to go. That would deter people I think. Also, not death penatly on circumstantial evidence. Either DNA, or witness to get the death penalty. That would cut down on people going to the chair or table, who were innocent.

mcrain
May 15, 2002, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
I agree with you on the failure of the rehabilitation aspect of the criminal justice system. It needs a major overhaul. To make capital punishment a way to deter crime, then I think public executions would be the way to go. That would deter people I think. Also, not death penatly on circumstantial evidence. Either DNA, or witness to get the death penalty. That would cut down on people going to the chair or table, who were innocent.

My wife's forensic books are enough to make most people ill, so I think public executions would be very difficult to do.

By the way, an early congrats on 500. A good heated thread always helps speed things along!

CONGRATS TO BACKTOTHEMAC!

jelloshotsrule
May 15, 2002, 04:43 PM
ahh, back 2 da mac. your prior mention of death penalty and abortion made me think you were anti-death penalty... too bad. ha

as for guns... i personally think it's a little disappointing that so many people feel the need to hold a gun to feel power.

"nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon... it is a sword that heals"

Backtothemac
May 15, 2002, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
ahh, back 2 da mac. your prior mention of death penalty and abortion made me think you were anti-death penalty... too bad. ha

as for guns... i personally think it's a little disappointing that so many people feel the need to hold a gun to feel power.

"nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon... it is a sword that heals"

I feel that some people are too dangerous to live in any environment even prison. I don't feel more powerful because of a gun, but I do feel safer. If someone comes in my house at 3 in the morning to murder my family, then I have a little suprise for them. As a certified Marksmen, they would not like the result.

Sorry to disappoint, but if it is my family or a bad guy, what difference does it make if I pump a pound of lead in him or hit him over the head with a pipe? Either way, I have the right to defend my family? Everyday in the news you read about people that get murdered that, if they had a gun, may have been able to defend themselves. Lets face everyone is not 6'6 and 275 ;)

Also, thanks for the congrats on the 500.

jefhatfield
May 15, 2002, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


Lets face everyone is not 6'6 and 275 ;)

Also, thanks for the congrats on the 500.

the way i eat i will be 5'6" and 275:eek:

jefhatfield
May 15, 2002, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield


the way i eat i will be 5'6" and 275:eek:

i am 5'7" and almost 180, but another 95 pounds would make gravity make me lose an inch in height;)

has anyone seen magic johnson lately...he has gained fifty-seventy pounds and looks fat like shaq

shaq's become too heavy for the nba and has to stop the fast food shaq meals...he he:D

mischief
May 15, 2002, 05:05 PM
Canadian Bill of Rights:
http://insight.dcss.mcmaster.ca/org/efc/pages/law/canada/BillofRights.html

Charter of rights and freedoms:
http://insight.mcmaster.ca/org/efc/pages/law/charter/charter.head.html

Enjoy.

AmbitiousLemon
May 15, 2002, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
i voted for nader. but i don't think i'm a green entirely.

not to seem like im attacking you, as you have some very good comments. i used to support nader...

but this last election really made me think he was a complete jerk. he turned himself into a Republican tool. he was given tons of money by the GOP proving that the GOP knew that a vote for Nader was effectively one less vote for Gore.

jefhatfield
May 15, 2002, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by mcrain


A good heated thread always helps speed things along!



hey, that's right you are a lawyer and can argue both sides very well

...do you really take the opposite side of my llb vs jd argument? because i can easily argue both sides on that one, too...he he

i just side with the llb's since being almost 40 and living in a retirement area, most of the attorneys had to work like mad to get their well earned llb and they don't like the new crop of JDs out there...but that could very well be that they are jealous of the "new breed" coming in and supplanting the "old breed"

in the next decade or two, the llb's will disappear and all there will be is JDs out there so it won't really be an issue what is what and what means what

another issue i can argue both sides on is the emergency credential vs credentialed teaches in the state of california

i had a friend who was a grad student in marine biology and he was given a teaching job at a high school because the school could not find any credentialed teachers

but i also know credentialed teachers who do not consider my friend a real teacher and feel that a job was taken from their sacred order

one thing i know is that our state is desperately in need of science teachers on all levels of education K-12

jelloshotsrule
May 15, 2002, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
but this last election really made me think he was a complete jerk. he turned himself into a Republican tool. he was given tons of money by the GOP proving that the GOP knew that a vote for Nader was effectively one less vote for Gore.

where'd you hear this?

jefhatfield
May 16, 2002, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule


where'd you hear this?

after it was all said and done, the presidency was decided by seven people, five of whom were appointed by republicans

that's the way the cookie crumbles so a vote for nader, gore, and bush didn't end up meaning anything at all in the 2000 us election

...apparently, in a quagmire like the contested 2000 presidential election, the supreme court proved they could stop an election before all the votes were properly counted...even if it was stated in florida law that contested votes could be fully recounted

it seemed logical to recount the whole state though and not heavily gore favored counties

but the republicans not wanting a full count didn't sound so fair either

...so the supreme court maybe had to step in...it was their right i guess. otherwise, why did they do what they did and put the election to an end?

Backtothemac
May 16, 2002, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by jefhatfield


after it was all said and done, the presidency was decided by seven people, five of whom were appointed by republicans

that's the way the cookie crumbles so a vote for nader, gore, and bush didn't end up meaning anything at all in the 2000 us election

...apparently, in a quagmire like the contested 2000 presidential election, the supreme court proved they could stop an election before all the votes were properly counted...even if it was stated in florida law that contested votes could be fully recounted

it seemed logical to recount the whole state though and not heavily gore favored counties

but the republicans not wanting a full count didn't sound so fair either

...so the supreme court maybe had to step in...it was their right i guess. otherwise, why did they do what they did and put the election to an end?

Hey, Jeff, now hold on. The election laws governing federal elections are very clear. All of the states laws must be in place for a period of time BEFORE the election. Now that being said, Florida was close, real close, but the fact was that Bush won the count, and the recount. Right there it should have ended. Gore, however, decided to involve human judgement by hundreds of partisan people to attempt to steal the outcome of the election.

Let me explain what I mean. My wife voted a straight party ticket, and then voted for every office. Guess what does her vote count? No. Why? Because she could not fullfill her obligation to the process by following direction. Had the issue stayed in Palm Beach I may have a different view, but the Gore camp expanded the vote hunt to the areas of Florida that he KNEW you benifit him. Did Gore call for a recount in the Panhandle where they announced Gore the winner even before the polls closed? No. Why? Because he could not accept the fact that he had lost.

The State supreme court violated State and Federal law by allowing the rules of the election to change after the election. Had, prior to the election, hanging chads and dempled chads been called a legal vote, then you are right, count the hell out of them, but they were not. It is like getting to the fourth quarter of a football game, and you are on the one yard line you just missed the end zone on 4th down, and your coach changes the rule and gives you a 5th down.

Now in addition to that, we, as citizens have a right to vote. We also have an obligation to both ourselves and our country to make sure that our ballot is correct and BECOMES A VOTE (not yelling, just for emphsis). My wife wanted to vote again when she realized her mistake. Nope, now way, she blew it. I will say the same to the folks in Palm Beach or wherever, you screw it up, though crap. And could the dems have gone any lower than to try to get military votes thrown out because they didn't have a postmarked date? Ever been on a ship at sea? Most don't postmark. That was the largest black eye on the face of the democratic party ever, and as a patriot, I will never forgive them NEVER!

So the US supreme court was the only one that had the guts to say stop. All of the judges agreed that the FLA SC was wrong and unanimously sanctioned that court. The only disagreement was in the way in which to end the fiasco. Make new rules and let partial humans make judgement decisions on someones intentions? Or, uphold the law of both the US and FLA, and say that is enough. Try again next time Mr. Gore, you lost.

Oh, and one other thing. Since my Godfather is a States Attorney in Florida, and my father is a retired UnderSheriff, let me clairfy something. The law says that contested, properly cast ballots, may, at the candidates request be recounted. They were. Discarded ballots, in FLA law are not to be included in a recount. To even think that the thousands of ballot takers could give the election to Bush is ludicrous at best. A vote that is not properly cast is not a vote. It is a discarded ballot.

jefhatfield
May 16, 2002, 09:00 AM
actually, i agree with what you say

but over three thousand votes were never counted when the supreme court stepped in

but the dems did ok the ballot prior to the election and the supreme court does have the right to step in at any time and declare an end to the election

so bush did win legally...it's just that i wonder about the 3,000+ votes which were never counted...that's all

it's not fair even though it's just and justice is what the law is about, not fairness

Backtothemac
May 16, 2002, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
actually, i agree with what you say

but over three thousand votes were never counted when the supreme court stepped in

but the dems did ok the ballot prior to the election and the supreme court does have the right to step in at any time and declare an end to the election

so bush did win legally...it's just that i wonder about the 3,000+ votes which were never counted...that's all

it's not fair even though it's just and justice is what the law is about, not fairness

I agree also. But, independent news agencies have gone in and recounted the ballot, also, the University of South Florida, FSU, I think Penn State, and a few others, and all have said that Bush would have won regardless. I am just glad that people now know that their vote will count.

mcrain
May 16, 2002, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Bush won the count, and the recount. Right there it should have ended. Gore, however, decided to involve human judgement by hundreds of partisan people to attempt to steal the outcome of the election.

The State supreme court violated State and Federal law by allowing the rules of the election to change after the election. Had, prior to the election, hanging chads and dempled chads been called a legal vote, then you are right, count the hell out of them, but they were not

My wife wanted to vote again when she realized her mistake. Nope, now way, she blew it.

And could the dems have gone any lower than to try to get military votes thrown out because they didn't have a postmarked date? Ever been on a ship at sea? Most don't postmark. That was the largest black eye on the face of the democratic party ever, and as a patriot, I will never forgive them NEVER!

So the US supreme court was the only one that had the guts to say stop. All of the judges agreed that the FLA SC was wrong and unanimously sanctioned that court. The only disagreement was in the way in which to end the fiasco. Make new rules and let partial humans make judgement decisions on someones intentions? Or, uphold the law of both the US and FLA, and say that is enough. Try again next time Mr. Gore, you lost.


I'm too tired from star wars to really mount much of a response other than to the cut out parts above.

You're opinion on the way in which Gore handled things is probably correct, and for the most part I agree with you, so don't take this wrong. But, your legal interpretation is incorrect.

Florida state law was in effect for the appropriate length of time, and allowed for recounts of contested ballots. That recount included a mechanism for running the computer counters again, and also for hand counting. The question of "what is a vote" isn't an "election law" but rather a question of how you interpret an election law, which is appropriately answered by a court.

Because state law allowed for the contesting of ballots/elections, Gore had a right to contest the election (I personally think it was political suicide and stupid, but that's just me. He did have the right to do so). He also had a right to contest the election in whatever counties he believed the vote count was incorrect. From a counting standpoint, it makes sense to choose counties that are beneficial to you, however, again I think it was political follly to not choose the whole state to at least appear that you are trying to be "fair."

Now, when Bush's election filed a challenge to the state court dispute filed by Gore, the State court had the job of deciding under florida election law how to interpret florida's laws. A purely state question with an enormoust federal/national impact. Unfortunately for Bush, no federal election questions (legal questions) were raised in the state court action, thus making transfer to federal court impossible (didn't you notice that the case was heard in state court).

Anyway, the state supreme court ruled on election question, and thereafter, Bush had a chance to ask the US SC to rule on the constitutionality of the State Court's action. A quick reminder, when a state's high court's decision is appealed to the Supreme Court, the SC can not re-try the case, it can only rule on the constitutionality of the state's action (or if the state's issue is preempted by federal law). That's it.

In Bush v. Gore, or whatever it was entitled, for the first time in history, the US SC stepped in and said the a state's supreme court ruled on the state's law incorrectly. You used a football analogy, so here's another: This is like the commissioner of football who can rule on player suspensions, rules, etc... watching a game from the sidelines and then walking out onto teh field in the middle of the game and saying that an officials call was wrong in his opinion, and he can overturn the ruling on the field.

Your wife had a legal right to re-vote so long as she didn't cast it. If she screwed up her ballot, she could have asked for a new one. If she didn't realize it till later, of course she couldn't revote.

There was no sanction by the SC to the Fla. SC, they merely remanded.

As for the military votes, the federal law requires postmarks. If the military can't put a post-mark on a vote envelope when it knows that it is necessary for the vote to count, then it is encouraging the violation of federal law. That seems odd to me. Then again, Gore's pressing this issue was further political error.

I hope Gore doesn't try again.

mcrain
May 16, 2002, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
My wife voted a straight party ticket, and then voted for every office.

I am thoroughly confused. At least here, the straight ticket vote was eliminated because it gave too big of an advantage to the candidates for the lower offices (mostly democrat advantage). Does your state still offer straight ticket voting?

Rather than reposting, let me edit... Where's the tar Backtothemac? I'm interested in seeing what you do.

Second, star wars was very good, and worth seeing. Not the best movie of all time, 20 oscars or anything like that, but it was entertaining and worth the money. I'm just getting too old to stay up all night for a movie and go to work.

Backtothemac
May 16, 2002, 10:15 AM
Couple of things Mcrain. Yes, Alabama still has straight party tickets, probably for all the red necks that can't read ;) . I say that however, being a country boy. There is a difference.

Also, no, you are missing the legal question. The issue was that the way that Florida law is written, election law is writen by the State legislature and enforced by the AG. Now, what the FLA supreme court did was throw out the election code. The code gave Harris, whether right or wrong the power to decide whether the vote was legal or should be counted. She established a deadline per Florida law. The state SC threw that out, which was unconstitutional because it removed the legislature from the process. Thus, they were remanded (sorry for the sanctioned don't know where that came from). The fact that the rules of the game were being made in an attempt to effect the outcome of the game after it was played was the real problem.

Oh, and the law said contested votes. Discarded ballots according to FLA law is not a vote!

There were things wrong in other parts of the country too, but I cannot believe that Gore was upclassed by Ashcroft. I mean really Al, what the hell were you thinking?

mcrain
May 16, 2002, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Also, no, you are missing the legal question. The issue was that the way that Florida law is written, election law is writen by the State legislature and enforced by the AG. Now, what the FLA supreme court did was throw out the election code. The code gave Harris, whether right or wrong the power to decide whether the vote was legal or should be counted. She established a deadline per Florida law. The state SC threw that out, which was unconstitutional because it removed the legislature from the process. Thus, they were remanded (sorry for the sanctioned don't know where that came from). The fact that the rules of the game were being made in an attempt to effect the outcome of the game after it was played was the real problem.

Ahh, but I'm not missing the legal question. I'm not arguing whether florida was right or wrong, what I'm saying is that I agree with you (sort of). What the florida court did was issue a ruling on the florida election code (you say throw out). The State SC ruled to throw out the state actor's (Harris) deadline. As you say, the deadline was under state law.

Now, I want you to explain to me how a state court's ruling that a state law means that a state official's deadline can be thrown out is somehow "unconstitutional" under federal law.

All I am saying is that the US Supreme Court jumped into a purely state question, and it sets a very strange precedent. It's new law. Right or wrong, it had never happened before. (When I say never, I'm not talking about the SC ruling on a federal election, I'm talking about the federal SC ruling on a purely state question)

cleo
May 16, 2002, 10:43 AM
Man, this thread exploded! I'm not even going to try to respond to all of it... just a few thoughts.

B2TM (and other Republicans and Democrats here), I appreciate your beliefs. After all, if this is to be real democracy (which I think we all can agree it isn't at this point), everyone needs to become as well-informed about the issues as everyone here is.

My biggest reason for being a Green is about militarism. The US spends more on its military annually than the next 9 countries combined, and clearly it isn't effective. I firmly believe that the only way to combat terrorism and establish peace is to convince people not to hate us; bombing the hell out of civilians doesn't move us in that direction. Military spending ia simply unjustified when millions of people in this country are starving, unemployed, uninsured, and homeless. In that sense, we are really no better than corrupt African governments that spend billions on new airports while the citizens don't have clean drinking water.

I also support any movement that works for sustainability. While I am completely in support of the international community and think that the UN really could be a wonderful organization, I am not supportive of gllobalization to the extend that many underdeveloped countries have been literally forced to convert their agricultural lands into export crops so we can have year-round bananas, while the people working in the fields are forced to pay exorbitant prices for imported food they could be growing themselves.

All in all, I believe that the litmus test of all political decisions should be whether they will help or harm the 7th generation. Most of the major problems in today's society can be traced to decisions that seemed great at the time but were not well-thought out enough to consider future weaknesses (Clinton's welfare reform being chief among these).

Backtothemac
May 16, 2002, 11:53 AM
Now, I want you to explain to me how a state court's ruling that a state law means that a state official's deadline can be thrown out is somehow "unconstitutional" under federal law.


Simple. The reason that it is unconstitutional is that it was post even. They removed the powers granted to her by the State legislature and state constitution, and jepordized the structure of the government itself. As a state, FLA is bound by the constitution, and the principle of checks and balances. To overturn her power for the next election would be legal, if, and only if. A suit was filed on that contention. It never was. Her power was not even disputed by Gore in the briefs filed to the state SC. Therefore the State SC over steped its legal ability and violated the constitutionality of both the State of FLA, and the US. That is why they remanded it to them, they failed to act, and when Bush appealed to the SC again on that merit, he won.

Cleo,
You know I love you, so that being said here goes. You talk about the military spending in this country. Do you know what % of our budget goes to military? The fact that people are starving, out of work, and on welfare, should not be a problem for the government to fix. Unless the people are not mentally stable. Governments should protect their citizens from foreign agressors.

Now the way you deal with a terrorist is you kill him, before he can kill you. Period. That is the only way to combat terrorism. No amount of "hey we are really nice and we like you" will solve those problems. They don't think like we do. They feel that they have a duty before God to kill as many of us as they can. They don't care if it is a child, mother, father, or W himself. The fact that they teach it in there schools is proof. Now they feel that way towards us because we support the Israelies.

I agree with you that we have to respect all views, but we don't have to agree with them, and you are right, we are not a democracy. Democracy in its purest form cannot survive. We, are a democratic republic. There is a big differnece.

Glad to see you finally got in on this one.

jefhatfield
May 16, 2002, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac

We, are a democratic republic. There is a big differnece.

Glad to see you finally got in on this one. [/B]

i remember a poly sci teacher telling me that the usa and the soviets had more in common than anybody thought because they were not purely communist and we were not purely a democracy...and seeing shades of grey makes the extremes disappear

as for terrorism, the shrt term is to kill them before they kill us but how do we change the environment which spawns them

the terrorists didn't just come out of nowhere...they have to have some sort of belief system that pits us as the enemy

i hate to say it, but we have somehow become the world's only superpower and it is our job to play a role in the middle east peace process and help palestine have their own state and israel have guaranteed security

we may have to keep a peace keeping force, or at least nato, for a long time

Backtothemac
May 16, 2002, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield


i remember a poly sci teacher telling me that the usa and the soviets had more in common than anybody thought because they were not purely communist and we were not purely a democracy...and seeing shades of grey makes the extremes disappear

as for terrorism, the shrt term is to kill them before they kill us but how do we change the environment which spawns them

the terrorists didn't just come out of nowhere...they have to have some sort of belief system that pits us as the enemy

i hate to say it, but we have somehow become the world's only superpower and it is our job to play a role in the middle east peace process and help palestine have their own state and israel have guaranteed security

we may have to keep a peace keeping force, or at least nato, for a long time

Right on brother. Right on. The underlying problem is that these terrorists come from a society that teaches hate in their schools. It is a fact. The only way to change to problem is to democratize the middle east.... Good luck on that one.

jelloshotsrule
May 16, 2002, 12:18 PM
i don't think the government's only role is to protect us from foreign aggression....

if that were the case, we'd really only have a defense portion of government, and nothing else.

while i don't necessarily think OUR government should fix other places before fixing us here at home, we COULD be doing more at home that would help others outside of our country.

we COULD keep our US companies from going abroad and exploiting poor people, killing them, raping them, etc. all so they can charge us tons of money for their product.

all in all, i think we need massive change, and until our elected officials represent ideas and values rather than corporations, it will be hard to get that.

jelloshotsrule
May 16, 2002, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac

Right on brother. Right on. The underlying problem is that these terrorists come from a society that teaches hate in their schools. It is a fact. The only way to change to problem is to democratize the middle east.... Good luck on that one.

to some extent our society demonizes theirs as well though. as far as the various racial slurs and just looking down on them for not being as technologically "advanced". when the lead joke night after night on late night shows is a cheap shot at people living in caves.... that's just kinda sad.

also, not being force fed this "we must support israel no matter what they do" mentality might help. israel does some horrible things over there just as the terrorists do. i don't necessarily equate the israeli actions to terrorism, i don't nkow enough to say that, but i would say that the american public doesn't know enough to totally support israel in everything. and to me, it seems that we're moving in that direction (ie, thinking more clearly and not just accepting it) in some ways.

that said, go USA! haha

jefhatfield
May 16, 2002, 12:27 PM
what struck me as strange was when reagan and bush the father were in power and the dems accused them of being hawkish and playing the role as the world's bully policeman

but when clinton and gore were in power, then the republicans made the same accusation

same with human rights issues that jello brings to light...when reagan was prez, he had thugs working with him killing innocents...but when clinton was prez, then he got accused of collaborating with the same third world strongmen

actually, even jimmy carter was accused of collaborating with ferdinand marcos of the philippines and all the human rights villations there

it just gets so confusing sometimes

cleo
May 16, 2002, 12:28 PM
For someone considering going back to school for a political science degree, I hate politics. So just so you don't think that I'm too scared to defend my Green ideals against your Dempublican ones... More like too lazy at the moment. :D But I am still keeping up with the thread. :)

Backtothemac
May 16, 2002, 12:28 PM
We may demonize them in our Culture, but we don't teach sixth graders to hate and kill the infidel. Also, I agree on Israel. It is hard to understand why we give them a blank check. I don't think you have to be a rocket scientist to see that something went amuck in Jenin.

I personally think the support comes from guilt for not doing more to stop the holocost.

I think that government has many roles, but the main role, the biggest responsiblity that it has, it to keep us safe.

jelloshotsrule
May 16, 2002, 12:29 PM
that's what it all boils down to jef, politics is just that. there are no real sides (especially in the 2 party system we have).

this year it's the dems trash talking the pres. last term it was reversed.

it's all mud slinging. it's all biased. only person i know of who is not terrible with all that is john mccain.

BUT i don't know much about him, just saw him as a pretty unbiased guy. who just went for what he believes in. either way, corporations probably own his ass.

jelloshotsrule
May 16, 2002, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by cleo
For someone considering going back to school for a political science degree, I hate politics. So just so you don't think that I'm too scared to defend my Green ideals against your Dempublican ones... More like too lazy at the moment. :D But I am still keeping up with the thread. :)

hey, start the fire and i'll try to keep it going. we probably agree on MOST issues... i know of one we wouldn't but i will not bring it up. ha

politics suck. the problem is, there's no way of getting around them... dempublican is good..

there's this guy called "reverend billy" in nyc who is an actor who dresses up like a reverend and preaches about anti-corporate philosophy. check out reverend billy.com (http://www.reverendbilly.com) and see what he has to say... anyhoo, point is, at a nader rally in washington square, he was talking about the candidates... "their names can be pronounced two ways.... gorebush.... or..... bushgore..." that was funny and stuck in my head about how they are almost exactly the same. just puppets on a string.

Backtothemac
May 16, 2002, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
what struck me as strange was when reagan and bush the father were in power and the dems accused them of being hawkish and playing the role as the world's bully policeman

but when clinton and gore were in power, then the republicans made the same accusation

same with human rights issues that jello brings to light...when reagan was prez, he had thugs working with him killing innocents...but when clinton was prez, then he got accused of collaborating with the same third world strongmen

actually, even jimmy carter was accused of collaborating with ferdinand marcos of the philippines and all the human rights villations there

it just gets so confusing sometimes

Regan / Bush acted when the United States vital interests were at stake. What I and many other Americans do not want to see happen is a situation where our soldiers defend areas that are not VI. Now think of East Timor. We have no VI, so we are not there. Somalia. No vital interest, but yet we were there, and that is what republicans had a problem with. Bosnia, go, go fast, and kick their A$$.

Now the real problems that are in the country today with terrorism come from the Carter Doctrine. That fine little idea said that you could not have relations with countries that committed human rights violations. Nice idea, but reality is that those people are needed in order to protect our VI. Nice guys won't give people Columbian neckties.

No form of government is perfect, but I am glad to be where I am.

Oh, and Cleo, why Poli Sci? What do you want to do? I ask because my degree is in Poli Sci / Military History.

jefhatfield
May 16, 2002, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


I ask because my degree is in Poli Sci / Military History.

my dad was in wwII and he was japanese american...he was in the us army in intelligence in the pacific

he always told me that there were special forces in the uk and in israel that were better and more highly trained than america's best of the cia and delta force

then i saw the russel crowe movie "proof of life" where he was this ex-sas man

then i saw books coming out for the first time about the sas

they are kind of like the navy seals, delta force, james bond, and austin powers all rolled into one...physically tough, top university and special ops education, and because they are smaller than the seals or delta force, they make up for it in being smarter and tougher on the individual level

my dad told me that there were these sas types way back into wwII (some sort of commando unit)

i saw this sas book in where these highly trainied and polished guys, all wearing three piece suits, with the james bond charm and all, hanging around with diana on an sas training mission

suddenly, a pretend bad guy open fires, and these sas guys literally pull out machine guns from under their suits...and in the before pix, these guys had no evidence of carrying anything bigger than a cell

it just sounds too james bondish for me...a man who looks and dresses like bond, educated at cambridge, master of disguises, could run a 5 minute mile, and went thru a training where he was gagged, blindfolded, and kicked into the snow off of a helicopter naked in the snow hundreds of miles from the nearest city...these were the famed sas stories i heard from online sources and in books about the sas

i also saw a similar piece on the british ghurkas

are there really troops like this? or is this too secret militarily? or are stories like this put in books to make for good fiction?

btw - fictional members of the sas include james bond, Q, and lara croft

cleo
May 16, 2002, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule


hey, start the fire and i'll try to keep it going. we probably agree on MOST issues... i know of one we wouldn't but i will not bring it up. ha



too late. :D spill it. you never know, i might agree with you!

Backtothemac
May 16, 2002, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by cleo


too late. :D spill it. you never know, i might agree with you!

What? From your other thread? Hillary? Hillary? I mean I know she bats for your team and all, but my God the woman is evil. How about Elizabeth Dole, or Barbara Boxer? Hell, my wife before Hillary....

jelloshotsrule
May 16, 2002, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
What? From your other thread? Hillary? Hillary? I mean I know she bats for your team and all, but my God the woman is evil. How about Elizabeth Dole, or Barbara Boxer? Hell, my wife before Hillary....

i'm lost....

and as to cleo. well, it's the abortion issue. i'm a rare pro-life nader supporter. but as i said, not something to get into....

what's all this about hillary and elizabeth? funny snl skit with norm macdonald playing bob dole... and he's going back and forth with some news host and at some point he is talking about colin powell (played by tim meadows i think) and he's trying to insinuate colin is gay. colin says "i'm married and have kids..." to which doles replies

"some guys like to drive two cars"...

i just thought that was funny as crap. and the way he says it... ha. hearing about liz dole reminded me of that. oddly enough

cleo
May 16, 2002, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


What? From your other thread? Hillary? Hillary? I mean I know she bats for your team and all, but my God the woman is evil. How about Elizabeth Dole, or Barbara Boxer? Hell, my wife before Hillary....

LOL. I really admire Hillary's spunk. Although, you know, the Gore woman (Chipper? Chopper?) put a lot of focus on mental health, which I also really respect.

At any rate, my point was that it would take something rather drastic for me not to vote independent. :)

And Jello... no worries. Ardent feminist that I am, I am not one to pick fights over abortion rights. Not unless you get elected to the Supreme Court, that is... :D In a perfect world, no one wants abortions, even the most left-wing Planned Parenthooders. Philosophically, I think they would do better to explain why so many women receive abortions (lack of access to birth control, incest and rape, marital rape, lack of sex ed - wtf is with this "abstinence only" bit? are these guys seriously eunuchs? - etc) and focus on that end so that abortions are no longer turned to. Does that make sense? At any rate, it's good to see a fellow Green around!

Backtothemac
May 16, 2002, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by cleo


LOL. I really admire Hillary's spunk. Although, you know, the Gore woman (Chipper? Chopper?) put a lot of focus on mental health, which I also really respect.

At any rate, my point was that it would take something rather drastic for me not to vote independent. :)

And Jello... no worries. Ardent feminist that I am, I am not one to pick fights over abortion rights. Not unless you get elected to the Supreme Court, that is... :D In a perfect world, no one wants abortions, even the most left-wing Planned Parenthooders. Philosophically, I think they would do better to explain why so many women receive abortions (lack of access to birth control, incest and rape, marital rape, lack of sex ed - wtf is with this "abstinence only" bit? are these guys seriously eunuchs? - etc) and focus on that end so that abortions are no longer turned to. Does that make sense? At any rate, it's good to see a fellow Green around!

I grew up in a house where my father was a cop, so I have a differnet take on things. I think they should teach sex ed to 10th graders and above. In that sex ed should be information about the realities of sex, esp. pregnancy. I think they should be given the information of birth control, and have astinence explained as well, and then have their parents come to the school and they all discuss the issues with their parents. Hey perfect utopia right.

Fact is if anyone ever gives my 13 year old daughter a condom and says, its ok to express yourself. Well, that someone will get a free broken jaw, school or not, that is my responsibility as a parent. The problem isn't with the children, it is in the parenting.

Think of it this way.

You have to have a license to drive, a license to hunt, a license to fish, a license to fly, a license to drive a cab, a license to teach, a license to pick up garbage, a license to be an electrician, a license to be a lawyer, a license to be a doctor, a license to be a dentist, a license to be a theropist, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, but any A$$hole can make a baby.

jelloshotsrule
May 16, 2002, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by cleo
And Jello... no worries. Ardent feminist that I am, I am not one to pick fights over abortion rights. Not unless you get elected to the Supreme Court, that is... :D In a perfect world, no one wants abortions, even the most left-wing Planned Parenthooders. Philosophically, I think they would do better to explain why so many women receive abortions (lack of access to birth control, incest and rape, marital rape, lack of sex ed - wtf is with this "abstinence only" bit? are these guys seriously eunuchs? - etc) and focus on that end so that abortions are no longer turned to. Does that make sense? At any rate, it's good to see a fellow Green around!

well i agree with you for the most part. i even have come to think there are occasions when the "no abortion" ideal cannot be upheld. and yeah what you said makes perfect sense, and that is why i think nader, though technically pro choice, would have been the best, because he'd have worked to make overall conditions better (more than the others, and especially for the poor, where abortions are common). this would have lesssened the "need" for abortions, which is more realistic than ending them altogether.

i am one for abstinence, or at least non-casual sex, but that is an ideal situation. not expected or realistic. so along those lines, i'm not totally sure how i feel. i'm imperfect without all the answers, so i just hope it works out for the best 9/10 times....

and even though i'm a "fellow green" and a veggie, you still don't give me the love in the "who do you want to meet from macrumors" thread... hot damn. ha

cleo
May 16, 2002, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule


and even though i'm a "fellow green" and a veggie, you still don't give me the love in the "who do you want to meet from macrumors" thread... hot damn. ha

Please see addendum to referenced thread. :D

Ensign Paris
May 17, 2002, 04:15 AM
There seems to be alot of people with very strong political view (I count myself in this) but atleast we are all linked by our interested and love for the mac (If GoCyrus is reading this, it does not include you)

Ensign

mcrain
May 17, 2002, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
We may demonize them in our Culture, but we don't teach sixth graders to hate and kill the infidel. Also, I agree on Israel. It is hard to understand why we give them a blank check. I don't think you have to be a rocket scientist to see that something went amuck in Jenin.

I personally think the support comes from guilt for not doing more to stop the holocost.

I think that government has many roles, but the main role, the biggest responsiblity that it has, it to keep us safe.

Couple of things. Number one, I am a rocket scientist. Number two, we do teach our sixth graders hatred. (My neighbor's little kid was yelling the N word at the most adorable little kid from down the street; I'm sure you teach your children to be accepting and tolerent of people of middle eastern descent [must kill terrorists?]) Number 3, we support Isreal because it is a sovereign country, and we generally support sovereign countries against aggressors. And finally, the main role of the government is to do for the people what the people can not do for themselves. Obviously, that includes defense, police, fire, roads, care for the needy, etc...

Your statement that the only role of the government is defense should actually be more akin to the government, in its role of doing for the people that which they can not do for themselves, should expend a far greater amount of its resources on defense rather than other, in your opinion, less worthy causes.

Now, I'm young enough to remember, and I know there are some high school age kids on this board, to be able to tell you that the "problems" with our kids aren't really "problems." And, even if they were, can any amount of government or parental help change things? Come on, I bet you were nuts when you were a kid. I can't tell you how many stories of drinking, sex, drugs, illegal conduct I hear when conversing with people older than me. Far more so than when I talk with people my age or younger.

Young people today are far smarter than most of us give them credit for being. Give them information, don't judge them, and you'd be surprised how smart their decisions will actually be.

13 year old daughter... Hmm... every male's punishment. I'm sure you don't want to discuss the percentages. Good luck with that timebomb.

(The following is my opinion, not my devil's advocate role, but my real opinion) You want to know what I really like about our system? I like that we for the most part stay in the middle. Our system seems to work because there are right-wingers who believe strongly in one thing, and left-wingers who believe strongly in another thing, and yet others who believe in other values, and when they all pull and tug on "policy," we end up with a "policy" that is basically compromise. Instead of all military or all social programs, we get a little of everything.

Plus, when you have good entrenched beliefs, there are all sorts of things to argue about and use to yank peoples' chains. Fun fun times!

Backtothemac
May 17, 2002, 10:05 AM
Mcrain,
Well, I thought this thread was going to die. It is amazing that it has somehow managed to stay on topic. A few things. The difference between our schools and the schools in the middle east is that they teach to kill the ifidel. Reguardless of the verbage used in the books that our children read, we do not preach, and teach to kill those that are different. Now, the kid that called the little girl the N word. Well, its like this, you take him out behind the woodshead and smackdown an attitude adjustment. The real problems in this country pretty much fall into two words. "political correctness" Examples. That a subculture has managed to dominate the country. This country was founded on Majority rule and minority rights, but now the minority rules this country. That is one of the things that I love about Nascar. There is a prayer before every race, and you know what, that will never change. People can't say a non-demominational prayer before a football game because 1 person in the stadium could possibly have a problem? Kid's don't have to say the pledge, they don't learn the golden rule. They don't have to sing the national anthem? Parents let MTV raise their kids, and they don't care. To answer your question, no I did not drink, or party in high school. I was pretty straight laced because I did not want to cross, or disappoint my family.

Now that being said, the real problem with kids today is lack of good attitude adjustments. For example, you can't spank them in school, you can't spank them at home. Oprah says time out for the little ones, and all these slack jawed idiots say that they know what is good for you kid. They just want to sell books. They put your kid on Riddlin, and send them back to Rage against the machine (who friggin rocks by the way), and other false parents. You want to fix the problems in this county. Make it like it was when you and I and some of the older people here were in school. I know that it only took me once at the principles office with that massive paddle, I never went back.

Right and wrong. The lack of understand of that saying is what is wrong.

jefhatfield
May 17, 2002, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by mcrain




(The following is my opinion, not my devil's advocate role, but my real opinion)

he he:eek: :D ;)

mcrain
May 17, 2002, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Now, the kid that called the little girl the N word. Well, its like this, you take him out behind the woodshead and smackdown an attitude adjustment.

Now that being said, the real problem with kids today is lack of good attitude adjustments. For example, you can't spank them in school, you can't spank them at home. Oprah says time out for the little ones, and all these slack jawed idiots say that they know what is good for you kid. They just want to sell books. They put your kid on Riddlin, and send them back to Rage against the machine (who friggin rocks by the way), and other false parents. You want to fix the problems in this county. Make it like it was when you and I and some of the older people here were in school. I know that it only took me once at the principles office with that massive paddle, I never went back.

Bingo, you and I totally agree. I wish I could take that racist brat and his whole family out behind the woodshed and beat the crap out of them all, but alas, because I know right from wrong, and because I'm educated and would lose all that I have worked so hard for, I cannot.

Bingo # 2, I was super straight laced because I knew if I got in trouble, I'd get paddled and then, far far worse, I'd go home, and my parents would be disappointed, and I'd be in trouble again. Spanking, when done by parents and authorized educators, is an extremely effective method of teaching young children the authority of authority figures.

Reality check - I disagree with you on the prayer issue. Prayer at a football game or nascar race is fine because it is a private institution, and they can do what they want, but at school, unless it is a private religious school, prayer is absolutely improper. Church and state can not mix, and should not mix.

As for the national anthem, I personally don't care, but I'd prefer that it was not mandetory. I refuse to be turned into one of those wackos who runs out on the street and waves the flag around and cheers everything my country does just because I'm a citizen. One of the best things about this country is the right to disagree, and I for one don't want me, or my kids, to be brainwashed into thinking America is perfect, the best, and no other alternative is acceptable (because if they think that, they are likely to be intolerent and unaccepting).

Backtothemac
May 17, 2002, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by mcrain

Reality check - I disagree with you on the prayer issue. Prayer at a football game or nascar race is fine because it is a private institution, and they can do what they want, but at school, unless it is a private religious school, prayer is absolutely improper. Church and state can not mix, and should not mix.

As for the national anthem, I personally don't care, but I'd prefer that it was not mandetory. I refuse to be turned into one of those wackos who runs out on the street and waves the flag around and cheers everything my country does just because I'm a citizen. One of the best things about this country is the right to disagree, and I for one don't want me, or my kids, to be brainwashed into thinking America is perfect, the best, and no other alternative is acceptable (because if they think that, they are likely to be intolerent and unaccepting).

Man, I hope I did not insinuate that I want prayer in school. Not at all. I mean prayer at athletic events where people could die. Like at football games, and basketball games, and stuff like that. I think it is just a tradition that shouldn't be killed because of wackos. Now I will tell you another problem. The ACLU. Could they be more rediculous? The lady that is suing all the corporations for like 1.6 billion because they 200 years ago used slave labor? Although CSX one of the defendents was not even founded until 1980, they use rail lines laid by slaves, so payup buddy!!!

Look, I am not trying to make light of the hell that African Americans were put through. I am 3/4 Cherokee Indian. I understand the pain, and frustration that comes from being a minority, but believe it or not. Here, in the South, it is not a problem. I have traveld the whole country and there is far less of the idiocy here than other parts of the country. As far as other countries.... They are nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there. Except maybe Australia, with Macatte.

jefhatfield
May 17, 2002, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Mcrain,
Well, I thought this thread was going to die. It is amazing that it has somehow managed to stay on topic. A few things. The difference between our schools and the schools in the middle east is that they teach to kill the ifidel. Reguardless of the verbage used in the books that our children read, we do not preach, and teach to kill those that are different.

we are on a tightrope...let this economy fall a few notches and grow up being shot at and bombed and in a hot second we will be teaching our kids hatred

as a christian missionary in belfast, what struck me as fascinating is how silimlar the everyday people in belfast were to the people i see here in california

the residents of belfast on both sides were not blood thirsty animals, but people who had their options taken away from them

i came to the uk with my then extremely narrow american views on the world (there is no american worldview, folks) and i had a fellow missionary, an irishman from the war who was in school at cambridge, open up a can of whoopass on me...these were not games they are talking about

if anybody read the little comment i made on the british special air service (sas)...well it was one of those highly trained british military soldiers/policemen who accidentaly mistook one of our missionaries (an english minister) for an ira soldier and shot him dead

but being a minister of the anglican church (british) being shot at by a member of the british military, ...it was called unfortunate, and he died in vain in this hundreds of years old war in belfast

everything is in vain unless the people of both sides in belfast and the middle east are given options

how easy is it to grow up a teenage boy who desperately wants to belong to something and have that boy, who was raised in poverty, not to take the easy way out with drugs and violence?...and girls got involved in the mayhem and hatred, too

look back at our own history during the depression and one will see belfast and middle east type intolerances and acts of absolute violence

mcrain
May 17, 2002, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Now I will tell you another problem. The ACLU. Could they be more rediculous?

As far as other countries.... They are nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there. Except maybe Australia, with Macatte.

The ACLU has its purpose, and it does help with ensuring that unpopular viewpoints don't get squished, however, for the most part, when they go beyond strict constitutional interpretation (i.e. the case with the slave labor), I have a hard time agreeing with their legal arguments.

Australia, with my beautiful wife. I also love Scotland, England, France, Switzerland, Italy, Spain... and a few others. Mexico is fun to visit, but until their "rule of law" becomes more formal and less how much you pay the cops, I wouldn't live there.

jelloshotsrule
May 17, 2002, 10:31 AM
i wouldn't mind living in australia, the netherlands, even germany...

at least from what i know/have seen

of course, i'm a dumb american so i'm probably way off... :p

just wanted to say something since i'm enjoying the conversation you folks are having... keep it up!

mcrain
May 17, 2002, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
Content removed for brevity

Man, you're bumming me out. What a story.

Where haven't you been, and what haven't you done?

(I just hope this doesn't turn into Macs and where you want to live)

Backtothemac
May 17, 2002, 10:37 AM
I agree that the underlying problems in those countries is lack of individual freedom, and lack of economic resources. That doesn't exist in Saudi Arabia though. They are lavished by us. We put so much money into that country that it is sick, and what do they teach. When was the last time that they were bombed by anyone? When was the last time that they were threatened and defended. Us, Gulf war.

Some people have a legit complaint, but what I was explaining is that it is not our governments responsibility to pay for abortions for people in Uganda. Nor is it our responsibility to fix all of the worlds ills. I understand the narrowness of the America viewpoint. But you know what, I love, and fully hold on to that viewpoint. I just want to raise my daughter in a safe, and peaceful world. In 1990 I wrote an essay on how the post cold war world would be far more dangerous that the it was during the cold war. Sadly, I was right.

mcrain
May 17, 2002, 10:41 AM
You know, having a daughter has to be rough on any father, but what would you think if your daughter went off to college and brought home her new fiance, Bob, a foreign Palestianian student, and they plan on getting married and her moving over there?

I'm curious, really.

I, like everyone else, have viewpoints that are firmly entrenched, and always try to come up with hypos that would challenge my views and opinions, and that's one I'm interested in seeing how you would deal with.

Backtothemac
May 17, 2002, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by mcrain


Man, you're bumming me out. What a story.

Where haven't you been, and what haven't you done?

(I just hope this doesn't turn into Macs and where you want to live)

No, this is a great thread, and is staying on topic, lets all make an effort to keep it going into the longest thread ever :D

What about, the death penalty? Remeber I have a unique perspecitve on this. What about the dems blasting the White House for pre 9/11 warnings? Also one here for me as well....

Come on, lets turn up the heat and get some lurkers posting.

jefhatfield
May 17, 2002, 10:42 AM
...and these issues have no easy answers and the solutions have to come from people like you and me with all the "apparent contradictions" and idiosyncracies we have as humans

i see the right-wing held up by backtothemac, who is a poly sci/history grad, of whom are all or most are liberal in my experiences with poly sci-history scolars vs. macrain who is an attorney with an engineering background (something i have never seen since almost all law students i have come across come from a liberal arts/business/social sciences background)...which makes for an extremely dynamic and highly unpredictable debate ...all this much more interesting than the party line crossfire on tv

but who am i, also an anomaly compared to the norm, being a left-wing, born again, techie with a non-techie business background trying to analize the debate...he he

Backtothemac
May 17, 2002, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by mcrain
You know, having a daughter has to be rough on any father, but what would you think if your daughter went off to college and brought home her new fiance, Bob, a foreign Palestianian student, and they plan on getting married and her moving over there?

I'm curious, really.

I, like everyone else, have viewpoints that are firmly entrenched, and always try to come up with hypos that would challenge my views and opinions, and that's one I'm interested in seeing how you would deal with.


You want the honest to God truth. I don't care who my little girl marries. I don't care if the person is white, black, arab, jewish, christian, another woman, none of that matters, what matters is if he /she loves her as much as I. If he /she will give her the life that I am. If he /she can promise me that they will never beat her, hit her, lie to her, cheat one her, I don't care. Moving overseas, FN. That I would put my foot down. We have a small family as my mother has died, and my wifes father has died, and we stay close. I really don't think that Madi would ever leave her mother and I like that, but hypothetically, nope, would forbid it.

mischief
May 17, 2002, 10:47 AM
Speaking now as an American Citizen:

We have always, just like any other powerful nation, taught hate when it was convenient and proffitable. Slavery never went away, we just stopped openly endorsing it. Find any "Day Laborer" who walked north from Nicaragua to see that in action.

Parenting has gone by the wayside as American culture has placed such a competative burdain (sp?) on it's workers that Parenting is no longer about providing context for a developing mind as it is about the Status of having a child. In California this is quite extreme. My wife has a cousin who will be placing her kid in daycare from 2 weeks on. This she thinks of as "responsable" parenting.

I encounter more middle class parents with daycare and Nannies than with fond memories of reading to a sleepy child. All in all the concept of a family has given way to a very dangerous consumerist approach. Children are had out of neurosis or guilt or ststus seeking, then pawned off on the equivalent of "Dog Walkers" because the parents can't even cook, let alone relate to a new mind. But the parent's won't be held responsible if little Johnny grows up to be a serial killer........... Oh no........ the Daycare and Nanny will get sued and the kid will feed the prison system.

In many respects I think it's the "standard of living" (IE: number of toys beyond basic neccessities) that has done the most damage. America has convinced itself that a Child with no context on the world is just fine as long as he can buy a Sony Wega 50" TV and an X-Box. I grew up POOR in my early years so I appreciate what I have. I also grew up with both parents present and attentive till I was about eight years old....... that's a big jump on any latchkey kid in the bay area.

Backtothemac
May 17, 2002, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
...and these issues have no easy answers and the solutions have to come from people like you and me with all the "apparent contradictions" and idiosyncracies we have as humans

i see the right-wing held up by backtothemac, who is a poly sci/history grad, of whom are all or most are liberal in my experiences with poly sci-history scolars vs. macrain who is an attorney with an engineering background (something i have never seen since almost all law students i have come across come from a liberal arts/business/social sciences background)...which makes for an extremely dynamic and highly unpredictable debate ...all this much more interesting than the party line crossfire on tv

but who am i, also an anomaly compared to the norm, being a left-wing, born again, techie with a non-techie business background trying to analize the debate...he he

Well said, well spoken JH. See for me. I am on the right of middle. I am a Repbulican yes, but I do not agree with everything that the party gets associated with. The uber right and uber left are very friggin dangerous. I am pro-life, but pro gay rights. I am anti-hate crime legislation, but pro gay parental addoption. I am pro death penalty, and yet my borther is on death row. I am a person who tries to do what is morally right. Not based on religion, but based on my eithics.

So remember me, and vote Backtothemac 2008 :D

jelloshotsrule
May 17, 2002, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Well said, well spoken JH. See for me. I am on the right of middle. I am a Repbulican yes, but I do not agree with everything that the party gets associated with. The uber right and uber left are very friggin dangerous. I am pro-life, but pro gay rights. I am anti-hate crime legislation, but pro gay parental addoption. I am pro death penalty, and yet my borther is on death row. I am a person who tries to do what is morally right. Not based on religion, but based on my eithics.

So remember me, and vote Backtothemac 2008 :D

i think i'm like you but middle left.

pro life, anti death penalty, pro gun control, pro human rights for all, anti corporate.

mixed feelings on things like drug laws and such... but i do hate it when druggies crusade to have drugs be legal. i don't like smoking, and i don't like smoking pot. so whether or not i think it should be as criminalized as it is, i dislike it when people who do it make it out as some righteous cause to overturn the heavy drug laws and such....

most greens are pot smokers. it just works. green. green.... simple ha

jefhatfield
May 17, 2002, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by mcrain


Man, you're bumming me out. What a story.

Where haven't you been, and what haven't you done?

(I just hope this doesn't turn into Macs and where you want to live)

i am normal for anybody almost 40...i have never been

1) TO NEW YORK
2) to the south
3) to the midwest
4) never finished law school or mba school
5) i am an engineer without knowing anything about the laws of thermodynamics
6) i have no children
7) i spent until thirty not knowing what i wanted to do, so besides having a successful gardening and landscaping business, an unsuccessful advertising business, and now with starting a computer business and grad degree in cs, i have also held nine "jobs" since graduating from college...trying to find my niche to replace being a gardener/landscaper

so to answer your question, i am an intellectual dirt farmer:p

Backtothemac
May 17, 2002, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by mischief
Speaking now as an American Citizen:

We have always, just like any other powerful nation, taught hate when it was convenient and proffitable. Slavery never went away, we just stopped openly endorsing it. Find any "Day Laborer" who walked north from Nicaragua to see that in action.

Parenting has gone by the wayside as American culture has placed such a competative burdain (sp?) on it's workers that Parenting is no longer about providing context for a developing mind as it is about the Status of having a child. In California this is quite extreme. My wife has a cousin who will be placing her kid in daycare from 2 weeks on. This she thinks of as "responsable" parenting.

I encounter more middle class parents with daycare and Nannies than with fond memories of reading to a sleepy child. All in all the concept of a family has given way to a very dangerous consumerist approach. Children are had out of neurosis or guilt or ststus seeking, then pawned off on the equivalent of "Dog Walkers" because the parents can't even cook, let alone relate to a new mind. But the parent's won't be held responsible if little Johnny grows up to be a serial killer........... Oh no........ the Daycare and Nanny will get sued and the kid will feed the prison system.

In many respects I think it's the "standard of living" (IE: number of toys beyond basic neccessities) that has done the most damage. America has convinced itself that a Child with no context on the world is just fine as long as he can buy a Sony Wega 50" TV and an X-Box. I grew up POOR in my early years so I appreciate what I have. I also grew up with both parents present and attentive till I was about eight years old....... that's a big jump on any latchkey kid in the bay area.

There, well said, well spoke, and dead friggin on the money. My wife had a choice to make when our daughter was born. Stay home with her, or I will stay home with her. She decided to stay home. Now, I have graduated, and my wife is in school, but never, not one friggin time did we have to put our daughter in Day Care. She stated school this last year from 8 - 12 at the University Child development center, and is amazing, and when my wife graduates, I can tell you this. One of us, will always be there when she gets home from school.

mcrain
May 17, 2002, 11:09 AM
I said this in another thread, but should probably put it here too. I'm a militant hindu, christian with a radically conservative tax stance that would scare both democrats and republicans.

As a militant hindu, I am: pro-choice on almost everything, including abortion, drug use, sexual choices, etc... (although, so long as guns aren't illegal, I have no problem with gun control); believe that politicians who make decisions on "morals" or "ethics" should be very careful that they are not making decisions which are intolerent of others; believe our criminal system is filled with people who have mental illnesses and/or drug dependencies, and many of those people need treatment, not only incarceration; believe that the answer to deterring crime isn't a sever penalty (i.e. death), but a more effective, efficient and fair justice system that works to increase the surety of punishment, not its severity; believe that for the most part, power corrupts, thus the rampant problems in politics, police, and the upper corporate eschelon; and finally, am intolerent of intolerence, so racism, sexism, and most all other isms make me angry (thus the militant hindu designation)

Don't strain your brain, vote for Crain --> 2008!

mcrain
May 17, 2002, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
One of us, will always be there when she gets home from school.

I have an enormous amount of respect for both you and your wife. Congrats!

jefhatfield
May 17, 2002, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


There, well said, well spoke, and dead friggin on the money. My wife had a choice to make when our daughter was born. Stay home with her, or I will stay home with her. She decided to stay home. Now, I have graduated, and my wife is in school, but never, not one friggin time did we have to put our daughter in Day Care. She stated school this last year from 8 - 12 at the University Child development center, and is amazing, and when my wife graduates, I can tell you this. One of us, will always be there when she gets home from school.

i really admire you for putting your daughter first...somebody has to hold down the fort

and i really admire macrain, too for supporting his wife while she became a doctor and how she helped him become a lawyer so i assume someone was holding down the fort there, too

i see too many "two career" families, especially in overpriced california, just forget about the kid...and i am not talking about daycare which may be a good option, but i am talking about parents who pay more attention to their job than their child

we are not our jobs and a job is something the average person changes 4 times between age 15 and age 55 in america...heck..he he..look at me...gardener/landscaper...advertiser/general biz man...gardener, again...and now pc techie/gearhead...so i can't put too much stock in what i am or what i do

...but if i had a kid, i would have to care for him/her and put the child first and take my "role" as a parent as a permanent title

in the 90s, president clinton quoted the astonishing fact that the average child leaves home at 26...but said chelsea was more than welcome to live at home until then or longer if that was the case

i came from a background that believed that one should leave the house at 18 and i did not know what i wanted to do, and it took me twelve years after that to "settle down"...but then again, that could just be me:p

Backtothemac
May 17, 2002, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by jefhatfield

in the 90s, president clinton quoted the astonishing fact that the average child leaves home at 26...but said chelsea was more than welcome to live at home until then or longer if that was the case

i came from a background that believed that one should leave the house at 18 and i did not know what i wanted to do, and it took me twelve years after that to "settle down"...but then again, that could just be me:p

ROTHLMAO. When I graduated High School, my father handed me 1,000$ and said congrats son, you are a man. Don't come home no more, no more, that ship has sailed, and that well is dry. Since then I have had to earn everything that I have ever been given. And I am happy about that. I bought every car I have ever owned, payed for my own education, and my wifes. I don't ask for hand outs (travis), and I don't take what isn't mine.

And to show you how parents and kids have changed. My little brother, has never mowed the yard, never washed the cars, never done anything for himself. Dad, just bought him a 13,000$ car last week, and he is still a junior in high school. The sad thing, Sean, my brother, is the one that will fail. When life throws him a curve ball, he will run for Mom and Dad. They Mom (my step mom) and Dad are not going to be around for ever. When he runs to me, no dice. I will tell him to be a man, and earn his way. Now, he does have good grades, but so did I. He has nothing but school. I did volunteer work, and was a state champion in debate. That is the difference. When you give your kids what they want to shut them up, they have no respect for you, or themselves.

Jeff, you will make a great Dad.

jefhatfield
May 17, 2002, 11:54 AM
i take a moderate view from where my dad came from and how some children are given a silver spoon

my dad was a sergeant in the army in wwII and even though he was an intelligence dept/oss enlisted man, he thought he was a drill sgt., not yelling, but a disciplinarian with a crewcut and always forced me to have short hair which was against the grain growing up in the 60s and 70s...torture

he told me i would also have to go to war and that every american kid will have to do a vietnam or serve...which scared me to death and which was not true after all

so his having me leave for college at 18 was an extension of his being drafted from an internment camp to the us army...also at age 18...he figured since he was the son of an immigrant, he would be the one to go military or civil service...and that me, one generation more prosperous in the usa...would go to college or junior college

my parents had a narrow view on how i should be raised...if i had joined the military, my parents would have probably had a ****-fit because they wanted me to move up the socio-economic ladder and not be a tradesman or militaryman

but now that i am old, or older, if i had a kid and they wanted to go to stanford, then i would say fine...but if that child wanted to join the army as a private, be a government employee as a GS-1, or be a tradesman, i would also be just as proud

i read the biography of general colin powell (books on tape version) and he had really humble beginnings...he swept floors for his first job in the south bronx and made it to chairman of the joint chiefs of staff (the modern military equivalent in pay to a "five" star general) and he said that both jobs were all essentially the same..."all work is honorable"

so i have taken that as my view for raising kids so they could be a stanford grad or private in uncle sam's army and it is really all the same

my wife relates to colin powell, now sec of state powell, being from harlem, nyc and she told me that in new york, the most important person is not donald trump, but the garbageman

imagine what would happen to nyc if the garbagemen took a day off...think about that:D

jelloshotsrule
May 17, 2002, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
... star general) and he said that both jobs were all essentially the same..."all work is honorable"

so i have taken that as my view for raising kids so they could be a stanford grad or private in uncle sam's army and it is really all the same

my wife relates to colin powell, now sec of state powell, being from harlem, nyc and she told me that in new york, the most important person is not donald trump, but the garbageman

imagine what would happen to nyc if the garbagemen took a day off...think about that:D

i don't think ALL work is honorable. but i think what you meant is that all levels are honorable. but there are some "jobs" that require people to do unethical things, but again, i don't think you were including those in your statement or powell in his statement.

as for the garbagemen, i thought i remember hearing they were pretty darn well paid, considering what one might expect. not sure numbers, but i thought i've heard that.

and yeah, as bad as nyc smells at times now, without them, it'd be hell... especially the summer... ahhhhh

mcrain
May 17, 2002, 12:06 PM
As much respect as I have for both of you, and for starting out on your own at 18 without any additional help, that's not what we're going to do.

My wife and I have earned our educations. We worked hard for them. We've also earned the ability to be able to afford to make sure that everyone in our respective families that wants an education will get one, without worrying about selling their souls to get educational loans.

If my parents or her parents need anything, they will get it. If our siblings need anything, they will get it.

Now, children. That's a stickier wicket. We certainly won't prevent them from getting things, but at the same time, there will have to be care to avoid having bratty spoiled kids.

Education is the best gift you can give, far better in my opinion than anything else.

mcrain
May 17, 2002, 12:08 PM
Since someone mentioned Travis, and long threads, there is a thread about what is the longest thread, and it wasn't the Travis thread (per Arn). It's on the community board now.

But, although this thread may not be as long, there is an amazing lack of one line, off topic "I agree" posts. Some of these posts are downright dissertations.

I wonder how many words per post we're getting on average as compared to the other long threads.

Sorry, this was way off topic.

http://www.macrumors.com/forums/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=5135

jefhatfield
May 17, 2002, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


ROTHLMAO.

this is really bad, but what is a "rothlmao"

i just learned a few months ago that lol was laughing out loud and lmao was laughing my ass off

i feel so behind since i should know this stuff being a computer techie and computer teacher

on a side note, someone mentioned the term "hummer" relating to clinton and lewinsky, and that is a first...some gop pols are conviced that the pres went "all-the-way" with monica lewinsky and some right wing conspiracy writings even go as far to say he impregnated her...usually the far right theories sound too far out, but i could almost picture it...a clinton love child...what a mess

where i come from, near the old dot.com revolution, a hummer was silicon valley's ultimate version of a yuppie urban suv

mcrain
May 17, 2002, 12:13 PM
Ok, picture monica humming... what do you think she might be doing that would cause hew to be humming?

As for ROTFLMAO, it's rolling on the floor, laughing my patootie off.

(I think ROTHLMAO was a typo, as the f and h are both index finger positions)

I think bill just got a hummer. It's more of a powertrip than banging a nappy intern.

jelloshotsrule
May 17, 2002, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
this is really bad, but what is a "rothlmao"

i just learned a few months ago that lol was laughing out loud and lmao was laughing my ass off

i feel so behind since i should know this stuff being a computer techie and computer teacher


those sayings are so dumb. i don't care how much shorter they are. i'd rather just say "haha" than type that garbage. :p

as for the rothlmao... i think it was a typo for the one mcrain explained..

lol
yikes

Backtothemac
May 17, 2002, 12:19 PM
Couple of things.

Any work that someone does to advance there self or position and is legal, is honest work. Second. Yep, ROTFLMAO. Mcrain was right on the typo. As far as Monica is concerned, I agree with Chris Rock. The whole thing was Hillary's fault. She should have been humming to the national anthem..... :D

mcrain
May 17, 2002, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
As far as Monica is concerned, I agree with Chris Rock. The whole thing was Hillary's fault. She should have been humming to the national anthem..... :D

Funny you should say that, because Cleo was saying the exact same thing... although, I think in a different context...

Cleo, if you're listening, I'm ONLY being silly, forgive me!

jefhatfield
May 17, 2002, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by mcrain
As much respect as I have for both of you, and for starting out on your own at 18 without any additional help, that's not what we're going to do.

My wife and I have earned our educations. We worked hard for them. We've also earned the ability to be able to afford to make sure that everyone in our respective families that wants an education will get one, without worrying about selling their souls to get educational loans.

If my parents or her parents need anything, they will get it. If our siblings need anything, they will get it.

Now, children. That's a stickier wicket. We certainly won't prevent them from getting things, but at the same time, there will have to be care to avoid having bratty spoiled kids.

Education is the best gift you can give, far better in my opinion than anything else.

i was tossed out on my ear at age 18 with no clue, but my parents paid for my college education since they are big believers in college, whether it is a one year certification program, a two year AA/AS degree, or a BA/BS degree

but...when it comes to graduate degrees, i think they belive those are pretty useless unless one has to get one like doctors and lawyers and some college teachers

being very pro education, i think the K-12 public school thing is necessary, but it should include free junior college, college, and grad school (for doctors, lawyers, and college teachers)

i used to work for the defense department and i am rather knowledgeable on military matters and if we spent less on the military and prisons incarcerating the wrong people like addicts and the mentally ill, we could provide at least free education thru the AA/AS level for everyone and perhaps even free bachelor's degrees too

just a few years before me, the cal state/uc system was free with a capital "F" and even the books were provided...we can go back to a free educational system whether it is in the constitution or not

jefhatfield
May 17, 2002, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by mcrain
Since someone mentioned Travis, and long threads, there is a thread about what is the longest thread, and it wasn't the Travis thread (per Arn). It's on the community board now.

But, although this thread may not be as long, there is an amazing lack of one line, off topic "I agree" posts. Some of these posts are downright dissertations.

I wonder how many words per post we're getting on average as compared to the other long threads.

Sorry, this was way off topic.

http://www.macrumors.com/forums/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=5135

someone, maybe me, started a thread "macs and politics" and i think that may have also been long so this thread is "version 2":D

cleo
May 17, 2002, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by mcrain


Funny you should say that, because Cleo was saying the exact same thing... although, I think in a different context...

Cleo, if you're listening, I'm ONLY being silly, forgive me!

LOL. Silliness rules. :D

cleo
May 17, 2002, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac

What about the dems blasting the White House for pre 9/11 warnings?

This is when partisan politics just is absurd. I mean, come on, I'm no Bush defender (as all of you know)... but what the hell was the man going to do? Shut down the national airspace indefinitely? Arrest every foreign man in flight school? Go on a month-long "crusade" against terrorists and still come up empty-handed? (Oh wait, I guess they have done that one... :)) But seriously... I'm sure the president gets warned all the time about things that never actually happen. How was he supposed to jump on this one and know it would? This all points back to the fact that any true campaign against future terrorism needs to address the structural issues that make the US such a target for whack jobs.

Furthermore, I think the Dems need to drop this tactic ASAP before they wind up looking like *******s. It's not going to win them any extra votes in November.

Backtothemac
May 17, 2002, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by cleo


This is when partisan politics just is absurd. I mean, come on, I'm no Bush defender (as all of you know)... but what the hell was the man going to do? Shut down the national airspace indefinitely? Arrest every foreign man in flight school? Go on a month-long "crusade" against terrorists and still come up empty-handed? (Oh wait, I guess they have done that one... :)) But seriously... I'm sure the president gets warned all the time about things that never actually happen. How was he supposed to jump on this one and know it would? This all points back to the fact that any true campaign against future terrorism needs to address the structural issues that make the US such a target for whack jobs.

Furthermore, I think the Dems need to drop this tactic ASAP before they wind up looking like *******s. It's not going to win them any extra votes in November.

Amen, Cleo. My background has made me privy to briefings such as the ones that Bush was in. Things go something like this.

Yadda, Yadda, Soviet, Yadda, Yadda. Missle, Yadda, defenses....... Iraq.....
Israel says that Al "freako" is training for a highjacking......

They don't say. Hey on 9/11 they are going to.....

Thanks Cleo. Its nice to see that people that can smell through the BS.

Oh, did you hear Hillary on the Floor of the Senate yesterday? nice lady. Actually evil B***h

mischief
May 17, 2002, 03:37 PM
I started an "E-Party" ticket thread just in case you want a political party you can sink your teeth into: Forums/Other/Community/The E-Party ticket.:D

mcrain
May 17, 2002, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Amen, Cleo. My background has made me privy to briefings such as the ones that Bush was in. Things go something like this.

Yadda, Yadda, Soviet, Yadda, Yadda. Missle, Yadda, defenses....... Iraq.....
Israel says that Al "freako" is training for a highjacking......

They don't say. Hey on 9/11 they are going to.....


I don't know. I think the tactic politically speaking is close to political suicide, however, from a national security standpoint, I don't think there is anything wrong in finding out what was known and when, and if there was anything that could have been done better. A case study if you will.

If it's all just yadda yadda yadda, maybe the system needs improvement?

Hillary isn't a b*&th, she just needs some good lovin'. (Actually, for some reason, I can't stand her. She sounds condescending and her voice has no inflection. Like she thinks she has to talk real slow for us idiots in the public.)

jelloshotsrule
May 17, 2002, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Oh, did you hear Hillary on the Floor of the Senate yesterday? nice lady. Actually evil B***h

what did she say?

Backtothemac
May 17, 2002, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule


what did she say?

This is paraphrasing ok.

Basically what did Bush know? Why did our President not warn us? Why now on May 16th do we know that he knew? Why not March 16th, January 16th, or August 16th of 2001. That smug little B***H. She is the one who has forgotten more of her past than Ronald Regan. To even hint that Bush knew anything that could have stopped the acts, and then did nothing about it, now that is treason to me. I know it may not be by definition, but in reality that is libel and treason. I know there were vail threats, but there was nothing exact. If she wants to know why Osama and his band of slack jaws were able to carry out the attacks, then she should look at her husband and ask him. He is the one that sat on his A$$ for nearly a decade and did nothing to get rid of the guy.

Man, that woman gets my blood boiling.

Oh, and one other thing. Why is it that people forget that when the presidency changes hands that there is a transision period? Bush was only in the office for 8 months when this happened. It takes about 6 months alone just to get everything in transition. These guys had been here for years, and knew that we would be in transition and less likely to be caught. If anyone wants to point fingers, point them at the FBI and customs, and imigrations.

cleo
May 17, 2002, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by mcrain



Hillary isn't a b*&th, she just needs some good lovin'. (Actually, for some reason, I can't stand her. She sounds condescending and her voice has no inflection. Like she thinks she has to talk real slow for us idiots in the public.)

I think the thing with Hillary is that she thinks she needs to be a man to survive in a man's profession, when in fact she would probably win more support just being natural. Not more feminine necessarily (I'm the last person to judge someone's gender presentation)... but just less stiff.

Backtothemac
May 17, 2002, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by mcrain

If it's all just yadda yadda yadda, maybe the system needs improvement?


Actually it is more like....

Issues of national security.......Osama's training for ..........Issues of national security.

The briefings are very detailed when they can be. That is why we have done some of the things that we have done in the past relating to military. Saddam wasn't going to stop at Kuwait, and we knew it. That is why we went there. Also, I did not mean to degrade the statements in the meetings, just that things are reviewed in large amounts, but only threats that should be discussed are presented to the president. The problem with the government is that people like me that can author a logical counter-terrorism plan, pass it on to superiors who take three months to pass it up the chain. That is the problem. Pure and simple.

mischief
May 17, 2002, 04:22 PM
"If she wants to know why Osama and his band of slack jaws were able to carry out the attacks, then she should look at her husband and ask him. He is the one that sat on his A$$ for nearly a decade and did nothing to get rid of the guy."

If you want to point fingers go back and look at who in the CIA was involved in training those Zealots to be sneaky in the first place. This country has been bitten in the ass by it's own black ops for YEARS.

Backtothemac
May 17, 2002, 04:32 PM
originally posted by mischief [/i]
"If she wants to know why Osama and his band of slack jaws were able to carry out the attacks, then she should look at her husband and ask him. He is the one that sat on his A$$ for nearly a decade and did nothing to get rid of the guy."

If you want to point fingers go back and look at who in the CIA was involved in training those Zealots to be sneaky in the first place. This country has been bitten in the ass by it's own black ops for YEARS.

Believe me I know who was there. We had no choice but to train them, and you know it. The fact is that we turned out back on the country and gave it to the freaks like Osama. Now what makes me mad about Clinton is he did sit on his A$$ and lob Tomahawks from 1500 miles. The embassy bombings, the Cole, the World trade centers the first time!!!

jefhatfield
May 17, 2002, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


Now what makes me mad about Clinton is he did sit on his A$$ and lob Tomahawks from 1500 miles. The embassy bombings, the Cole, the World trade centers the first time!!!

hindsight is 20/20

osama bin laden turned out to be far more organized and dangerous that anybody could have ever imagined

bombing a ship, a failed trade center bombing, and the embassy bombings gave us fair warning...but nobody could have imagined osama bin laden would do what he did...neither clinton nor bush had any real clue about an attack which would cause more deaths than pearl harbor

i think clinton had what was a bigger issue to deal with at the time (israel and the palestinians) and bush now probably gets lots of reports of threats which never materialize

two things could throw the united states into a prolonged military conflict...

1) war in central or south america
2) israel and palestine

bad terrorist attacks against the us and osama bin laden will make us strike back, but i can't think of those sending us into a long war

i was worried about venezuela because there was the potential for another vietnam for the usa there...and jerusalem can turn into another vietnam for the us and the united nations

if the western world does not get the jerusalem and occupied territories issue under control, the usa and un will send troops and there will, unfortunately, be casualties and caskets coming back every week like in vietnam

i have a friend who is retiring from the us army next february and while he never experienced a quagmire like vietnam, he thinks it will unfortunately happen in isreal with lots of us/un soldiers being killed by snipers and bombs like in vietnam

he has already told his kids, "he will kick their ass" if they join the military now

i never thought we would repeat an endless war like vietnam in my lifetime...but unless something fundamentally changes in israel, we are in for a no-win situation

somehow, the us needs to keep the middle-east peace process on the table whether the gop or dems are in office

there should be no draft if the us gets involved in israel and if there is, there will be another draft dodging situation which will pit most young people against much of the older generation and split the country into two like it happened in the 1960s

when i was 18 and of draft age, the issue was simple...no war, ever, under any circumstance and if there was, i was going to protest

but now that this is the middle east and not vietnam, this is totally a different situation

vietnam never had the capability of making the world fall into a world war...but the middle east, and only the middle east these days, has the ability to start a long, drawn out conventional (yet deadly) world war three

in some ways, world war three has begun ideologically sending the western world and israel into conflict with much of the muslim world

let us hope it does not come down to an all out war

if it means anything to anybody here, regardless of a person's beliefs in a higher power, the middle east crisis could definitely use prayer

cleo
May 18, 2002, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by jefhatfield


vietnam never had the capability of making the world fall into a world war...but the middle east, and only the middle east these days, has the ability to start a long, drawn out conventional (yet deadly) world war three

I agree with you that the Middle East needs to be absolutely top on any administration's agenda. I think the US needs to pull back a little, though, and get the message across that we are with the UN and are not going to "take sides" (which of course we already have, unfortunately). The system of alliances is already in place to start a world war, but if the US would definitively put itself on the side of peace instead of with Israel regardless, I think there is hope.

I'm not so sure that the Middle East is the only hot spot capable of starting a world conflict, however. The situation between India and Pakistan is at a breaking point. Considering that both countries now have nuclear capabilities, that W. seems determined to fire at least one nuke while in office, and the complicated relationship between Pakistan and the US at the moment, I think this conflict could take us by surprise and turn real dirty, real fast.

jefhatfield
May 18, 2002, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by cleo



I'm not so sure that the Middle East is the only hot spot capable of starting a world conflict, however. The situation between India and Pakistan is at a breaking point. Considering that both countries now have nuclear capabilities, that W. seems determined to fire at least one nuke while in office, and the complicated relationship between Pakistan and the US at the moment, I think this conflict could take us by surprise and turn real dirty, real fast.

india and pakistan, even with nukes, is more of a regional conflict but can be very deadly for sure and perhaps involve the united states and other countries

i think what makes isreal and palestine unique is the havoc that is felt around the world...finally, al qaeda has owned up to why they are into terrorism...they are really big on a palestinian state and they believe that violent means can do that

saudi arabia, to answer backtothemac's question, is only partially rich with its inhabitants and while they are not always eye to eye with arafat, the lack of a palestinian state is a sore issue with all arabs since israel and the us represent an economic crusade of the middle east

...it is only recently that the arab world has gained control of their own resources from the us, british, french, germans, and other non-middle eastern nations

the resentment goes way back and in many cases, justifiably so

Backtothemac
May 18, 2002, 11:31 AM
Cleo, WTF? What do you mean that W seems like he wants to use a nuke. No one wants to go down that road, but if we had to. Yes, drop it if you have to.

India and Pakistan are a regional issue, but we would not get drawn into that one. If they nuke each other to the stone age, who cares? We have no vital interests there, and it would help clean up the reminants of Osamas band.

cleo
May 18, 2002, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Cleo, WTF? What do you mean that W seems like he wants to use a nuke. No one wants to go down that road, but if we had to. Yes, drop it if you have to.

India and Pakistan are a regional issue, but we would not get drawn into that one. If they nuke each other to the stone age, who cares? We have no vital interests there, and it would help clean up the reminants of Osamas band.

I guess I was a little strong there - I don't think anyone wants nuclear warfare, but the Bush administration has been bold in its nuclear policy - the rejection of the ABM Treaty, the first-use policy that was leaked earlier this year, and the continued development of "bunker-buster" warheads all point towards a bunch of people who are playing with fire. I do not agree that it wouldn't be a big deal if the conflict became nuclear, because I do not think self-interest should be our only concern. Nuclear warfare benefits NO ONE and puts millions of lives at risk - maybe not American lives (yet), but human lives nonetheless.

Backtothemac
May 18, 2002, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by cleo


I guess I was a little strong there - I don't think anyone wants nuclear warfare, but the Bush administration has been bold in its nuclear policy - the rejection of the ABM Treaty, the first-use policy that was leaked earlier this year, and the continued development of "bunker-buster" warheads all point towards a bunch of people who are playing with fire. I do not agree that it wouldn't be a big deal if the conflict became nuclear, because I do not think self-interest should be our only concern. Nuclear warfare benefits NO ONE and puts millions of lives at risk - maybe not American lives (yet), but human lives nonetheless.

I understand where you are coming from with reguards to a humanitarian side. From a policy side, the policy is let the fight if they choose. The ABM Treaty was a relic of the cold war, and served no purpose in the modern world. Terrorism showes that we have to do away with the ABM, and develop an effective missle defense system, although I don't think they can do it. Now as far as the first strike list. Every administration since WWII has had a target list. Somehow it was leaked what the targets are for this administration. Rememer policy is different from humanity. It is sad to say but it is true. ;)

Macette
May 18, 2002, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
India and Pakistan are a regional issue, but we would not get drawn into that one. If they nuke each other to the stone age, who cares? We have no vital interests there, and it would help clean up the reminants of Osamas band.

I've dipped into and out of this thread for the sake of interest over the last few days, but haven't felt compelled to contribute, since you guys (as Americans) are coming from a very different place from me... and I'm not talking geographically, either. But Backtothemac, you are insane. I hope it's not solely ridiculously over-inflated patriotism that makes you say things like that, and I really hope you didn't mean it.

Because I ********** care. Any human life counts, and millions of Pakistanis and Indians - most of whom are terrified of the situation provoked by their hot-headed governments (who seem to have learnt some diplomatic lessons from your President) - are worth as much to me, and should be to you, as American or Australian (1st world) lives.

There.

I think I will enjoy this discussion as it rambles ever onwards..

cleo
May 18, 2002, 08:29 PM
Originally posted by Macette



There.



Macette, you rock! Will you marry me? :D

Seriously, though... I gather from your post that Bush isn't seen in such a great light in Australia... care to elaborate? (While my sneaking suspicion is that not all of our supposed "allies" think we're great, it's hard to know for sure.)

jefhatfield
May 18, 2002, 08:32 PM
the 9-11 attacks brought on an inward introspection and an outward sign of patiotism in the usa for only a few months

outside the usa-only reality hit, however, when we started hearing brutal, daily reports of the israelis and palestinians killing each other

in a very short time, it was all one saw on american tv and it became apparent that waving a lot of flags was not going to make all the killing in jerusalem disapper overnight

now we are faced with the gravest type of humanitarian crisis and possibly may include the use of a lot of us or un troops in a peacekeeping mission which could turn out to be a mess

all human life is sacred, but we still need to find a way to defend ourselves from terrorists and still keep a good relationship with the majority of the muslim world (which is peaceful and not likely to have suicide bombers)

i am just glad i am not president...clinton attacked warlords in somalia and the serbs...the current president went after al qaeda and the taliban...but with other enemies of the us, how does one determine who to fight and who not to fight...and what guarantee do we have that we are not pissing someone off more in the long run

at this point in jerusalem, any decision the us makes for going in or staying out will cost human life and that is the terrible catch 22 president bush is in right now

Macette
May 18, 2002, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by cleo


Macette, you rock! Will you marry me? :D

Seriously, though... I gather from your post that Bush isn't seen in such a great light in Australia... care to elaborate? (While my sneaking suspicion is that not all of our supposed "allies" think we're great, it's hard to know for sure.)

I suspect that Backtothemac would not approve of same-sex marriage, Cleo, and I am shocked you suggested it. ;)

Bush is in fact tolerated by most Australians, apart from being generally lampooned for his dumbness - and certainly, Australians seem to take great pride in the fact that we're American 'allies' - although some, like me, are a little more suspicious of it. I'm not too concerned about the 'allies' part of it - I think that it's natural for capitalist democracies to stick together - but the Australian government's blind devotion to all things American (like the absurd missile defense shield, which seems destined to have a base here and which a large number of Australians thoroughly object to) is a bit of a worry.

Australia, probably because we're so small in terms of trade and population and blah blah blah, tend to take on this provincial cousin type of attitude - we're just desperate to be treated like one of the big boys. So the recent announcement about US farm subsidies draws widespread condemnation from the Australian press, and the Australian government make a show of jumping up and down and being cross which whichever low-level American politician grants them an audience, but really we just want to be liked. And respected.

Just FYI, the current big issue in Australia is to do with refugees - the Australian government has an incredibly hard-line and racist attitude to refugees, and is imprisoning all who arrive here in terrible detention camps in the desert. (The irony of the fact that most of them are coming from Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which our government is actively involved in making unliveable, seems to be lost on most of them).

OMG, I've gone on and on.

Backtothemac
May 18, 2002, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by Macette


I've dipped into and out of this thread for the sake of interest over the last few days, but haven't felt compelled to contribute, since you guys (as Americans) are coming from a very different place from me... and I'm not talking geographically, either. But Backtothemac, you are insane. I hope it's not solely ridiculously over-inflated patriotism that makes you say things like that, and I really hope you didn't mean it.

Because I ********** care. Any human life counts, and millions of Pakistanis and Indians - most of whom are terrified of the situation provoked by their hot-headed governments (who seem to have learnt some diplomatic lessons from your President) - are worth as much to me, and should be to you, as American or Australian (1st world) lives.

There.

I think I will enjoy this discussion as it rambles ever onwards..

Yes, of course I care about all human life, and no I would not like to see the use of nuclear weapons, or any conflict with India and Pakistan, but the fact is that if they did do it, it would not be a policy issue for the US. All government will use force to protect and defend vital intrests, those are the only intrests that require the use of military force. Now we have NO VI's over there. Now that being said, I don't want that to happen over there, nor do I think it will, but it is not a regional conflict that could bring the US into another prolonged conflict. That was the point of the post. Not to say that I don't care.

Now that being said. If we had to use a tactical nuke to get Osama, so be it.

Macette
May 18, 2002, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Now that being said. If we had to use a tactical nuke to get Osama, so be it.

Is Osama REALLY the root of all your problems? I think not.

jefhatfield
May 18, 2002, 10:50 PM
it would be nice to catch bin laden alive and put him away in jail forever

i don't believe in the dealth penalty but that is not the issue here

assisinating him or executing him would play into the hands of more extreme terorists and make him a martyr

i follow history and military matters very closely and as difficult as the thinking of the terrorists is, it does not stretch the imagination to know that bin laden has a deathwish and somehow losing his life to a major conflict with the united states and israel...he wants to be a martyr and be the ultimate hero

many terrorists have the goal, usually up to age thirty to make a statement, and some want to make the ultimate statement and give their lives for their cause

one of the nation's most premiere military, government and civilian educational centers for understanding other cultures is right here in monterey, ca with the naval postgraduate school, the monterey institute of international studies, and the defense language institute

...the general consensus of these educational institutions is that understanding your neighbor is the best policy

many top military and spy related organizations know better than to play into the hands of bin laden by killing him when we know we can capture him...it is all a matter of time

there is probably a plan "b" for al qaeda if bin laden gets killed...he has a succesor and they can change shape or shift priorities on a dime unlike large military organizations like israel, the un, and the united states

mac15
May 18, 2002, 10:53 PM
I don't think america has any chance of catching him
He's probably on the moon or further:)
and american new about it......sham bush shame

jefhatfield
May 18, 2002, 11:02 PM
i think several presidents knew that bin laden was dangerous...but who thought he would have done what he did

if the us knew where bin laden was, that doesn't mean that he could get caught that easily

as far as terrorists go, there was this terrorist far richer and far more powerful than bin laden who the us knew about and tried to capture for 18 months, pablo escobar, and he lived in his house, but it was still hard to get him

then pres george bush didn't want to start a war with columbia or destabilize central or south america, but escobar had to be stopped

hundreds of millions of dollars later, escobar was killed (capture was impossible) and we didn't end up going to war with columbia or anybody else

the root of the terrorist problem is not bin laden, or even the far more influential yassar arafat, but perhaps some injustice done against many of the arab people by israel and the western world

whatever we did to make so many so mad at the us and israel needs to be dealt with peacefully and we must pay reparartions if necessary

unfortunatley, some hard core terrorists will not stop at anything and they will either end up getting killed or captured even if the us and israel makes peace with its preceived enemies

jelloshotsrule
May 18, 2002, 11:16 PM
Originally posted by mac15
I don't think america has any chance of catching him
He's probably on the moon or further:)
and american new about it......sham bush shame

they didn't know about it

they "knew" about "terrorism"... knowing that there are people who might attack america is very different than knowing "4 planes will be hijacked and flown into buildings on september 11 in the morning"...

jefhatfield
May 18, 2002, 11:21 PM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule


they didn't know about it

they "knew" about "terrorism"... knowing that there are people who might attack america is very different than knowing "4 planes will be hijacked and flown into buildings on september 11 in the morning"...

if bush knew more than we think he did, then he will almost surely be a one term president

the us is unforgiving about huge presidential blunders

lbj had vietnam and he did not again run knowing he would not win

ford pardoned nixon and that was something that contributed to ford not getting a second term

carter presided over a slack economy as did george bush and that dashed their hopes for a second term

if george w bush is found to be negligent on the us security issue, he is a goner politically

but i doubt george w bush had a detailed layout of a planned attack on the us before sept 11

Backtothemac
May 18, 2002, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by Macette


Is Osama REALLY the root of all your problems? I think not.

The root of all of our problems are that the extremists in the world view the US as the great satan. They are REALLY our problem. 3,000 Americans dead due to radical islamic freaks. Musliums are a very peaceful religion, but extremist views, and media oversea, perpetuate the US as an evil country. Just not true.

jefhatfield
May 18, 2002, 11:46 PM
Originally posted by mcrain
Backtothemac...

Let's pick a topic that's a little faster paced and that a good ol republican like you and a good ol devils advocate like me can disagree on...

Church and state?
Women voting or working?
Gun control?


without starting a new thread, i chanced on this post and these are hot button issues i can't help but comment on

being a christian, and a democrat, i hate the merging of some of christianity with the right wing of the republican party and trying to dictate and legislate religion which is wrong

having gone to b-school and getting a ba degree in hr, the glass ceiling is still around in the workplace and that is a shame...women have come far, but there is still a ways to go

gun control - let us have the right to bear arms but don't just let anybody buy guns as seems the case to often in america...i was in outdoor world when i saw a gang banger chick, after she got beat up, run up to the counter, buy a shotgun, and run back out...she didn't look all that old either...times are hard in no. cal and merchants sell anything to anybody if nobody is watching

and to add another hot button issue, many bars and restaurants let their patrons smoke...believe me, in the economically depressed usa, restraunteurs will not chase away business...that would be suicide

3rdpath
May 19, 2002, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by Macette
Is Osama REALLY the root of all your problems? I think not.

OBL is just a symptom of botched U.S. worldwide policies. and theres a long list of people from different countries and faiths who will take his place after he is long gone. the U.S. has long extended its influence and control over countries that have resources that we find attractive-whether it be oil or cheap labor. if saddam had invaded a country without oil would the U.S. have cared? of course not. and how concerned are we about the well-being of iraq's people. we're not. our foriegn policies have no soul and compassion -and we're paying a high price for it.

the U.S. gov. and the large corporations that influence it don't give one crap about the well-being of the poor and starving in the U.S. either. we have a huge population of families living( 34+ million and growing) below the poverty level, the highest infant mortality rate of any developed country, poor mental health facilities...the list is shamefull and endless. and our problems are not singular to a political party-they are both guilty.

its not our prosperity, its our gluttony.

jefhatfield
May 19, 2002, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by 3rdpath


OBL is just a symptom of botched U.S. worldwide policies. and theres a long list of people from different countries and faiths who will take his place after he is long gone. the U.S. has long extended its influence and control over countries that have resources that we find attractive-whether it be oil or cheap labor. if saddam had invaded a country without oil would the U.S. have cared? of course not. and how concerned are we about the well-being of iraq's people. we're not. our foriegn policies have no soul and compassion -and we're paying a high price for it.

the U.S. gov. and the large corporations that influence it don't give one crap about the well-being of the poor and starving in the U.S. either. we have a huge population of families living( 34+ million and growing) below the poverty level, the highest infant mortality rate of any developed country, poor mental health facilities...the list is shamefull and endless. and our problems are not singular to a political party-they are both guilty.

its not our prosperity, its our gluttony.

i have to agree with everything you say

i am still a proud democrat but i know enough than to blame george w bush for everything which is what many on the left do...when clinton was prez, there were right wingers after everything he did

and i know the gluttony is not just the us, but greed has made a lot of people and organizations blind to humanity and fairness

3rdpath
May 19, 2002, 12:27 AM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
i am still a proud democrat but i know enough than to blame george w bush for everything which is what many on the left do...when clinton was prez, there were right wingers after everything he did

yes, the fingerpointing has got to stop. its unproductive and the real truth is-both parties are responsible for the good and the bad....its not like the democrats leave DC when a republican is president or vice versa. they're both there making policies based upon their financial contributors. all the party-bashing crap is about winning elections. and none of that serves the people.

Macette
May 19, 2002, 01:19 AM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
many terrorists have the goal, usually up to age thirty to make a statement, and some want to make the ultimate statement and give their lives for their cause

All sorts of good people have given their lives for their cause... Anybody who goes to war is doing that, though many of them come home again. In fact, to die for what you believe in is something that Americans are encouraged to do as much as any 'terrorist', as are Australians, Japanese, Russians, Timorese... whoever. And they get medals for it. Sure, the men of Al Qaeda have a morality which is so vastly different to ours that we cannot even begin to comprehend it, but killing them isn't going to change their minds, just as the deaths of Australian soldiers in WWII didn't make Australians sit up and say 'Hey, Nazism - now that's worth a shot.' I hesitate to make a massive generalisation here, but I think that probably in any war, the more people get killed, the more entrenched the views of each side become.

Rather than trying to wipe out 'terrorism' - which like any loaded label means different things to different people - we have to try to understand why those particular 'terrorists' - Osama Bin Laden's gang - felt so strongly that they did that terrible thing. Obviously, the world is full of conflicting passions.

I'm not saying for one second that it is America's 'fault' that the 9-11 attacks happened - but just wiping out terrorism, or aiming to, doesn't get us anywhere. Because one woman's terrorist is another man's President, and that's not going to change.

It's terribly, dangerously simplistic to say that wiping out one man will solve anything - or even to say that arresting and imprisoning hundreds of them will eliminate the manifold tensions between all nations.

When this current War on Terror (and whoever declared war on an abstract noun really needs to be beaten by the Language Police) ends, when all is said and done, Afghanistan will still be an arid dust-bowl which is virtually unusable for the important task of providing food, water and shelter to its inhabitants, and the USA will still be the 'land of plenty'. Afghanistan might have a more progressive government than the Taliban were, and they might receive some much-needed aid money to rebuild their shattered cities, but things will always be difficult if our globalised economy continues to ask them to compete. (perhaps the legalisation of heroin would help? Afghanistan is the world's largest opium poppy producer.. ;) )

OMG, I've gone on and on again, and I know, Backtothemac, that you will have a very developed argument ready to swing into action against mine, so... let's keep arguing. When there's a war going on thousands of miles away, it's about the only useful thing we can do.

j763
May 19, 2002, 02:04 AM
OK, this thread's getting pretty long, so I'll try and keep my arguments straight forward and concise.


I'm half-Australian and half-American... I'm proud to be an Australian and I'm proud to be an American, although I see the Australian political system to be far superior to the American political system and here's why:

- One ALP Australian PM, when asked about American politics said "Republicans and Democrats -- same wine, different bottle". That pretty much sums up my view on the whole Republicans vs. Democrats thing. They both are up there trying to get $$$, fighting for the big end of town not for the average American worker, there's no balance.

- The American President is never forced to answer questions without notice on a daily basis. If they were, George Bush (sr. and jr.), Nixon, Regan and others would never get a chance at being president.

- The way that the American government stands by and supports the slaughtering and killing of hundreds of palestinians, just because Ariel Sharon uses the same rhetoric as George W is disgusting. On the subject of suicide bombing against Israeli Civilians -- well, Israel's only been around for 50 years or so and in that time less people have died from suicide bombing and war combined than have in automobile accidents. The American news networks reporting would make you think that it's a lot worse than that, but it's not.

- The attacks on the US on Sept. 11 were terrible and I certaintly do not condone them. However, a few points should be made... George snr. was asked in 1989 to comment about the fatwah issued by the iatola against Salman Rushdie and he said "There is no reason for me to comment on that as there is no American interest -- Not now, nor in the future". The "axis of evil" speech demonstrated exactly what I said in point #1 -- The entire congress was applauding and giving george a standing ovation. In Australia or in britan, half of the congress would be applauding, the other half would be shouting...

- Recently, one of the more amusing things that George Bush said was when Arafat was under seige, george said "I think Mr. Arafat needs to do more to combat terrorism." I couldn't stop laughing! Here's this guy surrounded by tanks whos only way of communicating is via a mobile phone and he's meant to some how tell his people to allow the Israelis to go ahead and steal more of their land.

- The mentality of Ariel Sharon is the same of that of the suicide bombers... They expect they can just go out and attack people and not expect a reaction. The US sees no problem in supporting a war criminal (and i'm not just saying that for effect -- why do you think mr. sharon avoids travelling to europe???)

- On the subject of guns in the US -- let's get rid of them. On the subject of the NRA -- let's get rid of them. Oh wait, we can't, because both political powers in the US are corrupt... Oh well, I guess more teenagers will have to die... A very small price to pay for a US political campaign. :rolleyes:


So what about Australia's politics???

Well, for a start, I think Australia has to stop locking up children. But at least we're not killing them in the name of "counter-terrorism".

Macette
May 19, 2002, 02:24 AM
J(etc), I think we're on the same side...

But I think the 'same wine, different bottle' argument could just as easily be made (in fact, has been made) about the Labor, Liberal and Democrat parties here in little ole Australia.

And just to illustrate my point: the Labor party, in crucial election time, failed to distinguish themselves from their 'lock up the children' (refugee children that is; they were better on the indigenous children) opposition.

Unfortunately, no matter what the political system, you still get politicians running the country. (or violent insurgents, but you know what I mean)

pc_convert?
May 19, 2002, 03:17 AM
To any/all Americans

I'm in the UK.

America + Guns = pc_convert? confused

Please try and explain why the right to bear arms is so important.
I know it's part of the constitution but why is so important that you can own a gun?

I don't get it. I think most people in the UK don't get it (but i haven't asked them all).

Awaiting a reasoned and informed response....

Macette
May 19, 2002, 05:09 AM
Originally posted by pc_convert?
Awaiting a reasoned and informed response....

I also await.

Bring it on.

jelloshotsrule
May 19, 2002, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by pc_convert?
To any/all Americans

I'm in the UK.

America + Guns = pc_convert? confused

Please try and explain why the right to bear arms is so important.
I know it's part of the constitution but why is so important that you can own a gun?

I don't get it. I think most people in the UK don't get it (but i haven't asked them all).

Awaiting a reasoned and informed response....

americans (people in general, but especially us) are selfish and macho. we feel like if the gov't says we can't have guns, then that's all the more reason we should. we think that if other people can get a gun illegally, we should be able to get one legally to "protect" ourselves against the others.

just as we feel that since other people drive trucks and suv's we have to drive these massive gas guzzling cars to feel safe.

oh, number one reason, we're stupid.

Backtothemac
May 19, 2002, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by j763
OK, this thread's getting pretty long, so I'll try and keep my arguments straight forward and concise.


I'm half-Australian and half-American... I'm proud to be an Australian and I'm proud to be an American, although I see the Australian political system to be far superior to the American political system and here's why:

- One ALP Australian PM, when asked about American politics said "Republicans and Democrats -- same wine, different bottle". That pretty much sums up my view on the whole Republicans vs. Democrats thing. They both are up there trying to get $$$, fighting for the big end of town not for the average American worker, there's no balance.

- The American President is never forced to answer questions without notice on a daily basis. If they were, George Bush (sr. and jr.), Nixon, Regan and others would never get a chance at being president.

- The way that the American government stands by and supports the slaughtering and killing of hundreds of palestinians, just because Ariel Sharon uses the same rhetoric as George W is disgusting. On the subject of suicide bombing against Israeli Civilians -- well, Israel's only been around for 50 years or so and in that time less people have died from suicide bombing and war combined than have in automobile accidents. The American news networks reporting would make you think that it's a lot worse than that, but it's not.

- The attacks on the US on Sept. 11 were terrible and I certaintly do not condone them. However, a few points should be made... George snr. was asked in 1989 to comment about the fatwah issued by the iatola against Salman Rushdie and he said "There is no reason for me to comment on that as there is no American interest -- Not now, nor in the future". The "axis of evil" speech demonstrated exactly what I said in point #1 -- The entire congress was applauding and giving george a standing ovation. In Australia or in britan, half of the congress would be applauding, the other half would be shouting...

- Recently, one of the more amusing things that George Bush said was when Arafat was under seige, george said "I think Mr. Arafat needs to do more to combat terrorism." I couldn't stop laughing! Here's this guy surrounded by tanks whos only way of communicating is via a mobile phone and he's meant to some how tell his people to allow the Israelis to go ahead and steal more of their land.

- The mentality of Ariel Sharon is the same of that of the suicide bombers... They expect they can just go out and attack people and not expect a reaction. The US sees no problem in supporting a war criminal (and i'm not just saying that for effect -- why do you think mr. sharon avoids travelling to europe???)

- On the subject of guns in the US -- let's get rid of them. On the subject of the NRA -- let's get rid of them. Oh wait, we can't, because both political powers in the US are corrupt... Oh well, I guess more teenagers will have to die... A very small price to pay for a US political campaign. :rolleyes:


So what about Australia's politics???

Well, for a start, I think Australia has to stop locking up children. But at least we're not killing them in the name of "counter-terrorism".

Wow, this is going to get interesting don't you think. Ok, I will address each point one by one. Sorry for quoting the whole arguement, but the whole thing is flawed, so here we go.

1) you may be half American, but from your tone, I would be that you have never lived here. Not for any length of time anyway. Being half American doesn't mean that you even understand half way, the American system, which is obvious in your retoric.

2) Same whine, differnet bottle. Yea, find me one country other than a dictatorship, where the political parties do not fit that mold. Don't throw that at the US, when your own parties there are the same damn way.

3) Force the president to answer questions. Sorry, but the man has more important things than to answer to the questions of a parlament. That is why we don't have one!

4) Blah, Blah, Blah, on our support of Israel. They have been our friends for a long time now, and face it, Arafat is a friggin terrorist. War may be a tool to settle political disputes, but terrorism, that is friggin cowardly. Let me just clear on thing up for you too. I don't care how many people die in car accidents. If one person dies from a murder bomber, then that is one too many.

5) The situation with Iran, had nothing to do with this situation. Yea, when Bush said axis of evil, the Congress applauded, its real simple. Just like in WWII. All they did was waken a sleeping giant and fill it with a terrible resolve. Or as Charlie Daniels said "now we may have done a little bit of fighting amoungst our self but you outside people best leave us along. So go and lay your hands on a Pittsburg stealers fan, and i think your gonna finally understand."

6) Blah, Yadda, Blah, on Sharron and Arafat. yea, Arafat could end the bombings real easy reguardless of where he is. As for Sharron's mentality. If they stop bombing Israel, and Israel keeps going after them, then I would support slapping them accross the damn Med.


7) As far as gun ownership, I know you cannot understand it. You see, it was the king of England that basically gave us that right. Due to the fact that governments become corrupt, and the people are all important, the US Constitution gives its citizens the power to keep the government in check in its own way. Plus, we have the right to protect ourselfs. EX. You are walking down a street and a guy pulls a knife on you and says give me your wallet. He then proceeds to stab you wife. What are you going to do? You have no weapon, go ahead, charge the guy and you get killed as well. Me, in the same situation, I reach in the back of my belt, pull out a Berretta 92FS and blow the guys brains out. You see if it is my family or the bad guy, the bad guy ain't gonna make it.

pc_convert?
May 19, 2002, 11:06 AM
Backtothemac said

EX. You are walking down a street and a guy pulls a knife on you and says give me your wallet. He then proceeds to stab you wife. What are you going to do? You have no weapon, go ahead, charge the guy and you get killed as well. Me, in the same situation, I reach in the back of my belt, pull out a Berretta 92FS and blow the guys brains out. You see if it is my family or the bad guy, the bad guy ain't gonna make it.

Now this is flawed logic.

I'll play devil's advocate here. I'll be the bad guy (not that I would ever consider doing what I i'm about to say)

Me being the bad guy thinks "everyone can own a gun so I'll get a gun" I say give me your wallet, you reach for your gun so I kill both you and your wife so I can't be identified. I take your wallet.

2 dead people for the sake of a bit of money. Why?

I know the bad guy has no right to your money, but for gods sake just give him your wallet and he will most probably leave. With any luck the police will catch him.

I know he could still stab you/your wife once you give him the wallet but in most muggings this doesn't happen, the bad guy just leaves with the money.

jefhatfield
May 19, 2002, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by pc_convert?
To any/all Americans

I'm in the UK.

America + Guns = pc_convert? confused

Please try and explain why the right to bear arms is so important.
I know it's part of the constitution but why is so important that you can own a gun?

I don't get it. I think most people in the UK don't get it (but i haven't asked them all).

Awaiting a reasoned and informed response....

the right to bear arms is or was important at the time it was written

look at the context of private gun ownership and militias in the mid to late 1700s - we wrote those laws with specifically one aggressor in mind - great britain

the uk was, and probably will always be, unmatched in world history as the most powerful, and sometimes brutal, empire

not only was the british empire large, they were extremely organized and during any moment in our first fifty years of existence, the uk could have snuffed the usa out of existence

in the early 1800s, england came over and burnt down the white house...imagine if any foreign country did that today and the impact it would have on the usa

the continental army was one of your scotch tape and rubber band units which had to fight starving to death more than they had to fight the british

without the help of other major world powers and the help of the average american who may have had a gun, the usa would never have survived

the laws of the right to bear arms was for that time period and to make an arguement that we still need guns today is certainly not as strong for the year 2002

so remember the context...the uk being the world's largest empire vs. a new and struggling, tiny nation just dubbed the united states of america

would our privately held guns stop the government or foreign military powers from doing damage if they really wanted to? of course not so there is a good argument for changing or modifying our "right to bear arms"

one of my best friends is a company commander in the us army and if for some reason, he told me, the us government decided to become communist and had to snuff out individual resitors who were gun owners, he said, "try to pit a shotgun or pistol against a modern us army tank"

so by the grace of god, the us government has not decided to be the aggressor against its own people as happened in many other countries

Backtothemac
May 19, 2002, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by pc_convert?
Backtothemac said



Now this is flawed logic.

I'll play devil's advocate here. I'll be the bad guy (not that I would ever consider doing what I i'm about to say)

Me being the bad guy thinks "everyone can own a gun so I'll get a gun" I say give me your wallet, you reach for your gun so I kill both you and your wife so I can't be identified. I take your wallet.

2 dead people for the sake of a bit of money. Why?

I know the bad guy has no right to your money, but for gods sake just give him your wallet and he will most probably leave. With any luck the police will catch him.

I know he could still stab you/your wife once you give him the wallet but in most muggings this doesn't happen, the bad guy just leaves with the money.

No you don't understand. I like my odds with a fire arm much better than without it. Basically it is the right to defend yourself. Someone comes in my home to rob and murder my family, and I can take care of him with extreme prejudice. Now, in a mugging situation I would give the guy my wallet if my wife or anyone else was with me. Alone, he had better have packed his friggin lunch. Now, I don't advocate running around and killing people at all, but I do advocate having responsible gun owners. The kids that take their parents guns, and go to school and kill people, well that is really sad, and they should charge the gun owners. I grew up in a house with fire arms my whole life, but I never, not once touched my fathers guns. I knew what they would do, and he tought me how to shoot at a very young age. I have also been certified as an expert with rifles, and marksman with a pistol by the Okaloosa County Sheriffs department. I know everyone doesn't have that, but man, people have a right to defend themselves, sadly, the bad guys don't hold you up with flower. They use guns, knives, and other dangerous weapons. Now me personally, I would like to have a weapon to defend myself. Had the pilots in the planes on Sept 11 had sidearms, more than likely the events of that day would have never happened.

also, one other thing, there are cities in the US that require you to own a firearm. They are mostly in the midwest, and you know what. No crime, none. Think about it. If your a bad guy are you going to mug someone if you know that everyone has a sidearm? Nope, you would not for fear of the results of your actions.

Oh, Jeff, I agree with everything that you said. I just think that people should defend themselves.

pc_convert?
May 19, 2002, 12:47 PM
I agree that the right to bear arms was important when the US constitution was written, but now it just seems plain wrong.

Guns are used to kill. Period.

I've heard all the linguistic "guns don't kill people, people kill people" crap. It's just plain wrong.

A gun and infact all weapons by their very nature are offensive. If you say you are using a gun defensively then someone is using another weapon (gun/knife) offensively.

Don't get me wrong I'm not having a go at the US, I'm more concerned about it's long term welfare.

It just seems to me that people could defend themselves without guns, if all guns were outlawed. I know someone will say but people would just use knives but I don't believe this would be the case.

Guns are range weapons, there is a misguided sense of safety with a gun. You think I'm over here he's over there there's fairly good chance he'll miss (and he's thinking the same).

If people had to use knives it's different. It's up close and personal. You will both get hurt. People don't like getting hurt so they are less likely to use knives if guns are banned.

As jefhatfield pointed out, anyone who thinks private gun owners would be able to stop a modern army is misguided. If the U.S. government became a dictatorship with the support of the U.S army, no gun owning individuals could stop them.

If the pilots of planes had had guns things may have turned out differently it's pure speculation - the terrorists could have smuggled guns on the plane - but it's a mute point.

backtothemac if there were no guns wouldn't you would still be able to defend yourself?

Backtothemac
May 19, 2002, 12:54 PM
PC,
Couple of things.

I agree with you that the phrase guns don't kill people, people kill people is a silly statement, but it is true. Now, figure out a way to outlaw all guns in the world and collect all of the ones out there and destory them, and then yes, I will give up my weapon. Now your logic about knives is really flawed. Tell Nicole Simpson, and Ron Goldman about the safety from knife attack? There are more stabbings in the US than shootings. It is a fact. Do the research. Now, I don't care what weapon the person has. I would prefer my sidearm in any situation where my life, or my family's life was threatened. So basically, they can have my gun when they pry it from my dead cold hands.

Guns are not the problem in the US, it goes much deeper than that.

3rdpath
May 19, 2002, 01:05 PM
since the original reason for u.s. citizens to bear arms is moot, let me give you the real reason weapons are so popular here:

weapons give a sense of security to the insecure.

they give a feeling of power to those that feel powerless.

they give the perception of control to those who feel no control over their lives.

weapons don't really give a person any of those attributes-nor will they ever.

and just so you know, i'm from texas where it was the norm to receive a larger weapon with each successive birthday. first a bb gun, then a 22, 410, 20g, 12g, 30.06 etc...when my father died i inherited a cache of rifles and pistols including a walther and a glock. i gave them all away-in hindsite i should of had them destroyed.

i'll choose faith over a gun any day.

Backtothemac
May 19, 2002, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by 3rdpath
since the original reason for u.s. citizens to bear arms is moot, let me give you the real reason weapons are so popular here:

weapons give a sense of security to the insecure.

they give a feeling of power to those that feel powerless.

they give the perception of control to those who feel no control over their lives.

weapons don't really give a person any of those attributes-nor will they ever.

and just so you know, i'm from texas where it was the norm to receive a larger weapon with each successive birthday. first a bb gun, then a 22, 410, 20g, 12g, 30.06 etc...when my father died i inherited a cache of rifles and pistols including a walther and a glock. i gave them all away-in hindsite i should of had them destroyed.

i'll choose faith over a gun any day.

no offense, because everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I don't let a firearm define who I am. I am who I am. I am a person that wants to live a peaceful existance on this plant. The fact is that there are people out there that don't care who they hurt. I would rather have a firearm to protect myself and family than nothing. With nothing, your guaranteed your fate if confronted by a person with a weapon. With a firearm, you have a fighting chance. I don't understand why people are making an issue of this. You are still missing the big picture which is that more people are killed by knives and choked to death than are killed with guns.!!!!!!

jelloshotsrule
May 19, 2002, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by 3rdpath
since the original reason for u.s. citizens to bear arms is moot, let me give you the real reason weapons are so popular here:

weapons give a sense of security to the insecure.

they give a feeling of power to those that feel powerless.

they give the perception of control to those who feel no control over their lives.

weapons don't really give a person any of those attributes-nor will they ever.

i'll choose faith over a gun any day.

very well put. i guess i was trying to say this but am not as well spoken. thanks for saying it for me.

3rdpath
May 19, 2002, 01:35 PM
b2tm, i do respect your opinion-we're both fathers and i know we both want what is best for the world our children will inherit. that we disagree is just the way things work....my big picture will not match your big picture.

bad things do happen...that is a reality. will a gun prevent bad things? maybe.. will not owning a gun and the subsequent path chosen prevent bad things? maybe.

pc_convert?
May 19, 2002, 02:05 PM
Backtothemac please extrapolate

Guns are not the problem in the US, it goes much deeper than that.

What is the problem in your opinion? (Apart from the fact the arms manufacturers are making good money from peoples insecurities)

more people are killed by knives and choked to death than are killed with guns.

Where did you get the figures on crime related deaths (not being American I don't where to begin looking Dept of Justice maybe?)

Backtothemac
May 19, 2002, 03:04 PM
The underlying problems in the US stem from lack of family. Parents are not raising their children anymore, and the level of vaules has reached an all time low. People are more concerned with material possesions than they are raising their children. That is the real problem.

Gun manufactures don't advertise, and don't sell you anything. YOU have to decide to buy a gun. Most people I know don't have one, and if you don't want one, then don't get one, but you have the right to if you choose.

You can find crime statistics from the FBI, CIA, Department of Justice, and the Congressional library.

3rdpath, I agree, there is not absolute right. Like you said it is a maybe situation. If I own a gun, obide by the laws, and do what I should, and never have to use a firearm, did it make me safe? Probably not. But someone breaks into my house, and shoots my wife, then daughter, and in trying to stop them shoots me, I lost everything. However, if I hear the person, and fill them with lead. They loose. I loose too for I took a life, but my family is protected, and that is the biggest deal to me.

To each his own.

jefhatfield
May 19, 2002, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


Oh, Jeff, I agree with everything that you said. I just think that people should defend themselves.

i think us or state law should rewrite the original intention to have a gun from protecting people from government and foreign enemies to personal protection from 21st century crime

i doubt street violence and drug dealers roamed the streets of philadelphia in 1776, like they do now in major american cities

i am all for personal protection, but limits should be placed on what kinds of guns could be owned...there should no plastic guns which could get thru detectors, no zip guns, no silencers, and no cop-killer bullets...legal or illegal, anything is available quite easily as i have found out working with heroin addicts

in the world of espionage, the most popular assisination weapon is a small caliber pistol because of how many shots one can get off in a short period of time due to lack of "kick"...possibly outlaw them lest a john hinkley jr. type arises again, goes up to a president with a small super-concealable gun with a small caliber, and gets six shots off in three seconds

now reports are pointing to the fact that some of al qaeda could have had small caliber weapons

counter intelligence groups working for uncle sam have been consistently able to get into airplanes with concealable weapons

only the pin which hits the bullet needs to be metal and perhaps there is an all plastic gun out there by now

yes, pilots should have sidearms and random plain clothes cops should be on airplanes with or without guns depending on the situation

we unfortunately have to use some aspects of a police state, which has always been in place anyway, to control terrorism and crime...and no, we don't have to go to the level of a soviet state

jefhatfield
May 19, 2002, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
PC,
So basically, they can have my gun when they pry it from my dead cold hands.


well, who is they?

if we are talking about criminals breaking into your house, you have a fighting chance

but if it is our government gone band sending the seals, rangers, or delta force into your house...i say better to give up your weapons than suffer the fate of ruby ridge or waco...they defied uncle sam and look what happened

now if they had given up their weapons, they would have perhaps been jailed or fined, but not killed

some people in the us who have guns want to challege the us government and military

having lived next to a us army ranger and delta force training compound among other things, they are the last people one wants to challenge

as for protecting yourself from criminals, i am all for it

Backtothemac
May 19, 2002, 06:24 PM
jeff, 100% dead on accurate in your last two posts. Perfect, exactly the way that it should be said.

jefhatfield
May 19, 2002, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
jeff, 100% dead on accurate in your last two posts. Perfect, exactly the way that it should be said.

now i can see where some people think democrats like me and republicans like backtothemac are both the same wine in different bottles...he he

from what i have read, backtothemac is socially liberal and fiscally conservative (like colin powell) with a concern to keep our military intact

and i am socially liberal and fiscally conservative (blue dog democrat) with a concern to keep our military intact

where we differ is how much a moderate republican administration would spend compared to a moderate democrat administration...sure it would be in the billions either way

the dems were happy with 12 carrier groups for the navy with two on the way, and the republicans would like to add a few more

the dems would increase military benefits and salaries while the republicans would be more prone to updating military hardware

both goals are important, but like most of us, the us government has a finite amount of money to spend each month

the republicans and democrats are fighting for a better america as their second most important goal...unfortunately, getting re-elected stands as the pols number one goal

that is why i admire sen. john mccain so much since he is one of the leaders of a bi-partisan movement to limit terms of office

jelloshotsrule
May 19, 2002, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
from what i have read, backtothemac is socially liberal and fiscally conservative (like colin powell) with a concern to keep our military intact

and i am socially liberal and fiscally conservative (blue dog democrat) with a concern to keep our military intact


so what am i???? haha. i want a label too!

Originally posted by jefhatfield
the republicans and democrats are fighting for a better america as their second most important goal...unfortunately, getting re-elected stands as the pols number one goal

that is why i admire sen. john mccain so much since he is one of the leaders of a bi-partisan movement to limit terms of office

i agree with you on this totally. it's all about getting elected, and with the current system, that means it's all about selling out to corporations.

another reason why john mccain and his support for campaign finance reform (though he's a republican) is so impressive. go johnny!

Macette
May 19, 2002, 08:13 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


3) Force the president to answer questions. Sorry, but the man has more important things than to answer to the questions of a parlament. That is why we don't have one!


6) Blah, Yadda, Blah, on Sharron and Arafat. yea, Arafat could end the bombings real easy reguardless of where he is. As for Sharron's mentality. If they stop bombing Israel, and Israel keeps going after them, then I would support slapping them accross the damn Med.


7) As far as gun ownership, I know you cannot understand it. You see, it was the king of England that basically gave us that right. Due to the fact that governments become corrupt, and the people are all important, the US Constitution gives its citizens the power to keep the government in check in its own way. Plus, we have the right to protect ourselfs. EX. You are walking down a street and a guy pulls a knife on you and says give me your wallet. He then proceeds to stab you wife. What are you going to do? You have no weapon, go ahead, charge the guy and you get killed as well. Me, in the same situation, I reach in the back of my belt, pull out a Berretta 92FS and blow the guys brains out. You see if it is my family or the bad guy, the bad guy ain't gonna make it.

Most of your arguments, BTTM, are flawed also.. but these three take the cake.

Regarding 3), I have one word for you: Accountability. Our parliamentary system in Australia may be flawed, but they way it forces our elected representatives to articulate their politics, defend their oft-stupid actions and generally explain what they're spending our money on is not one of those flaws. (there is general amazement in Australia that somebody who had NEVER EVEN LEFT HIS OWN COUNTRY prior to the election can be elected (tenuously, I admit) 'LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD' - despite being almost entirely unable to STRING A SENTENCE TOGETHER. Even people who basically respect the policies of the US Government are slightly astounded by that. that's what i call a flawed political system.)
Regarding 6), I must absolutely support j763, who said (more or less) that Arafat's control over Palestinian suicide bombers is zero while the Israelis continue to curtail his freedom of movement, and while they basically disallow the existence of a Palestinian police force. It's like expecting George W to run the war on terror from prison, without an army. Duh.

Regarding 7):Guns are dumb. Australia's murder rate has decreased quite dramatically in the years following the introduction of stricter guns laws. The 'attempted murder' rate has risen - people still want to kill each other (I don't think that's going to change any day soon), but the weapons they're using aren't as lethal.

Sure, the government lost some votes over the whole thing - but to paraphrase you (and decontextualise you somewhat, but WTF), if one person dies from murder, it's one too many. The availability of guns promotes violence - it's an absolute given. Anybody who says differently is entirely deluded. (Ditto the missile defence shield, which is argued for and against along exactly the same lines).

*Sigh* I've become more involved in this thread than I intended to.

jelloshotsrule
May 19, 2002, 08:39 PM
macette, i agree with you in general, so i'm only going to respond on things i disagree on.

Originally posted by Macette
(there is general amazement in Australia that somebody who had NEVER EVEN LEFT HIS OWN COUNTRY prior to the election can be elected (tenuously, I admit) 'LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD' - despite being almost entirely unable to STRING A SENTENCE TOGETHER.


i wouldn't said george can't string a sentence together. not being a great speaker in front of tons of people doesn't make him dumb. it makes him not a great speaker. now, i'm not saying he's NOT dumb, but i have heard that he is very smart and articulates himself well in more personal situations. whether this is true or not, i'd much rather have someone whose policies i support than someone who can talk **** and make me think i like them. when i don't. unfortunately, in most ways, i don't like bush's policies. so overall, i'm on your side, i just think the reasoning is flawed.

Originally posted by Macette
Regarding 6), I must absolutely support j763, who said (more or less) that Arafat's control over Palestinian suicide bombers is zero while the Israelis continue to curtail his freedom of movement, and while they basically disallow the existence of a Palestinian police force. It's like expecting George W to run the war on terror from prison, without an army. Duh.

i really doubt arafat's control over bombers is zero. clearly there is some influence he has, if he's not entirely involved with all the attacks.

again, i agree with you... israel is clearly at fault also in my mind, and i think it's silly to think that it's all the palestinians perpetrating things... but i think arafat has SOME control at least.

jefhatfield
May 19, 2002, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
macette, i agree with you in general, so i'm only going to respond on things i disagree on.



i wouldn't said george can't string a sentence together. not being a great speaker in front of tons of people doesn't make him dumb. it makes him not a great speaker. now, i'm not saying he's NOT dumb, but i have heard that he is very smart and articulates himself well in more personal situations. whether this is true or not, i'd much rather have someone whose policies i support than someone who can talk **** and make me think i like them. when i don't. unfortunately, in most ways, i don't like bush's policies. so overall, i'm on your side, i just think the reasoning is flawed.



i really doubt arafat's control over bombers is zero. clearly there is some influence he has, if he's not entirely involved with all the attacks.

again, i agree with you... israel is clearly at fault also in my mind, and i think it's silly to think that it's all the palestinians perpetrating things... but i think arafat has SOME control at least.

SOME control is still enough to have reason to work thru him for peace...who else controls the plo?

jelloshotsrule
May 19, 2002, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
SOME control is still enough to have reason to work thru him for peace...who else controls the plo?

i agree totally. not sure if you realized, i was just saying that i don't think he has no control, which is what macette had said. by all means, i think he has some control at least and as the only "leader" of his people really, he is the one we have to deal with.

Macette
May 19, 2002, 09:32 PM
i think it's possible that he has control as a citizen and activist for his cause - i don't think he's totally hands-off - but in his role as leader of the Palestinian people, his power is crippled. He can't be a statesman from the position he's in. He can pull private strings, and he can make pleas through his own channels for the violence to stop, but he has no effective way of enforcing order and peace. And this is because the Israeli army have him tied down.

Macette
May 19, 2002, 09:34 PM
hey - I'm a member now! go me!

3rdpath
May 19, 2002, 10:09 PM
i think arafat has an immense amount of control over the plo- not total control, no one has that, but enough to make a difference.

but heres the bottom line-he doesn't want peace with israel. they are enemies, they have always been enemies, they will always be enemies. it does justify their existence...sad but true.

the easiest way to stop fighting is to JUST STOP! but these people wouldn't know what to do if they didn't have a weapon, didn't have someone to hate and didn't feel morally obliged to avenge some historical wrong. the same goes for india and pakistan(fighting over a friggin line on a map), afghanistan fighting with, well, afghanistan. iran and iraq. it goes on and on. ( and the u.s isn't an innocent bystander...we supply the fuel to keep the fires burning)

so the answer is there is no answer. but there are partial solutions: such as not supplying money and weapons to any of these countries, not meddling with their governments and not being dependent on their resources.

Macette
May 19, 2002, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by 3rdpath
but heres the bottom line-he doesn't want peace with israel. they are enemies, they have always been enemies, they will always be enemies. it does justify their existence...sad but true.

No, I disagree. Arafat doesn't want - and in fact, if he's to properly represent his people, can't want - a peace that requires him to give up Palestinian control of what, until relatively recently, was Palestinian land. I'm not saying that the Jews have no claim to this land - of course they do - but the Palestinian people have just as much of a claim. To say he doesn't want peace, full stop, (or 'period' in the American style) is simply wrong.


It's a horribly complicated situation (invented by the Europeans and Americans after WWII because the idea of an Israel in Europe or America was too difficult an idea to comprehend), and it's not going to be resolved by demonising Arafat.



BTW, congratulations to East Timor on their nationhood this day! I cried when I listened to Xanana Gusmao make his inaugual presidential speech this morning.

3rdpath
May 20, 2002, 01:14 AM
Originally posted by Macette
No, I disagree. Arafat doesn't want - and in fact, if he's to properly represent his people, can't want - a peace that requires him to give up Palestinian control of what, until relatively recently, was Palestinian land.


he either wants peace or he doesn't-both choices require a great deal of sacrifice. the reality of the situation is he HAS given up a chunk of land to israel and all the fighting isn't going to get it back. its NOT complicated...it just takes a leader who can accept reality and lead his people into the future. neither side is this situation is behaving well, neither has the humilty to accept less than "everything". its sad, childish and will continue to cost many innocent lives.

Backtothemac
May 20, 2002, 08:24 AM
This has been a great thread. One thing that I can say is that it really is to great to see the many different thought paterns that are being presented here. It is also great to see that we are not just a bunch of clones running around perpetuating propaganda. I personally have a whole new level of respect for all of us. I know that we may not agree on a lot of issues, but I do believe that we have one unique thing in common. We all listen to each other without judging that person.

If we could only get the politicians in our perspective countries to do the same, maybe the world would be a better place. Lets keep this thread going as long as possible.

Macette, cleo, and all my other fellow sparing partners....

Can you see a reason to ever use nuclear weapons in a conflict?

jefhatfield
May 20, 2002, 09:24 AM
nuclear weapons - if we are talking about nuclear weapons that can decimate an entire city, those icbm's should never be used and an effort should be made to get rid of them worldwide

as far as a tactical nuke, one that is designed to take out an area of less than a mile and leave no lasting fallout, what is the difference between that and some of the new classes of high end conventional weapons that destroy all life in a small area less than one mile?

there is a huge taboo on anything nuclear, but there is a huge difference between a tactical nuclear device and a full-on hiroshima style weapon of mass destruction

let's say, for example, we located bin laden very much like we knew about the super terrorist pablo escobar

and let's also say capture was impossible without possibly slaughtering hundreds to get to the strongman

and add to that, assume bin laden was deep in the otherwise uninhabited caves of afganistan with just a few of his al qaeda henchmen

then if i was given the option, as president of the united states, to either bring in troops and start a bloddy ground campaign in order to flush him out which would take a lot of innocent lives OR use a tactical nuke which would kill bin laden and a few of his henchmen, then i would use the nuke

remember, the above qualifications, that i gave for this scenario

i would use the same caution while using a high powered conventional bomb or a bunker bomb that has recently been developed

misuse of those type of powerful tactical weapons of any sort, nuclear or conventional, is unthinkable

killing innocents or your own army in a conflict is not friendly fire...it is murder, as is all war, but there is a fundamental difference between flying an airliner into the world trade centers and sending some elite troops to go after bin laden and take him back to justice

other campaigns such as flushing out manuel noriega and adolph hitler were necessary and people on both sides did die...and as in any war big or small, innocent people died

the obvious answer is world peace which is attainable...we sent people to the moon thirty three years ago, we mapped the human genome, apple came out with os x, so the human race can certainly learn to get along!:)

jelloshotsrule
May 20, 2002, 09:47 AM
once again i hear you jef.

i guess i didn't really know that any nuclear weapons would leave NO fallout...

if that's the case, then given your specs, sure.

but they need to be damn sure he's there.

Backtothemac
May 20, 2002, 09:57 AM
Well, I agree other than ICBM's being done away with. They do serve a purpose, determent. As far as tactical nukes go, I agree with you, I do think that they serve a purpose. I think that there are many situations that would justify the use of a tactical nuke, but they do leave fallout. Just not on the level of say a 40 kiloton ICBM. Still, the ballance of power that exists with the ICBM's do help keep the peace. The fear that I have is that someone actually makes a mistake and launches one.

People don't really know how many times we have come very, very, very close. Like 5 minutes close to an ICBM launch. The public would probably have a heart attack if they knew.

jefhatfield
May 20, 2002, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
once again i hear you jef.

i guess i didn't really know that any nuclear weapons would leave NO fallout...

if that's the case, then given your specs, sure.

but they need to be damn sure he's there.

the fallout of a neutron bomb makes the area dangerous for a few weeks but troops or civilians can go back to the area after that

of course, bunker bombs and high end conventional weapons are made so that people can come back right after the bomb has dropped

because of that, there is very little chance that a nuclear device of any sort will ever be used because any fallout for any amount of time will be all seen as the same

and george w bush using a nuke would destroy his political career forever

just a couple of weeks ago, the country was basically happy with his performance and he surprised a lot of the world when he stepped up to the office many thought he stole from gore

the bad press about the president not wanting to let out white house memos sounds fishy and nixon-like and that will haunt the president during re-election in 2004

the "bush knowing about the attack" rhetoric has already cost him some votes for his re-election and for the first time, i have seen him handle a crisis in the worst possible manner

the intelligence community has already been caught in a huge lie saying they knew nothing about warnings about bin laden...emails, press releases, and memos have already been dug up by the press

condoleeza rice and the head of the fbi (is that fleischer?) have looked like idiots and there is no doubt that the repulicans are in cover up mode

personally, i don't think there is anything bad to hide, but george bush is coming across as a paranoid control freak like richard nixon was

i otherwise like the job the president has done, but now i see a flaw which will certainly turn a lot of voters against him

his secrecy and paranoia are worse in a public relations sense than outright lying...we all know politicians are liars by trade...but coverups and paranoia are not good for the image...remember tricky ****!?

jelloshotsrule
May 20, 2002, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
of course, bunker bombs and high end conventional weapons are made so that people can come back right after the bomb has dropped

the "bush knowing about the attack" rhetoric has already cost him some votes for his re-election and for the first time, i have seen him handle a crisis in the worst possible manner

condoleeza rice and the head of the fbi (is that fleischer?) have looked like idiots and there is no doubt that the repulicans are in cover up mode


yeah, the civs can come back.... but to what? destruction... hmmm. not to say it's never necessary though.

it's also turned many people sour to the dems just trying to get him however they can. so i think it's nearly even really..

fleischer is not the fbi. he's the white house spokesman or something.... assuming you mean ari.

i haven't followed super closely the last couple days. anything in particular that's been done that's fishy?

jefhatfield
May 20, 2002, 10:21 AM
[i]
People don't really know how many times we have come very, very, very close. Like 5 minutes close to an ICBM launch. The public would probably have a heart attack if they knew. [/B]

my point exactly for doing away with the icbm

when russia was bent on beating us with their missles, then maybe we needed ours

we don't need those big guns...we are the sole superpower of the world

a carrier group can do the same amount of damage so why the need for a missle which can get five minutes from launch and accidentaly kill hundreds of thousands?

it is much harder to accidentaly launch a carrier group and kill that many people

today's armed forces have an unthinkable amount of power and technology with a manpower that all joined the military so they also want to be there

go on the net and look up the capability of an F-22 multipurpose jet or an eurofighter and you will see the lack of need for an arsenal of ballistic nuclear missles

the accuracy of today's conventional weapons make today's B-52s fundamentally different from the original B-52s of the 1950s

incidentally the B-52 bobmber just clebrated it's fiftieth birthday and while this weapon is more lethal, it is far more unlikely to miss its target and kill inoocent civilians

also look at some of the destructive force of today's tanks...almost no made made barrier can stop these things and it is known that they can travel at least 70 mph

and look at how effective and destructive the gulf war was...now that is a deterrent...there is no need for the super large icbm's

we can deliver tactical nukes in a flash or drop off troops in any area of the world in 48 hrs...delta force, the sas, and the rangers were in the afganistan mountains in less than 48 hrs. after the sept 11 attacks...cnn reported, without many details, that allied forces were there on sept 13

so where is the need for long range ballistic nuclear missiles?

you more than anyone should know with your impressive background in political science and military history

...i am just a techie that likes anything mechanical whether it is a B-17G at a vintage airfield or a journal on the latest low voltage processors using a .13 microm fabricating process:p

cleo
May 20, 2002, 10:32 AM
Before responding to the nuclear bit, I want to give my thoughts about Arafat.

I think that, like most politicians, Arafat makes a lot of his decisions based on what his constituency thinks. It has been widely speculated that Arafat's unwillingness to accept the deal brokered by Clinton was about him being afraid he would be assassinated by more radical Palestinians, and I think that's quite likely. There are Palestinians who will never accept peace with Israel and who will want to kill Israelis even if they have their own state, and I think Israel has every right to protect itself from those extremists. But I would suggest that if Arafat truly wants land and peace, there are much better ways to go about it than turning a blind eye to the suicide bombings. Nonviolent civil disobedience on a massive scale, broadcast for the world to see on CNN, would shame Israel into withdrawing settlers immediately.

As far as nuclear weapons... I suppose that jef has a valid point, and if such a thing is in fact possible, I would have to seriously think about supporting it. But the bin Laden example just doesn't work for me. I suspect that the age of states warring with states is on its way out, and what we have now is a whole new ballgame. As many have said before, bin Laden is apparently determined to go out as a martyr; it would be tactical suicide for the US to help in his quest. (Which reminds me of one of my priciple arguments against the death penalty. Do you remember that when Tim McVeigh was sentenced to death, he kept saying how he wanted/was ready to die, etc? As far as I'm concerned, someone who has done something bad enough to receive the death penalty would be much more punished by having to be in solitary confinement for the rest of his life, confornting his demons, rather than getting a ticket out at the expense of the state).

Just my $.02 :D

Backtothemac
May 20, 2002, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by cleo


(Which reminds me of one of my priciple arguments against the death penalty. Do you remember that when Tim McVeigh was sentenced to death, he kept saying how he wanted/was ready to die, etc? As far as I'm concerned, someone who has done something bad enough to receive the death penalty would be much more punished by having to be in solitary confinement for the rest of his life, confornting his demons, rather than getting a ticket out at the expense of the state).

Just my $.02 :D

Hey Cleo, I agree with your assessment of the issues in the Middle East. However, the death penatly, that I disagree with. I am 100% for the death penalty, just not in its current form. I think that you should have to have DNA evidence, or an eyewitness that was not involved in the crime. The current system is flawed because you can be sentanced to death, and there be nothing but circumstancial evidence against you.

jelloshotsrule
May 20, 2002, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
I am 100% for the death penalty, just not in its current form. I think that you should have to have DNA evidence, or an eyewitness that was not involved in the crime. The current system is flawed because you can be sentanced to death, and there be nothing but circumstancial evidence against you.

eyewitnesses can be wrong though.... you don't always see what you think you see. and given how long trials take.... you might forget some small details that are vital...

Backtothemac
May 20, 2002, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule


eyewitnesses can be wrong though.... you don't always see what you think you see. and given how long trials take.... you might forget some small details that are vital...

Na, I mean, "I saw him do it 100% sure, no questions asked". Believe me there are plenty of people on death row because two people are present at a murder, and both are involved. The one that gets life is the first to turn states evidence, and the other guy gets death. And the only person that knows the truth are the two convicts, but can you really sentence someone to die because a dirtbag says, he did it? That is the problem that I have with it.

jelloshotsrule
May 20, 2002, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Na, I mean, "I saw him do it 100% sure, no questions asked". Believe me there are plenty of people on death row because two people are present at a murder, and both are involved. The one that gets life is the first to turn states evidence, and the other guy gets death. And the only person that knows the truth are the two convicts, but can you really sentence someone to die because a dirtbag says, he did it? That is the problem that I have with it.

i'd agree. mind if i ask about your brother(?) who's on death row? since you've mentioned it a few times but haven't talked about it... if it's a sore topic, don't worry bout it.

mcrain
May 20, 2002, 11:07 AM
Hey everyone. My wife's graduation was wonderful. I was on the verge of tears the whole time (blinking like mad to fight them back) and at the end, she looked over at me with tears in her eyes, and we hugged and just sobbed. It was absolutly wonderful to see someone I love that much achieve what she set out to do so long ago. Mr. and Dr... I have to get letterhead like that!

Anyway, onto politics. A topic that I'm sure you all know I can't stand to talk about. ;)

Guns: You're all wrong. The second anyone talks about using a gun to defend yourself or your family, you've already begun a flawed argument. Defense is the art of preventing harm to whoever or whatever you are protecting. The ideal defense is one that could prevent an attacker from harming you. A gun can not do that unless the attacker changes his or her mind and flees. The real purposes of a gun are to hopefully make the attacker change his/her mind, and if that fails, give the person attacked the ability to fight back. Fighting back give the person attacked a chance to (with a gun) kill the attacker before harm can occur. It also give the attacked person the ability to become the attacker in the event whoever or whatever is being defended suffers harm. (i.e. my wife gets shot, I can kill whoever shot her if I have a gun). Finally, in the hands of a trigger happy, but law abiding person, there is a legal excuse to shoot someone if you're attacked.

That being said, I do not disagree with the compromise position of Jefhatfield/backtothemac (right to bear arms, but only to defend against attackers, rather than as a militia). However, I would eliminate rifles (shotguns are plenty effective for hunting), definately eliminate assault weapons, and would restrict ownership to people with training. Maybe even require a trade off some "freedom" for the privelege of owning a gun.

Originally posted by jefhatfield
and george w bush using a nuke would destroy his political career forever

just a couple of weeks ago, the country was basically happy with his performance and he surprised a lot of the world when he stepped up to the office many thought he stole from gore

the bad press about the president not wanting to let out white house memos sounds fishy and nixon-like and that will haunt the president during re-election in 2004

the "bush knowing about the attack" rhetoric has already cost him some votes for his re-election and for the first time, i have seen him handle a crisis in the worst possible manner

the intelligence community has already been caught in a huge lie saying they knew nothing about warnings about bin laden...emails, press releases, and memos have already been dug up by the press

condoleeza rice and the head of the fbi (is that fleischer?) have looked like idiots and there is no doubt that the repulicans are in cover up mode

personally, i don't think there is anything bad to hide, but george bush is coming across as a paranoid control freak like richard nixon was

his secrecy and paranoia are worse in a public relations sense than outright lying...we all know politicians are liars by trade...but coverups and paranoia are not good for the image...remember tricky ****!?

Funny isn't it. Reagan (not Regan, Backtothemac) had Iran/Contra, Bush Jr. has this, and they impeached Clinton for a BJ.

If this were Clinton in office I can only imagine what the Republican's would be yelling. Hipocracy is rampant in D.C.

Backtothemac
May 20, 2002, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule


i'd agree. mind if i ask about your brother(?) who's on death row? since you've mentioned it a few times but haven't talked about it... if it's a sore topic, don't worry bout it.

Na, its not a sore subject at all. He is a product of his environment. He wasn't raised by our Dad, but by his mom. He is my half-brother. He was abused as a child, badly, and became a product of it. He was convicted of 1st degree murder. He was sentenced to nine consecutive life sentances plus the death penalty. The other person that was present, also a dirt bag, turned states evidence against Robbie. He was the 1st one that the cops talked to and he provided details that Robbie swears are not true. Robbie says he did it, the other guy says Robbie did it. Two cons pointing the finger at each other and no other evidence. That is a situation that should not allow for the death penalty. Here is a link for more background. If you have any other questions, just ask.

Robbie has always said that if one person can learn from his mistakes, then he would be vendicated. Who knows if that has, or even could happen?

http://www.adc.state.az.us:81/DeathRow/DRowTZ.htm#TOWERY

No, I don't look anything like him ;)

Backtothemac
May 20, 2002, 11:29 AM
Mcrain, I agree. It is the police, and governments job to protect us, but if they fail, then I must defend myself, and my family, which is what you said basically. I agree that all assault rifles, should be outlawed, and that people should have to take a weapons class in order to carry a firearm.

Here is one for you.

What if the government gave every "law abiding" person over the age of 21 a free firearm, and training classes. Do you think that would deminish violent crime, or increase it?

jelloshotsrule
May 20, 2002, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Na, its not a sore subject at all. He is a product of his environment. He wasn't raised by our Dad, but by his mom. He is my half-brother. He was abused as a child, badly, and became a product of it. He was convicted of 1st degree murder. He was sentenced to nine consecutive life sentances plus the death penalty. The other person that was present, also a dirt bag, turned states evidence against Robbie. He was the 1st one that the cops talked to and he provided details that Robbie swears are not true. Robbie says he did it, the other guy says Robbie did it. Two cons pointing the finger at each other and no other evidence. That is a situation that should not allow for the death penalty. Here is a link for more background. If you have any other questions, just ask.

Robbie has always said that if one person can learn from his mistakes, then he would be vendicated. Who knows if that has, or even could happen?

http://www.adc.state.az.us:81/DeathRow/DRowTZ.htm#TOWERY

No, I don't look anything like him ;)

man.... that site is scary/depressing... wow.

it must have been tough living through the trial and all that crap.... that's just something i can't fathom.

Backtothemac
May 20, 2002, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule


man.... that site is scary/depressing... wow.

it must have been tough living through the trial and all that crap.... that's just something i can't fathom.

It was hard, but I have since come to terms with it. Had my father raised him, he would have turned out different, no doubt about it. He was there at the crime, and they point fingers, but the fact is that it was either done by him, or in front of him. In which case he did nothing to stop it, and believe me he could have. He can bench press 600 lbs, so he could have stoped it. The fact of all of it is that he made his bed, and now he will pay for it with his life.
It is harsh, but he knows that I support the death penalty. He was shocked that I did not change my opinion of it when he was sentance. I told him that a man is not defined by brief moments of emotion, but yet by the substance of his character. My character comes from my upbringing as a child, and that will never change. It doesn't matter who I know that get sentanced for a crime, or killed under crazy circumstances, or anything like that. I have my beliefs, and they will not change by events in my life. Not now anyway, since I am over the hill. ;)

mcrain
May 20, 2002, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Here is one for you.

What if the government gave every "law abiding" person over the age of 21 a free firearm, and training classes. Do you think that would deminish violent crime, or increase it?

Honestly, I don't know. I prefer to feel a little worried that there may be a nut or two nearby that might be dangerous, than to know that everyone who is nearby has a gun, and one or two of them might be nuts.

My brother in law tells stories about walking across wal-mart parking lots [in Texas] (he worked for walmart corporate), and having impatient drivers pull guns on him. Sure, they were law abiding, in that they didn't have criminal records, but that certainly doesn't sound safer than a walmart parking lot where most, if not all, of the people do not have guns.

So, to answer you question, guns are dangerous tools. I may be supremely confident in my ability to use one, but that doesn't mean I have to trust the remainder of the population. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be elitist or arrogant, but I remember the morons from the back of the classrooms, and I certainly wouldn't trust half of them with guns -- the other half are cops now, so I don't have a choice)

Let me ask you a question -- would law enforcement professionals prefer that everyone have guns or not?

Backtothemac
May 20, 2002, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by mcrain

Let me ask you a question -- would law enforcement professionals prefer that everyone have guns or not?

Since my father was a cop for 25 years, I would have to give you a big no on that one ;)

I agree with you. That is a hypo that one of my CJ professors had us write a paper on. We had to support it in one, and rebut in the other. I personally agree with you. I don't feel safer owning a gun, that would be a false sense of security, but I do like my odds better. Especially with the training that I have had.

Now Cooter down the street with a Glock 45, out in his front yard drunk showing off his gun to his drinkin buddies.... That makes me nervous.

britboy
May 20, 2002, 01:16 PM
I wish i'd been around a little earlier, when you were talking about OBL and the situation in Israel/Palestine. Having grown up in the middle east, i probably have a rather different take on it than most of the people posting here. Still, the topic has moved on...

On the subject of guns, i cannot believe that it is a right for a person to own one. By that, i mean that no amount of debating is going to change my view on that. In 1996 in the UK everyone was absolutely shocked by a massacre in a primary school. Some guy walked in and kiilled 16 children, before turning the gun on himself. Since then, gun laws have been tightened, and we haven't had a similar occurence. How many have there been in the US now, with still no change in the ease with which someone can obtain a gun?

Backtothemac
May 20, 2002, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by britboy
I wish i'd been around a little earlier, when you were talking about OBL and the situation in Israel/Palestine. Having grown up in the middle east, i probably have a rather different take on it than most of the people posting here. Still, the topic has moved on...

On the subject of guns, i cannot believe that it is a right for a person to own one. By that, i mean that no amount of debating is going to change my view on that. In 1996 in the UK everyone was absolutely shocked by a massacre in a primary school. Some guy walked in and kiilled 16 children, before turning the gun on himself. Since then, gun laws have been tightened, and we haven't had a similar occurence. How many have there been in the US now, with still no change in the ease with which someone can obtain a gun?

It really isn't that easy for someone to obtain a handgun legally in the US. Now a rifle or shotgun is a different story, but with a handgun, there is a "cool down" period. Now, I can say that it is a right to defend and protect yourself. What is the difference if you do it with a baseball bat, knife, gun, or any other weapon? I posted a few posts back about my brother being on death row for 1st degree murder. The man that was killed did not own a firearm. If he had he could be alive right now. Without one, there is a 100% guarantee what he isn't. That is one way to think about "gun control".

mcrain
May 20, 2002, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
The man that was killed did not own a firearm. If he had he could be alive right now. Without one, there is a 100% guarantee what he isn't. That is one way to think about "gun control".

In that case, owning a gun may have helped, however, it is entirely possible that a firefight may have broken out, he would have lived, but your brother, the other guy who ratted him out, and several innocent people who happened to be in range could also have been killed.

You just never know. Guns are dangerous tools, and unfortunately, most who own will never have sufficient training, and those that do rarely do refresher courses, instead relying on memory.

Hey britboy, we never move on. This is politics after all, and we're still debating hanging chads, the Irish "troubles" and anything else you want to chime in on. Just so long as it isn't a "travis" plea for a free computer, cause in this room you'll be drawn and quartered.

HOLY *****, just the other day you didn't have an avatar, and now you're about to pass me... do you not sleep backtothemac?

britboy
May 20, 2002, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
What is the difference if you do it with a baseball bat, knife, gun, or any other weapon?

The difference is that a gun is going to do a lot more damage. Anyway, a baseball bat wasn't designed for killing someone, unlike guns. If the attacker has a gun, your best option is to submit to his/her demands. They get what they wanted, and hopefully no-one gets hurt. If you both have guns, the situation is immediately more dangerous, to both yourself and the other person. Suddenly you're challenging them on a level playing-field, and the likelyhood is that one of you will come out severly wounded or worse. I feel it's more preferable to just give them what they wanted, and get them on their way so you can live to tell the police what they looked like.