ChibiHorsewoman Posted November 22, 2003 Share Posted November 22, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Raiha [/i] [B][COLOR=royalblue]Well, it sounds like you did. Even if it wasn't a [b]BIG[/b] Shpeil..... and that's not a euphemism.... Pinhead....Commander in Chief.... Well, if he's conservative, he just might be a *gasp of drama* Republican! He wants to outlaw everything he doesn't agree with. .....really? Where'd you get that 'fact' from? An Anti-Bush website? He doesn't have absolute power, just incase you didn't notice. He doesn't have control over a few small things....like jurisdiction over the Justice system, Senate, and House of Reps. Maybe you should take a few American Political System's classes...and while you're at it a U.S. History class, just for good measure. And if that isn't enough, I'll link you to a nice website of objective third person encyclopedias.[/COLOR] [/B][/QUOTE] [COLOR=purple]No, I didn't go on an anti-Bush website, I've just paid attention to what bills he's passing and figured it out myself. You see, I like to think for myself. Being conservative doesn't automatically make you a Republican and being liberal doesn't automaticly make you a Democrat. Just like if you say you'd never get an abortion yourself doesn't mean you're pro-life and not pro-choice. You can be for same sex marriages and still be Christian too. Yes, I do know that he has to answer to the congress before he vetos something. But have you noticed that most of congress is republican along with the senate? As for telling me I should take a few classes because I don't agree with your veiws, don't you feel that was a bit presumptuos of you? Am I telling you that you should consider taking an interpersonal communications class? Go ahead and PM me that link, tho,I do like broadening my veiws. I still don't like the guy.[/COLOR] QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PloKoonDS [/i] [B]Stupid ***-tards. Honestly, everyone is always b!tching about him. I'd also bet money you are also convinced that Al Gore won the popular vote in Florida. Well boo-friggin'-hoo. It's over and in the past. Besides, so fawkin' what if we still have troops in that far off nation where they some one gets injured/killed every day. HELL, I bet most of you get "injured" everyday. Stubbing a toe or a paper cut counts. If you haven't been able to tell by now, the news companies like to twist there facts and confuse them with opinion. IT's called "yellow journalism", you stupid communists. Now then, more specific on why our troops are still over in that sandy-hole in the middle of that relatively large... umm.. continent? Yeah, whatever. Anywho, They are still there because they need a government that will work for them, not go "hey, that guy isn't clapping when I shoot a GUN OVER THERE HEADS! KILL HIM!!!" I sure would love to be in that nation when the idiots come for me with a loaded weapon! *sarcasim* Anyways, another REASON why we went in there was because he made an open and public threat on world broadcast television to America, saying "you will regret the day you decided to try and remove me from my country". Alright, if you people don't see that as a reason to go in there and remove him from power before he makes good on his words, I seriously pity you. Final statement: Shut the heck up. Weither or not you like him doesn't matter. He is what we've got right now, and in my opinion he is doing a d@mn good job. Remember, morons and idiots alike, everything is based off of the "eye of the beholder". Dumb bast@rds. ~Plo [/B][/QUOTE] [COLOR=indigo]Plo, I think I pity you more than I pity this country that I live in right now. The way you put up your opinion makes me debate your maturity. OF course I'm not being very polite right now either, but I seriously don't give a rat's behind. I know quite a few people who are staioned over in Iraq right now from 4th ID both out of Ft.Hood and out of Ft.Carson. These aren't stub your toe injuries these are delibilitating injuries that these men and women will have to live with for the rest of tehir lives. Hell, when my friend's husband was sent over there in March (BTW his unit was one of the first to reach the Bagdad airport) they were shot at the week after they arrived. One of the guys was so messed up from that he ended up being sent to a psych ward back in Ft.Hood. This guy is 20 years old and will never be the same again. Of course, Bush doesn't really care about that part. The whole injured and disabled veterans thing. It's of no consiquence to him because they've fulfilled their duty. That's why he's cutting funding to Disabled Vets so many of the VA hospitals risk closure, but hey, that's life right? Reguardless of this fact however, BUsh isn't thinking of removing more troops instead everyone-reguardless of ETS date-is going to stay over in Iraq for a year for troop rotation. These people don't even want to go. I've even heard some of my husband's friends talking about how to get out of the Army. I really don't care who won the popular vote back in 2000, that was three years ago. Bringing it up isn't going to change anything. I don't like Bush, my best reasons are his veiws on abortion, gay rights, religion and the fact that he's cutting the VA hospital budget. To me these are very good reasons. I could say I don't like his big ears, but that would just be juvenial and of subject. Besides, it's not a convincing arguement.[/COLOR] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kent Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ChibiHorsewoman [/i] [B]the fact that he's cutting the VA hospital budget. To me these are very good reasons..[/COLOR] [/B][/QUOTE] Is he really cutting the VA hospitals budget? I guess it could be possible, but at the moment, I have personally seen bush's administration do atleast 2 things off the top of my head that are directly related to veterans affairs. First on that list is my own living allowance that I get for going to school. Where it was previously *570 dollars, now it is *690 dollars. (* = approximate.) Second would be the payments my mother recieves based on my fathers death benefits. In the year 2002 her monthly payment (Im embarressed to give out the total number) went up by over 200 dollars. This is not all to say that bush could never do such a thing as cut the VA benefits. (which includes health insurance and hospital expenses there in) This was more just to ask if you could show me more about this, since I really would like to know. Maybe a link or something... I dont know, but anything would be a good start. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChibiHorsewoman Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 Here's one link. It's to a Madison newspaper article back in march 03.[url]http://www.madison.com/toolbox/index.php?action=printme&ref=captimes&storyURL=/captimes/news/stories/44525.php[/url] It's also been on the news Up in New York and down in Texas(they're worried that the VA hospital in CAnadaigua (outside Roch) and the one in Waco may close) a few more:[url]http://www.inebriantia.org/2003/04/offensive_inter.html[/url] [url]http://www.awolbush.com/[/url] This also has links to the fact that G.W.Bush either went AWOL or never actually served in Nam yet is now sending people over to fight in a war. Yes folks while some of our parents (my dad included) were over in Vietnam trying not to catch a bad case of death, Bush was either AWOL or making sure the Vietcong didn't attack Texas. Oh, and here's a good one:[url]http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/001091.php[/url] [url]http://www.usmedicine.com/article.cfm?articleID=645&issueID=50[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crimson Spider Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i] Yeah, you tend to do that a lot.[/QUOTE] Quote what you think I'm not talking about, and I'll gladly enlighten you on what I actually know that you don't know that I knew. [quote] I'm not rude, I'm simply blunt and straight forward (go figure), [/quote]Uh huh? Yeah. Sure. Saying my head is up my *** isn't rude, now is it? Hypocrite. [quote] if you can't handle that, maybe you should go. You should also read what he says... and then read what you say. Judge not less ye be judged.... if you had any smarts, you'd know you're doing the exact same thing CS did, and the exact same thing I did. But ofcourse not, because you are judging their life before your own. I know what I say, and I'm not afriad to say it. And you shouldn't generalize myself and the democratic party... cause we're not all alike. But you wouldn't know that because you're just a kid. You only know what your republican parents anfd FOX news force feed you.[/quote]My parents don't half of what I do. And I don't even watch FOX news. It's almost funny how people will go on about stuff that they know little about. Well, it's gone from almost to is. Ha ha ha ha ha ha. But not my point. But guess what? I know what I say, and I'm not afraid to say it. And it isn't like your a mature adult yourself. Your college age: the age of which people are the dumbest and most sheep like. [quote] The economy was in a regular depression. Because our economy is a capitalistic economy, on regular basis it has depressions. The economy was having a depression, after having the highest boom in years under Clinton. It was therefor due for a depression, which usuaully doesn't last long.... however, when Bush came into office, he came in during the regular depression, with his economic policies and the 9/11 attacks, well that certainly didn't help, and now it hasn't even got to where the depression was when he first came into office. Maybe when you pull your head out of your ***, you'd know that too. [/quote]But he's climbing there. 9/11 was very serious, and I doubt that ANY president could've brought themselves up from that. His economic policies are working more than you are letting on, because our economy is getting better. I watch the stock market channel FYI. [quote] Well then you're just as ignorant and insecure as he is. [/quote]"Please site your sources". Because this is not only inslulting hyporcitical statement, but it is also un-informed. If I'm so ignorant, then why do you take the cowards way out more than once? I mean, you refuse to even read my post, let alone debate it with each of it's indevidual statements. You just hypocitically stereotype the entire diverse post into one thing, and then deny it with no proof. This is what I call the cowards way out. [quote] You know, I try to look at two sides of an argument (in this case Republican and Democrat), but when your head is so far up your *** where you can't see or hear anything elese but yourself, it's not worth wasting my time. When you two can pull that head out of your *** maybe you both won't look like complete idiots to everyone else on the board, cause if you don't think you do, which I'm sure you don't, you're both very wrong. [/quote]Again with the insults. But if you could pull that head out of your ***, maybe you won't look like a complete idiot to everyone else on the board, caus if you don't think you do, which I'm sure that you don't, then you're very wrong. Taking the cowards way out, I mean. Debating what a person writes in second view, then what I've actually said. So your opinion, which you seem to just plain hate so much out of everyon else, has no proof behind it. Of course your going to ask everyone to agree with you, which they mindlessly would. 1 or two who obviously didn't like me in the first place would step up, and you would flash that as absolute proof. But their not dis-agreeing with me. Their agreeing with you. Major difference there. And it seems that: [quote] Utopia: "Why is it that you don't see wise men in counsel with the king, on their courts? Because they know they will not be heard. If all of the village would be standing outside in the rain; they know that going out to tell them to come in only leads to them getting wet as well, from experience. So they stay in, and make their wisdom grow, by themselves." [/quote] [quote] but you two certainly give horrid names to your party. I wouldn't certainly never want to be part of whatever you two are [/quote]I'm not speaking for the republican party. I'm speaking for me. Major difference is that your generalizing to the extream from what I happen to be a part of. Just as I didn't group you as an entire democratic party. I've met against-choice abortions demos, and democrats who act more republican than the stereotypical democrat. So someone agrees with me, and then finds other places and citations to prove it. But he's not representing the republican party. He's representing me in a second person, whom he just happened to agree with on many of his own opinions. I mean, I don't here half of the stuff I view as common sense anywhere. I've met plenty of groups of people who seem to be representing a group very poorly. Like the Muslims. The muslim group that Osama, and many that you hear from is a sect. Less than 10% of the Muslim group. So 9 out of 10 people aren't being heard. [quote] . I just honestly don't think Bush, or his brother, is doing a good job. I don't expect anyone to know about his brother so I won't go into that, but I have nothing personal against them, I just think they COULD do a hell of alot better if they'd think a hell of a lot more. [/quote]The most common thing that people don't understand is that when they view from a second person future, heinsight biased takes plenty ahold in your opinoin. Example: "I knew that the NFC was going to win the pro-bowl. They had much better players." Well, actually, I didn't. Same thing here. You can look at it from every point of view you can, but unless you understand what wasn't known and what was, then you cannot make an accurate judgement. And another thing is that you DON'T know what would work better. There could've been some unknown factor that would've occured that would've screwed up everything. But since that didn't happen, you can "What if" all day long. But even I, who people assume that I assume that I know everything, don't know everything. Like one thing: expenses. He could've done a whole lot worse, too. But if you had read my other post, which you obviously didn't, you would've seen how I showed the situation, viewed each view, spotted each possible outcome, and then shown why he acted on it. [quote] Every poltician lies... every politician does([b]Correcting[/b]) stupid things.... however, with the predicament Bush has been in, I think he could have done alot better than he has or will do. [/quote] You don't know EXACTLY what he's going to do. That's the thing. Reason: something don't consider this often. Why is he spending so much money. Why is he starting up a law. Why why why. [quote] I suppose thats why his approval rating is under 50% last I checked, correct me if I'm wrong. [/quote] I think your right. 46% is what I remember. [quote] If you want to argue with me, then argue with me. But it'll do you no good. I'm listening to you as much as your listening to me, which is pretty much nothing at all.[/quote] Actually, I have considered stuff that you've said. What I point out are falacies. [quote] Your words are falling on deaf ears. So why continue to argue about something as useless as this?[/quote]Pride. [quote] If Bush wins the election, so be it, but you're not gonna convince me he's a good president, and you're certainly not going to convince me to vote for him...[/quote] I'm not convincing you that he was a good president. I'm trying to convince you he wasn't a bad one. [quote]I see nothing good coming from this presidency...[/quote] is coming back to haunt you. [quote]Hey, why don't you actually post some sources or citations? Where's your proof?[/quote] Why am I the only one who has to cite my sources! Don't you people remember half these things that they teach you in school? Or did you not watch the news until recently? But if you insist, I will go and re-post my previous post once again stating where I got each and every bit of my information... again. But don't have the time now. [quote] If you want some books to read (with, gasp, prooven sources) go read "Lies, And the Lying Lyars Who Tell Them", by Al Franken, and "Dude, Where's My Country?", by Michael Moore. They are both good, witty (michael more than al) and actually have proof to back up what they say. Does anyone else know what I'm talking about here?[/quote] You mean one persons opinion who may have falsefied sources or find something very small and jump on it like it's undesputable proof regardless of how much of a crappy crutch it is? Yeah, those books. Even though a book is the best place to find info, it's still a POV: Point of view. If TN had wrote a book long before this topic was made, I seriously doubt he would put anything positive about Bush in it. *expects heinsight biased*. But again, taking the cowards way out. Just generalizing my entire post into one statement is a ruse that has often proved worthless. [quote]Reguardless of this fact however, BUsh isn't thinking of removing more troops instead everyone-reguardless of ETS date-is going to stay over in Iraq for a year for troop rotation. These people don't even want to go. I've even heard some of my husband's friends talking about how to get out of the Army.[/quote]History lesson: after a war, even small ones, we always kept troops to help stabelize the country. Fine examples are germany, and Japan. And no one wants to go to war. No one wants to stay in there. But it is necissary. If we left, the entire country would go back to chaos, because now there is no rule over it anymore except for the poor influence that their government has now. [quote]Yes, I do know that he has to answer to the congress before he vetos something. But have you noticed that most of congress is republican along with the senate? [/quote] Um.. very contradictory. You see, the majority is I believe republican, but not a most. It was like... 45%? Something like that was democratic. And then... [quote]Being conservative doesn't automatically make you a Republican and being liberal doesn't automaticly make you a Democrat. Just like if you say you'd never get an abortion yourself doesn't mean you're pro-life and not pro-choice. You can be for same sex marriages and still be Christian too. [/quote] Democrats can support republican view and vice-versa. [quote]EDIT: Being a classic rock 'n' roll fan, I notice the term "70s." [/quote] You're a classic rock fan, too? [quote]Jesus Christ! Grow up! That sentence alone perfectly illustrates just how much of a rhetoric-spewing fool you are. I mean, Christ! Get a clue! Do you realize how immature that one statement is? Do you realize how much of an idiot you look by saying it? Oh, and I'm sure you're going to reply with another poorly written, boring, boorish, inane two page paragraph, right? Good for you, CS. You're a monkey on a typewriter. [/quote] OOOOOOH OOOOOOH OOOH AAAHHHHH AAHHH! *grins and scratches under-arms* You pray more than I do. But then again, those aren't my own words. But one word does come to mind right now: Hypocrite. Whether your too lazy to read a two page essay isn't my problem. It isn't my fault that the spell-check on my compy doesn't pick up half the mistakes I make. I like to be thurough. I'm not gonna put up 2 sentences and expect everyone to see where I'm comeing from. But people expect me to read a couple of books. Atleast no one wants you to do that. But you remember Vietnam? The "Baby Killers"? Yeah. It was around that time that psychologists of the past made a bunch of claims that have been proven false. I.E. [quote]It seems that this act stemmed from some inane ideal that every child has the capacity to do well on exams. Anybody that attended any high school anywhere knows this isn't the case.[/quote] That inane ideal is from the early psychologists. I'll review the few most recently posted sites a little later. It's half past midnight in vegas right now. EDIT: Read the first site. Quiz of the day: Why did Bush make a tax cut that would grant people 90,000 more bucks? You see, rich people spend that 90,000. It goes into the workplace, and helps out the economy. If a rich person buys an expensive car, the makers of that car get the money, and then the entire company gets that money too, and then their workers get paid more because of the more money, and then more spending on stuff like gas, and electricity... Even if the tax cuts are effecting many budgets, it'll come back later. Every buisness loses money it's first years. This WAS working before 9-11, and then people saved their money incase they were attacked by anthrax. If people would spend money, then most of our problems would be solved. And they worded it to make it soudn worse I.E. 1.6 trillion in 10 years. Um... Little government lesson: They net [b]7.5 trillion bucks a year!!!![/b] In 10 years, they would have nearly 70 trillion bucks. With the tax cuts, that 70 becomes 68.4. And that is projected with how things are going RIGHT NOW. Not a little later. Like I said: You're getting a view, not a fact. Here's my view: which is more important? Money, or economy? Spending money helps economy. Everyone knows this. But if you keep your money, then the economy goes down. So now, [u][b]the value of the dollar you were so eager to keep has now dropped[/u][/b]. So spend money, or have it worth less. If people really thought about it, they would spend. But a person thinks. People don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbfrontmanvdp Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 I totally agree with Transtic on this issue. If you ever look at most of wars having America involved in them theres always a Republican in office. I dont really want to get into that, but I have to say the only reason why G.W.B. become president was because Al Gore was the most boring spokesman on the face of this planet. Whether or not there was a discrepancy in the vote counting (what i mean by that is if it was truly that hard to figure out where to mark the circle as for which president you wanted, all i have to say is go Florida or should i say go Bush's brother), i still wouldnt have wanted Al Gore as president the same ammount as G.W.B. I also have to agree with maladjusted as Clinton being a great president, if not one of the best. Our country was at its best with money circulation and supply and demand being at its strongest. Its kind of funny that once G.W.B came into office that the stock market kind of collapsed a bit, probably because all of the high payed companies knew a complete idiot was going into office and took advantage of it. Im sorry but if i want a someone to represent our country i at least want them to know "some" of the names and pronunciations of the other leaders from countries. And if its not bad enough we have good old G.W.B.'s wife being a fair lady and all making up the ridiculous law called "The no child left behind law" for public schools. Now why the hell would she even want to begin thinking of making a law like this when Bush insists on vouchers as one of his key goals. First of all if a HS student wants to drop out of college, thats on their own discretion and Bush's wife shouldnt have to make a ludicrous law like that just to make herself known. I cant stand that whole entire family and i sure as hell dont understand how Bush senior could force his own child to do what he could not do.....in which we still havent succeeded on doing and probably never will (im pretty sure most of you know what i mean). All i know is that the democratics better have someone without such a monotone type of voice represent our country this year since it seems being a complete idiot doesnt matter. As long as your rich, have an *** as a father, and stumble across every word, then even "you" might become president for all i know. So ill leave by stating this quote from the man: "We want our teachers to be trained so they can meet the obligations; their obligations as teachers. We want them to know how to teach the science of reading. In order to make sure there's not this kind of federal cufflink." --G.W. Bush, Fritsche Middle School, Milwaukee, March 30, 2000 G.W. Bush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outlawstar69 Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Crimson Spider [/i] [B] Quiz of the day: Why did Bush make a tax cut that would grant people 90,000 more bucks? You see, rich people spend that 90,000. It goes into the workplace, and helps out the economy. If a rich person buys an expensive car, the makers of that car get the money, and then the entire company gets that money too, and then their workers get paid more because of the more money, and then more spending on stuff like gas, and electricity... Even if the tax cuts are effecting many budgets, it'll come back later. Every buisness loses money it's first years. This WAS working before 9-11, and then people saved their money incase they were attacked by anthrax. If people would spend money, then most of our problems would be solved. And they worded it to make it soudn worse I.E. 1.6 trillion in 10 years. Um... Little government lesson: They net [b]7.5 trillion bucks a year!!!![/b] In 10 years, they would have nearly 70 trillion bucks. With the tax cuts, that 70 becomes 68.4. And that is projected with how things are going RIGHT NOW. Not a little later. [/B][/QUOTE] Doesn't that reflect the trickle down theory? I dunno, but if you look at it that way, doesn't that mean that societies where the top borguasie (sp?) have all the money would be the ones with the best economies? Because if the rich have most of the wealth, doesn't that mean they can buy that yacht they always wanted? Ooh, that means that there will have to be workers to build that boat, and servants to serve cocktails while they go a yachting. Oh, and don't forget the the people it will take to keep that thing clean and shiny! Oh my, of course that theory will work. Look at all the jobs that were created because the the rich were the ones with the most money.... I dunno, but that logic doesn't work for me The less of a gap there is between the high earners in terms of finances and the bottom where the lowest earners are seems to be a better way too look at things. Look in Europe; they have CEO's same as we. But in many countries, including Britan, there is a set ratio as to what they ceos can in comparison to their low paid employess. For example, I believe Germany has a number around 13-15, where the ceo can't make more than 13-15 times the salary of his lowest paid employee. Where as in america, that difference between ceo and lowest employee may be as high 415 times the salary difference. Look at the problems we have here, with Bush's rich friendly tax cuts and policies. Look there, where there are no such policies. Do they have the same scandals that we have? No, they don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rttocs77 Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 Outlaw star, are you an economy expert? Are you a CEO? I didn't think so. CEO's generally don't get that large of a salary, they get stock options. Getting large stock options instead of large salaries encourages them to work hard at making their company great. Also, TN, I can't believe you called my a hypocrit. Look in the mirror buddy. You closed down the last ******* thread because you couldn't handle it. That was very immature of you. You'll probably end up closing this one too. You are wrong and you are having a very hard time handling it. BTW, I agree with everything CrimsonSPider said, yet again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maully Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 [color=green] My land's people... That took me an hour to read the whole thing at least... I don't think I will try and rebut anyone in particular, I'll just tell you my thoughts and have them eviscerated by everyone else. I voted Bush in 2000. I really thought he was doing well, then came 9/11. That was an event that would have happened no matter who our President was. I like the demeanor Bush took afterwards, but wish there had been more thought put into his words, and later some actions. I thought it was good that he told people that America was not going to bow down to these attacks, that we weren't going to be susceptible to them. There were all sorts of ideas and few real actions. Now, there are fewer airport screeners than ever, the immigration system has seen little reform, almost none positive, in my opinion. There are still people being held without representation in Guantanimo Bay. The economy is more the fault of the terrorists than Bush as well... They took the legs out from under the travel and tourist industry, the airline industry and the plane manufacturing industry. Living in Wichita, KS or even near it, every person I know feels those losses in some way or another. While I know that is not the whole economy, those are pretty big parts of it, and the one I experience daily. I know Bush is not stupid, that makes him more of a threat in my eyes. People trust him, he's a Blue Collar sympathizer... The man has never worked a bluecollar job in his life... He targets the "Nascar Dad". (who else hates that term?) I feel that he has a hidden agenda of some kind in a lot of his actions, and he's smart enough to hide behind looking dumb. I don't agree with the size of his tax cuts, while I don't mind tax cuts, I don't think it needed to be that large. I would much rather have books in my school, thanks... I think we were a little hasty going into Iraq. More than that, actually, but now that we are there, I do not favor pulling out at this point. We can't it'll leave a place for another Taliban. We know that Sadaam was a tyrant and he killed many people, Something needed to be done. I agree with that. I wish that it had been the reason for going over there... I hate No Child Left Behind; PT summed that up pretty well. I think it is, in it's current format very detrimental to the education system. Education...Isn't that the ticket Bush rode to the White House on?? What else has he done there??? Let me know, please. [edit]I won't be voting Bush in 2004. I haven't decided who I will be voting for though. the Democrats are not putting forth anyone who can beat him I'm afraid. So, let the tear up begin, I know I didn't site facts and so forth, but this lays the ground work for my portion of this discussion.[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rttocs77 Posted November 24, 2003 Share Posted November 24, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Molleta [/i] [B][color=green] There are still people being held without representation in Guantanimo Bay. [/color] [/B][/QUOTE] So what? It's perfectly legal. They are considered illegal combatants which means, according to the Geneva Convention, that they can be held there without trial. They are not subject to our Constitution. TN, you can dish it out but you can't take it back. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Crimson Spider [/i] [B]If I'm so ignorant, then why do you take the cowards way out more than once? I mean, you refuse to even read my post, let alone debate it with each of it's indevidual statements. You just hypocitically stereotype the entire diverse post into one thing, and then deny it with no proof. This is what I call the cowards way out. [/B][/QUOTE] I don't think you are arrogant in the least bit, if anyone is arrogant it is TN. He closed the last political thread because people disagreed with him. He is just being a whiny *****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cloricus Posted November 24, 2003 Share Posted November 24, 2003 [quote]So what? It's perfectly legal.[/quote] I have never read the convention but from the array of high profile lawyers in Australia who consider it strictly illegal and state this on national TV with evidence I'd say it's either not completely legal, they are making use of a grey area or they are just out right breaking it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted November 24, 2003 Share Posted November 24, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i] [B]I have never read the convention but from the array of high profile lawyers in Australia who consider it strictly illegal and state this on national TV with evidence I'd say it's either not completely legal, they are making use of a grey area or they are just out right breaking it. [/B][/QUOTE] [color=#707875]I don't think it's illegal, but I do think that it's questionable. Of course, all of the people at Camp X-Ray were individuals who were caught in battle, fighting alongside the Taliban and so on. I'm sure there are innocent people there, but I also think that it would be dangerous to simply dump all of these people in a civil court at the moment. As far as Australians held at the camp...that David Hicks guy should really not be sent back here, in my opinion. I think that he should be prosecuted in front of a military tribunal in the United States. The guy was not only fighting alongside the Taliban, but he was nutty enough to go and fight in the Afghan/Soviet war. I mean, he's obviously a complete psychopath. And in terms of Mr. Habib...I don't know. I don't know what the situation is there. I don't know what kind of evidence they have against him, or what circumstances they found him in. So with an absence of any such information, I personally can't make a determination either way. That is, I can't say whether he should be sent to Australia or remain in Camp X-Ray. Obviously, due to the secrecy at the camp, it's incredibly difficult -- if not impossible -- to determine how or why he was picked up in the first place. So that's obviously a concern.[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transtic Nerve Posted November 24, 2003 Share Posted November 24, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by rttocs77 [/i] [B] TN, you can dish it out but you can't take it back. I don't think you are arrogant in the least bit, if anyone is arrogant it is TN. He closed the last political thread because people disagreed with him. He is just being a whiny *****. [/B][/QUOTE] LOL.... I can take it.... i've taken more than you'll ever take. I am just smart enough to know when it's not worth my time to try an argue with someone as close minded as you two. I'm not changing what you think... you're not changing what I think... and i'm not closing this thread.... I think the only thing you teo have prooven is how ignorant and immature you are. If you want me to dish it back out, you're gonna have to do something more than talk BS to me. Quite frankly, everything you've said is BS.... and CS and you are the only people that don't see it, cause i'm not the only one who's posted that think your ideals are ridiculously insane. It's not worth my time to stop going to work, to stop doing school work to attempt to deal with both of your crap. It' s just annoying. Think what you think, you're both just little kids.... you don't know anything about life... and you never will with that attitude.... people will look at you and laugh like I do and keep walkin because you're a complete waste of their time, just like you are to me... so please just don't talk to me.... cause I'm just ignoring both of you from now on unless you can come up with somethinga little better than the absolute crap you've placed in this thread.... I also have several complaints against you CS from other members.... so it can't just be me... you must be doing something, which if you weren't selfishly in tune with your complete arrogance, you'd see that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted November 24, 2003 Share Posted November 24, 2003 [color=#707875]Guys, let's just keep ourselves focused on the discussion at hand. There's no need to have this silly back-and-forth. I'm saying that to [i]everyone[/i], too, not just one or two people. Obviously these debates get heated, but at least make sure that the vast majority of your posts are discussion/debate-related. lol[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outlawstar69 Posted November 24, 2003 Share Posted November 24, 2003 In response to holding prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, saying it's ok because it's legal, what kind of justification is that? Under the name of the patriot act, officials are already starting to profile regular protestors, the kind you see waving signs, onto the no-fly lists because of their activities. Bush is the man who signed it, as well as the many people who passed it to get to him. I know he's not dumb: he was a very successful businessman; made millions with oil and all, so that's not an excuse. What good is a bill that would undermine the rights of those without any rights, and at what time will we see that it will eventually come around to those with rights, protected by that wonderful document called the constitution? Should it matter that they are "enemy combatants"? Did you know that there are still american citizens who are being held from when they arrested all those people around Sept. 11? They were held without charges, had no lawyers, and their families were not even told that the government had arrested them. Did you know that was allowed by the first Patriot Act, and guess what? They are making a Patriot Act II, which would allow the government even more powers to do as such to anybody they deems so. Doesn't this scare anybody else here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted November 24, 2003 Share Posted November 24, 2003 [color=#707875]I don't understand the complaint here. From what I have seen/heard, the Patriot Act gives various Government and non-Government agencies slightly more leeway in dealing with suspected criminals. I mean, the amount of time you can be held for questioning before being released has increased marginally, for example. And obviously there are security-related background checks that now occur, relating to travel and so on. Out of all the people complaining about the Patriot Act, I haven't really seen anyone come up with very specific elements of it that significantly violate a person's rights. I'm not trying to outright defend it, because I do understand civil liberty concerns. However, you have to be realistic here. You have to weigh your options. Would you rather have a slightly broader security system, which significantly reduces the threat of a major terror attack...or would you rather have every civil liberty -- even ones that you apparently don't notice -- and be absolutely wide open to a major incident? Obviously you can't have less strenuous security [i]and[/i] less terror attacks. It doesn't work that way. I don't think this is a case of someone in office sitting there thinking "Hm, how can we kill off more civil rights today?" That kind of conspiracy theory just doesn't fly with me. This is all a matter of security and how far we must go to ensure that society is both free [i]and[/i] appropriately protected. In addition, it's important to remember the tactics that terrorists have and are using. They [i]are[/i] able to get through many traditional security checks and so on. I think that terrorists somewhat force your hand in that regard; you simply have no choice but to increase security if you want to decrease the chances of a major terrorist incident. As for Camp X-Ray...again, I don't completely agree with everything that's going on there. However, we must understand the context with which the people there were arrested. They weren't just plucked out of thin air; they were obviously arrested/detained as a result of security concerns. Moreover, time in Camp X-Ray has actually allowed various individuals to be interrogated -- which has directly resulted in the prevention of various attacks around the world, as well as providing information that led to one of Al-Qaeda's top strategists earlier in the year. Many of these detainees do not speak willingly at the start; it takes time and effort to extract truthful statements and intelligence, without resorting to torture. And we [i]have[/i] seen the results. We've seen the capture of various Al-Qaeda officials and even top members of Saddam Hussein's former regime. Much of this intelligence came from the detainees at Camp X-Ray and obviously, much of it was accurate and important. So, the situation is far from perfect. But the world isn't some ideological paradise; it's a very real place and it can be a very dangerous place. I think sometimes you do have to be a little "all-encompassing" in order to [i]ensure[/i] that you're doing all you can to protect the lives of innocent people; even those who are opposed to your methods.[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transtic Nerve Posted November 24, 2003 Share Posted November 24, 2003 I'd rather have all my liberties... cause this is what my country was founded on. Freedom.... I am not the one who has the problem with radical Muslim terror groups. I didn't make them mad. They have no reason to hate me.... so why should I pay MY freedom because someone else screwed something up? If you wanna be safe, go ahead and give up your freedoms that everyone fought for, but I won't.... I plan to keep every freedom I have. It's not like the CIA didn't know these attacks were going to happen. It's been well documented that they had several pieces of information about it, yet did nothing. Now they want me to give away my freedom so they can "help" stop terrorism.... when they could have in the first place, yet decided not to?.... I don't think so. James, I can see your point... as many people think that way, but others don't, and I don't think they should have to give up their freedoms for something they don't believe in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crimson Spider Posted November 24, 2003 Share Posted November 24, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i] LOL.... I can take it.... i've taken more than you'll ever take. I am just smart enough to know when it's not worth my time to try an argue with someone as close minded as you two.[/QUOTE] Prove it. And your just as close-minded as anyone else on this board can be, so you don't have room to talk here. [quote]I'm not changing what you think... you're not changing what I think... and i'm not closing this thread.... I think the only thing you two have proven is how ignorant and immature you are. [/quote] You notice how each time I state something, and someone else goes with it, you always group us together? I mean, come on. I'm not him. What he says based off of what I say isn't my fault. If you give a person a gun, and they shoot themselves, THEIR the one who shot themself. And you ARE changing what you think. Your mindless agression towards Bush has dropped throughout this thread [quote] If you want me to dish it back out, you're gonna have to do something more than talk BS to me. [/quote]Heh heh heh... so that's all you've got? Once again, you generalize an entire 2 page post into one sentence. [quote] Quite frankly, everything you've said is BS.... and CS and you are the only people that don't see it [/quote]That's strange, because your the only one who ever says this, or jumps out, or anything like that. Maybe your the only one who sees it, and you just project your thoughts onto other people who would so much as say one or two sentences and then jump on it like absolute proof regardless of how weak of a crutch it is. [quote]cause i'm not the only one who's posted that think your ideals are ridiculously insane. [/quote]No. Someone disagrees with one or 2 things, and thats it. Chances are they are just ignoring half of what I put, because more than once the answer to what they say is already in the post. Why else do you think I repeat myself so often? And that is not only a generalization, but an extream exaguration. Like how you said that pretty much all Muslims don't like America. [quote] It's not worth my time to stop going to work, to stop doing school work to attempt to deal with both of your crap. It' s just annoying. [/quote]You know, it doesn't take that long to post one of these things up. Once again you go with the extreams. I have school, too. I have chores. I don't just sit around bored all day thinking of what to say next. I find you annoying, too. [quote] Think what you think, you're both just little kids [/quote]Age doesn't determin intelligence. And I'm not a little kid. And your at that sheep-like dumb college age. I guess you have to go back to your weekly drunk orgy now. So if you stereoptype me, I can easily stereotype you. What are you going to go on next? Post counts? [quote].... you don't know anything about life... and you never will with that attitude.... [/quote]It's almost funny how people will go on talking about stuff they know very little about. Is this like... what?... 3rd time I've said that? About around there. You see, YOU don't know how much I know about many upon many things. You see, just because your there, doesn't mean you know best. Very common mis-conception. [quote]people will look at you and laugh like I do and keep walkin because you're a complete waste of their time, [/quote]A generalized extream, again. You do that a lot, you know. For all you know, there is a bunch of people who agree with me who just plain don't want to post something up, because 90% of the people who I know in person agree with me, even strong demorcrats. People most commonly say: "Gee, I've never thought about it that way!" Think [u]I'm[/u] close minded? You are just as close minded as me, or any other person here. [quote] just like you are to me... so please just don't talk to me.... cause I'm just ignoring both of you from now on unless you can come up with something a little better than the absolute crap you've placed in this thread.... [/quote]Your taking what I like to call the stubborn denial. Don't know if theres an actual term for it. You here something, and you wont admit it's right, so you say "I'm right and your not, so there!" So you put it down in the same cowardly manner that many school bullies do. What was that moral story about that fox who after he tried over and over to get grapes, walks off saying that they were bad and that he didn't want them anyway? [quote]I also have several complaints against you CS from other members.... so it can't just be me... [/quote]Let me guess: Mitch? Yeah. I KNOW he probably sent one. You see, people don't get a long with eachother. There is upon plenty of people who don't get along with you. Pretty much everyone I know in person at my school doesn't agree with you. Not friends, either. People who I don't know don't agree with you. But then again, their about as sheep like as all the people who mindlessly agree with you. And define several. Chances are, these are tiny little annoyances in which a person in a bad mood sends one to you just because they know you don't like me. Then they get over it, and move on with their life because you just plain claim that I'm only a waste of time. Well, you claiming to be the superior elder because you have a job and school, I would think you would know a little more about this. I mean, how many times has an employee of your workplace gone over your head just because they didn't like you, to a boss that doesn't like you for who knows why? Really. This has happened to pretty much every person who has a job that isn't strictly white-colar, and sometimes even then. [quote] you must be doing something, which if you weren't selfishly in tune with your complete arrogance, you'd see that.[/quote] Well, if you weren't selfishly in tune with your complete arrogance, you'd see that. You find some poor little excuse to justify your actions. How pathetic. This country was also founded on slavory, too. You see, losers don't write history. Winners do. Winners always try to make themselves look better, and make those who lost look worse I.E. the cival war. You see, the sect of Islamic religion that doesn't like us is small. Thing is that they have quite the power. That's why America is shown as the "Great Saten" among the middle-eastern area. And it isn't like were giving up ALL our freedoms. We're keeping the majority. But I agree with James on this one. I really don't know anything about camp x-ray. I'll tell you that now. So you can't go on saying that I said I knew a lot when I actually didn't. But that little gray area of our laws is a very large problem. I don't know exactly how many people know this, but SIMULATED child pornography is legal. That means that if it's animated, or isn't real, then it's perfectly legal. Why? Don't know exact reason. Maybe because of where it's classified, as an animation than an actual act. But crap man! That's rediculess. I would gladly like to eliminate the entire gray area's in our government, but that isn't going to happen. There is no way of governming in which everyone will be happy. People WILL dis-agree with you. No matter what. If he were to tax-cut only the poor, and not the rich, then people would be angry. If he didn't cut at all, people wouldn't be happy. I walk around on a daily basis hearing people support partial-birth abortians, and claim that Bush is the worst thing since beastility. But they know NOTHING. They complain about tax-cuts, and they don't even know why he did it, or that it was working until 9-11. Our economy has dropped each time we've ever entered a war, or we've had a major terrorist attack. Vietnam, it dropped. The only real exception is WWI... or was it II? Well, we were in the depression, and the war brought us out of it. But the other WW brought our economy down. It brought down the economy of EVERY country that was involved. So we enter a war, our economy drops, and then it's ALL the presidents fault? Even if you don't think this now, you probably did sometime, and there is STILL people who do. There are so many rumors going around about "Alterior motives", like the Oil. Well, any fool can see we aren't going to get any money out of this. The Oil simply isn't worth it. There are even some people saying that Bush remote-controlled the planes into the buildings, and that it was all staged, and they were all actors. Sounds dumb, huh? Well, people actually believe this! My sisters English teacher actually believes this. How can you be so stupid? But some more common rumors is that he did it just to finish off his dads grudge. I seriously doubt that his dad MADE him go into politics, and become president just so he can get back at saddam. That just don't fly with me. Whether he wanted to be president or not is his choice. You cannot be forced to do what you want to, especially something like having superior decisions on the country. And even if he didn't like Saddam, I bet that Al Gore, or any other president would've attacked him. There was so much proof to back it up, that it was rediculess. It would be dumb not to attack. He was a tyrant who gassed his own village. He hasn't liked American since he came to power. Clinton actually DID bomb him at the end of his term. Why people don't remember that I don't know. Paradigms is my guess. We were attacked from the last threat that we ignored. This bigger threat was still there. He DID have weapons before, which he claimed he got rid of. So we send inspectors. They don't find anything, but Spy viechials and Satelites keep seeing truck loads of stuff be ported away from each area the inspectores were going to visit. Not just once or twise. Saddam deny's this. Then he gets a shipment of Uranium from Africa, and denys it. Seems like a pretty good reason why you would attack him IMO. But all the peace lovers feel that they should just plain ignore this, and clutter the streets wearing pink and hold up signs saying to stop the war, even though they would kill anyone who was pro-war, which is a loose un-informed term. But we do liberate Iraq. Their happy. A few loyal followers and anti-american sects chose to attack us. People flash around that they haven't found any weapons yet, or the uranium from Africa. So they go around saying Bush is a liar, even though everything your ever told could be a lie. But very recently, they DID find weapons. NEWS 13 is where I heard it. I think it was 13, anyway. Can't remember. I was home sick that day from the flu, and back problems. I got up at about... 11 or so. I was watching the news because my grandmother wanted to. So I'm watching, and then the mentioned that they found 3 factories with uranium in them, and the inspectors found that they were making war-heads in them. They were labeled as power-plants, even though the inspectors had found them making war-heads and not power. From the Uranium from Africa. They bring up a map with 3 areas marked. 2 rather close to eachother, with one quite a bit northwest from the other 2. Then they moved on like it was nothing! It took them like... 20 seconds to say that. They also mentioned it in the middle of a work day. Darn demorcratic media. But they can't be called on it because 'Oh! We did say something on it! You must of missed it." They briefly mentioned it. But then again, notice how you never hear the news go on about how they didn't find weapons anymore? Atleast not any of the medias in my area of Vegas. But many websites are still gonna claim they didn't find anything simply because they didn't hear it. But with Outlawstar69: It's a mental plan. Even though hey already have the money, the idea that they're getting more will cause them to spend more. Invest more. And it was working. It probably will still work afterwards. CEO's or not, it was working. I very seriously doubt that the tax-cuts are permanent. There was nothng that said they would be. I think our nation is doing pretty good under the circumstances. Bush has only been in office for 4 years. Our economy is going to go up after the new election, no matter which person gets elected as president. So if Bush gets elected again, the economy willl go up, and hopefully he will be redeamed as a bad president. He will make better decisions now that he has experience, and will overall do better. He has had great responsibilities. More than Clinton, Or the other Bush, or Ronald Ragen, or upon many of our presidents. So when you go into office, expecting peace and that isn't what you get, things get a little tough. I don't think gore would've done any better. Nor do I think Clintion would've, or any of the next presidents running. What happened in 9/11 is the first account of anything like that happening. Not just the war, but someone comopletely blindsiding a nation that wasn't doing anything to it! So now you have a situation, and you have to handle it, because no one else has. But if another pesident is elected, The economy will go up just because of a natural rise, and then Bush would be deemed bad, and this president good. Why no one thinks of this is beyond me. This new president isn't going to have his City be blown up by Mass Transit. He isn't gonna have to worry about Iraq because "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, Shame on me". He's gonna have more time to do other issues. But Bush is also. I really don't think Clinton was a good president. I was too young to really know anything about politics and stuff, but I do know he had many upon many affairs, which overshadowed what decisions he makes. I mean, if he commits adultry that many times, then there's a lot of things that he isn't going to tell you. He never should've slowed down the rise of our economy, which caused it to drop. Other than that and him attacking Iraq at the very end of his terrm to distract people from his affairs, I didn't know any decisions that he made because I only heard about his affairs. Also, the media was supportive of him because he was a democrat. So there going to protray him in the best light possible. BUt since Bush is a dirty republican, there's no way they can have him be any good! Try this. When someone is so Anti-Bush, ask them this: "Name one thing that Bush did good except for 9/11". You are either going to get complete silence along with stammering, or studdering. Or you will get the very stupid "He didn't do anything good. That's how bad of a president he is". Why someone is so stupid is beyond me. Actualy, no it isn't. Their being led around like sheep. It's almost funny how people go around talking about stuff they actually know very little about. 4th time saying it, and it's still fresh. But since the Media all has to go through one person, who is often strongly democratic, they will only tell their side of a story, leaving out important information. Like the first thing I heard Bush do was deny an act to.... can't remember exactly what it was, but it had to do with sanitation. It had been like... two weeks since he was president. That was the only thing that they mentioned. I guess that he just sat there and twittled his thumbs for about a week and a half until this came up, which he denied. But you don't know how much it would've cost, nor any other expenses. Everything he does, they show in the worst light and generalize it into a few words, and leave out information. His bad speech writer isn't helping. "Axis of evil" was not Bush's words. Awol bush wouldn't load up, so I'm quoting the second site. [quote] The war in Iraq might not be going quite as smoothly as the Bush administration hoped, but the war at home is going just swimmingly. War is silencing debate not just on the wisdom of Bush's foreign policy but on a host of other issues that would normally be front-page news.[/quote]The war on Iraq is barely brought up anymore. [quote] You might have missed it, but this is budget season. Thanks to the distractions of war, bizarre budget resolutions are swiftly moving through Congress and will be law by mid-April. For the first time ever in the United States, we are rushing through an immense tax cut in the midst of a war that the president admits will cost at least $74.7 billion just in its first phase. The consequence of this, not surprisingly, is massive cuts in popular outlays.[/quote] Opinion. What may seem Bizarre might actually be intelligent, and help out our economy and nation. The tax cut isn't costing 74.7 billion. The war is. They worded it so it would easily trick you. We had the tax cuts before the war. The war caused people to save their money up because they went paranoid. But they should just spend it! [quote]The budget enacted by the Republican House on a straight-line party vote (with just 12 GOP dissenters) is astonishing. It not only gives Bush his entire tax cut but proposes to balance the budget within six years. The casualties of that process would be monumentally unpopular if the public were not distracted by war.[/quote] Would they? You don't know. You can "What if" all day. Chances are, people wouldn't agree with him just because He's a republican. Thank the media for it. But if gore did the exact same things, people would agree with him, because he's democratic. Thank the media for that. And the Budget is going to be balanced in six years. The casualties of the process aren't listed, and the president after him would no-doubt continue this plan. [quote]For starters, the House Republicans are cutting, of all things, veterans benefits. The message, evidently, is God bless our troops when they are dodging bullets but God help them when they come home.[/quote] You have to cut it from somewhere, and He's not getting it all from Vets. He's got other places. It isn't like ALL veterans are losing their benifits. [/quote]Once, a grateful nation offered vets free medical care. Now, the Republicans want to charge premiums to "well-to-do" vets -- with well-to-do defined as earning $26,000 a year. All told, the House budget cuts an amazing $14.6 billion in vets' programs, including money for disabilities caused by war wounds, rehabilitation and health care, pensions for low income veterans, education and housing benefits, and even -- nice touch -- burial benefits.[quote] So this is saying that ALL republicans say yes, and all Democrats say no. This isn't the case. And they don't list how much money the vets program had in the first place, nor after the cut. If you cut money from a general area, then all the other areas in there will suffer. Their just mentioning some stuff that everyone would know. [quote]After World War II, we welcomed back vets with a huge program of education, health and housing -- the justly celebrated GI Bill of Rights. This time, returning military personnel will not only face cuts in their own benefits as veterans; their kids will face cuts in education and health aid as well. [/quote]Were not in WWII, are we? Things change in 60 years. Notice how they say cut, and not removal? You still get benifits. Just not as many. And it isn't always that their kids will need health aid. Our education is just fine where it is. A bunch of students are just un-willing. They don't even mention how much of a TEMPORARY cut in education that they will have, nor how much they had in the first place. [quote]One of Bush's signature programs was "No Child Left Behind." The House Republican budget cuts education funding by 10.2 percent below the reduced level proposed by President Bush, which had proposed to cut several billion previously approved by Congress.[/quote]They didn't do a good job on defining below reduced. Does that mean that their cutting more off than what Bush proposed, or less? And the "No Child Left Behind" was as stated before in this thread: Supposed to reward good schools, and not penalize bad ones, which it was twisted around and ended up becomeing. [quote]The Bush administration claims that the war is being fought to make sure weapons of mass destruction will not rain down on Americans. Incredibly, the Republicans are shortchanging the Nunn-Lugar program, the bipartisan effort to dismantle the nuclear arsenal of the former Soviet Union. Which is the bigger threat: Russia's thousands of loose nukes or Saddam's hypothetical ones? [/quote]Iraq is in better shape than Russia, FYI. After the Soviet Union Collapsed, their Economy Plummited. Right now, Russia is in so much trouble with their own nation that they couldn't afford to attack us. They are also not nearly as aggressive to us as they were in the past, mainly because their country is chest-deep in crap. Saddam, who was one of the richest men in the world, is in plenty more shape to attack us than Russia is. [quote]There's more: $93 billion in Medicaid cuts; a skimpy prescription drug program financed by other massive cuts in Medicare; huge environmental cuts.[/quote] This is including vets, BTW. There is a lot of fields in Medicine, and Doctors are some of the most well-paid people in the world. They are once again not stating how much they originally had. And is it really Skimpy? And how huge of an enviromental cut are they talking about? They don't list that. And nature is depleting greatly on a dialy bases each day. Fund it or not, it's still going to go. [quote] As astonishing as the slap to veterans is a slight cut in real outlays for homeland security -- at a time when threats will increase. There is no new money for port security. Even the administration's "first-responder" initiative comes from cuts in other law enforcement aid. [/quote]For having a cut in Security, we certianly do have a whole lot of it. Notice how they said "Slight cut". And they don't tell you if the "First-Responder" is worth it. It is probably helping out more than where it's getting "Slight cuts" from. They aren't telling you how much they cut, nor how much they originally had. The law-enforcement aid seems just fine. I didn't notice a shortage of cops anywhere. This is the only place that brings this up. And we increased security before. Would this "Cut" be lowering it a little? There hasn't been any complaints about lack of Law enforcement. [quote]Though the war serves as a handy distraction, these budget assaults are not mainly the result of war. Mainly they go to pay for the cost of tax cuts. The final cost of the war, occupation and rebuilding may reach $200 billion. The cost of the two Bush tax cuts is over $3 trillion. (In a preliminary vote, the Senate voted yesterday to trim Bush's latest tax cut by $350 billion, but this still would have to be reconciled with the House.)[/quote] Un-informed. I've said it over a thousand times: The tax cuts were working UNTIL the war, and now it backfired. Remeber: Every buisness loses money at first. It could very easily come back and more than redeam itself in the near future, as long as terrorists don't attack us again. You see, the war actually made the tax cuts be a problem. It's like you were building a building. Sure, you spent a little money on it, and then you were starting to earn money off of it, then it gets poisoned and now you have to spend a whole lot of money on it now, and all it's employees. Saying that it was all the buildings fault is dumb. Saying that it was ALL the tax-cuts is dumb. And I am seriously doubting that it would cost $3 trilion, because if it did, our nation would go bankrupt and we would plunge into chaos, which we aren't doing. [quote]This administration's slogan might as well be, "Sacrifice is for suckers." While young men and women risk their lives in a war whose rationale remains to be proven, the larger Bush program diverts money from services to ordinary Americans, even our homeland security -- to give tax breaks to multimillionaires.[/quote]Un-informed. It was proven to be necisary, because they found the weapons. They just once again didn't know it. It isn't a diversion from ordinary Americans. It was a laxitive from multi-millionaires. The war caused us to get money from ordinary Americans. [quote]Meanwhile, Vice President Dick Cheney's former company, Halliburton, stands to make a pile of money as a military contractor in Iraq, while Richard Perle, one of the architects of the Iraq war, is to receive $725,000 as a consultant to a telecom company seeking regulatory approval from the Pentagon.[/quote]I really don't get what the point is here. With all these billions, a little over half a million doesn't seem like a big thing. [quote]War is never good for democratic deliberation. That's why it's so good for this administration, whose policies would otherwise not withstand public scrutiny.[/quote][sarcasm]Yeah, sure! Every republican wants war! Lets just go pick a fight with some other country now![/sacasm] Lesson of the day: If we weren't ever attacked, our country would've been in great condition, and we would've never had to go to war with Iraq. Our tax-cut plan wouldn't of been smashed. [quote]One final issue lost in the fog of war is the effort by tax reformers to close the loophole that allows unpatriotic U.S. companies to move to offshore tax havens. The IRS puts the cost to the U.S. Treasury at around $70 billion a year -- about the direct cost of the Iraq war. It's an instructive contrast: ordinary American soldiers slogging through the sands of Iraq while Bush's corporate cronies relax on a sandy, tax-free beach.[/quote] That means their trying to close the loophole to get our money up. Don't they see that? But because of our little policies, we can't do that. And Bush isn't relaxing with his Cronies on a sandy beach without cost. He's spending money to try to help our nation. This person would've studdered and stamored when trying to say anything good about Bush. The war is also over-shadowing anything GOOD about Bush, too. But someone seems to not mention that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rttocs77 Posted November 24, 2003 Share Posted November 24, 2003 It's just that the ONLY two people that are making a fuss about are Australian, so there ya go. They are not breaking any laws, they just think it is unfair and they are all pissed off because two of 'their own people' are being held there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transtic Nerve Posted November 24, 2003 Share Posted November 24, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Crimson Spider [/i] [B]::insert insanely long post that no one will read::[/B][/QUOTE] I guess you don't know how to read James post, or mine. I asked you to stop talking to me, this doesn't mean to continue responding... I'm done with you. James even asked us to stop argueing, yet you continue.... And no, to resond to one legitimate thing you said, I haven't changed my thinking about anything here. You don't know what I think and just because I don't say it, doesn't mean I'm not thinking it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted November 25, 2003 Share Posted November 25, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by rttocs77 [/i] [B]It's just that the ONLY two people that are making a fuss about are Australian, so there ya go. They are not breaking any laws, they just think it is unfair and they are all pissed off because two of 'their own people' are being held there. [/B][/QUOTE] [color=#707875]Have you been living under a rock? The British Government as well as other countries have complained about their citizens being detained in Cuba. So that's the first point. The second point is very simple; if two Americans were held by Australian authorities under vague laws, would [i]you[/i] be upset? Probably. Don't be so self-centered. As I said, I believe that the first detainee should suffer whatever fate America has in store for him. I think he deserves to be prosecuted for his involvement in various wars. As I said, he's a complete nut. The second guy is a different case. The situation surrounding him is very vague. So I think it's reasonable that our Government would ask for evidence and would request that he be returned to Australia -- whether for prosecution or something else, who knows. Regarding the Patriot Act...Chris, what freedoms of yours are being violated? Have you directly experienced a removal of personal freedoms as a result of the Patriot Act? You seem to be talking about very vague things here. "That's what our country was founded on". That's all fine and good, but would you rather sit there and talk about your founding fathers, or stop a few thousand people from being murdered? Believe me, I understand your position -- especially when I know that minorities are always fighting for civil rights. You know how strongly I feel about that. Yet at the same time, I can support stronger security measures. I don't believe that these measures significantly impede people's personal freedoms. I haven't seen examples of where someone has been directly blocked from doing something that they could have done yesterday, as a result of these laws. From my perspective, it seems that most of these laws relate to criminal investigation and communications monitoring. And even then, there are limits on these laws; they aren't all-encompassing, as far as law enforcement agencies go.[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maully Posted November 25, 2003 Share Posted November 25, 2003 [color=green]Is this the way the thread is going to go? Quite Frankly, CS, your posts are tedious... I agree with TN on every aspect of what he's said in this thread, but I am above petty squbbling until right now. Your posts are inane and you are not making any points with your "bring it on atitude". You make 2 page long post, which you point out yourself, and yet there is little point to them other than to try and pick a fight with TN. That is not what this is about. I realize that you politics clash, but there are civilized ways to go about them, and you seem to have so much animousity and anger. You points are lost in your attitude. Try poting something of a mangeable length, then maybe people wouldn't skip over it and lump your posts into a one sentence reply... Now, on to my opinions: As to the American Patriot Act, I hate it. I think it is an outragiously overboard effort, and I don't want to be put on a list somewhere because of what I check out at the library or what I talk about on my cell phone. I am not a terrorist, but with my reading lists I could be tagged and probably already have. The people in Guantanimo Bay: They are being held without charges, without counsil without trial dates, and without being able to contact anyone. It's not just the Australians that are raising a stink about it either... I really don't have anything else at this time...[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted November 25, 2003 Share Posted November 25, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Molleta [/i] [B][color=green] As to the American Patriot Act, I hate it. I think it is an outragiously overboard effort, and I don't want to be put on a list somewhere because of what I check out at the library or what I talk about on my cell phone. I am not a terrorist, but with my reading lists I could be tagged and probably already have. [/color] [/B][/QUOTE] [color=#707875]With all due respect, Molleta, I find this to be one of the problematic aspects of this debate. What you've said here is really very emotional...but it's also kind of moving into conspiracy territory. If your communications had been intercepted and you'd been "tagged" as a terrorist, you'd probably know about it. I took the liberty of looking at the [i]actual[/i] Patriot Act documentation, published by the 107th Congress on October 24, 2001. Obviously, the actual contents of the act are enormous. So what I will do is provide a summary of sections covered in the act:[/color] [quote][b]TITLE I--ENHANCING DOMESTIC SECURITY AGAINST TERRORISM[/b] [b]TITLE II--ENHANCED SURVEILLANCE PROCEDURES[/b] TITLE III--INTERNATIONAL MONEY LAUNDERING ABATEMENT AND ANTI-TERRORIST FINANCING ACT OF 2001 TITLE IV--PROTECTING THE BORDER [b]TITLE V--REMOVING OBSTACLES TO INVESTIGATING TERRORISM[/b] TITLE VI--PROVIDING FOR VICTIMS OF TERRORISM, PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS, AND THEIR FAMILIES TITLE VII--INCREASED INFORMATION SHARING FOR CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION TITLE VIII--STRENGTHENING THE CRIMINAL LAWS AGAINST TERRORISM TITLE IX--IMPROVED INTELLIGENCE TITLE X--MISCELLANEOUS[/quote] [color=#707875]These are the primary articles of the act, which are then subdivided into more specific categories. I've bolded the articles that you seem to disagree with. I'll expand on those just a little. [b]TITLE I--ENHANCING DOMESTIC SECURITY AGAINST TERRORISM[/b] There are the subdivisions: Sec. 101. Counterterrorism fund. Sec. 102. Sense of Congress condemning discrimination against Arab and Muslim Americans. Sec. 103. Increased funding for the technical support center at the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Sec. 104. Requests for military assistance to enforce prohibition in certain emergencies. Sec. 105. Expansion of National Electronic Crime Task Force Initiative. Sec. 106. Presidential authority. [b]TITLE II--ENHANCED SURVEILLANCE PROCEDURES[/b] Sec. 201. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to terrorism. Sec. 202. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to computer fraud and abuse offenses. Sec. 203. Authority to share criminal investigative information. Sec. 204. Clarification of intelligence exceptions from limitations on interception and disclosure of wire, oral, and electronic communications. Sec. 205. Employment of translators by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Sec. 206. Roving surveillance authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. Sec. 207. Duration of FISA surveillance of non-United States persons who are agents of a foreign power. Sec. 208. Designation of judges. Sec. 209. Seizure of voice-mail messages pursuant to warrants. Sec. 210. Scope of subpoenas for records of electronic communications. Sec. 211. Clarification of scope. Sec. 212. Emergency disclosure of electronic communications to protect life and limb. Sec. 213. Authority for delaying notice of the execution of a warrant. Sec. 214. Pen register and trap and trace authority under FISA. Sec. 215. Access to records and other items under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Sec. 216. Modification of authorities relating to use of pen registers and trap and trace devices. Sec. 217. Interception of computer trespasser communications. Sec. 218. Foreign intelligence information. Sec. 219. Single-jurisdiction search warrants for terrorism. Sec. 220. Nationwide service of search warrants for electronic evidence. Sec. 221. Trade sanctions. Sec. 222. Assistance to law enforcement agencies. Sec. 223. Civil liability for certain unauthorized disclosures. Sec. 224. Sunset. Sec. 225. Immunity for compliance with FISA wiretap. [b]TITLE V--REMOVING OBSTACLES TO INVESTIGATING TERRORISM[/b] Sec. 501. Attorney General's authority to pay rewards to combat terrorism. Sec. 502. Secretary of State's authority to pay rewards. Sec. 503. DNA identification of terrorists and other violent offenders. Sec. 504. Coordination with law enforcement. Sec. 505. Miscellaneous national security authorities. Sec. 506. Extension of Secret Service jurisdiction. Sec. 507. Disclosure of educational records. Sec. 508. Disclosure of information from NCES surveys. Okay, so, there are the primary articles and summaries of the sections contained within them. As I said, these are the articles that would seem to be the most controversial. It's worth pointing out that around 50% of this act actually relates to international activities; particularly terrorist financing, intelligence gathering and information sharing between agencies. Of the domestic portion of the act, it looks like about another half relates to responses to terrorist threats/actions as well as security coordination and a tightening of restrictions on banks, as well as an increased requirement for information sharing between banks, educational facilities and security services. Without copying and pasting the [i]entire[/i] act here, there are specific areas that I'd like to show you.[/color] [quote]`(2) MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS- The regulations shall, at a minimum, require financial institutions to implement, and customers (after being given adequate notice) to comply with, reasonable procedures for-- `(A) verifying the identity of any person seeking to open an account to the extent reasonable and practicable; `(B) maintaining records of the information used to verify a person's identity, including name, address, and other identifying information; and [b]`(C) consulting lists of known or suspected terrorists or terrorist organizations provided to the financial institution by any government agency to determine whether a person seeking to open an account appears on any such list. [/b] `(3) FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED- In prescribing regulations under this subsection, the Secretary shall take into consideration the various types of accounts maintained by various types of financial institutions, the various methods of opening accounts, and the various types of identifying information available. [/quote] [color=#707875]This section of the act relates to opening bank accounts and verifying one's identity for transactions. I highlighted point C, because I felt that it related to what you were talking about somewhat. It relates to your identity being crosschecked with existing lists of terrorist suspects. In this case, I don't see a problem. If you [i]were[/i] on a terrorist list, you'd know about it. The Government isn't going to hide it from you and suddenly come and grab you when you're on your way to school or something. It just doesn't work that way. There is plenty more to discuss with this one act, but I did want to take the opportunity to point out a few major aspects of it. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. In particular, I don't believe that this act is the violation of civil liberties that many say it is. And if any of you have seen my comments on civil rights before, you [i]know[/i] that I care very much about them. So I don't say this lightly.[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juu Posted November 25, 2003 Share Posted November 25, 2003 [color=deeppink] [size=1]I consider myself a democrat, but Howard Dean isn't exactly #1 on my list, either. However, I don't support Bush whatsoever. There's more people dying in Iraq now than during the war, and more and more people in Iraq are starting to believe they were better off with Saddam. Plus, it's not really a surprise they're opposing. I'm sure any other countries people would fight back if someone just marched into their country. And even though the troops have helped improve schools and such, it doesn't seem like they're getting as much respect. I keep seeing people getting shoved to the ground aggressively with a gun pointed at their necks for questioning, and you wonder 'why are they trying to kill us?'. - .-;;;; But it does seem stupid how alot of people are saying Bush is stupid when they don't even watch the news at all. I've even had someone say 'Bush is stupid because he didn't catch Saddam bin Laden'. However, the whole 'war against terrorism' seems really stupid to me. First of all, it's like they're saying that the Middle East is the only place where terrorists come from. And what's worse? I was watching the news the other day, and right after talking about the improvements in Iraq, they said '...although the Bush admininstration has confirmed the attacks on 9/11 were not from Iraq. Moving on to sports...'. - .-;;;;;; So about 70% of the people I know/heard talking on the street still think the attacks on 9/11 had to do with Iraq. [/color] [/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crimson Spider Posted November 25, 2003 Share Posted November 25, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Molleta [/i] [color=green]Is this the way the thread is going to go? Quite Frankly, CS, your posts are tedious... I agree with TN on every aspect of what he's said in this thread, but I am above petty squbbling until right now. Your posts are inane and you are not making any points with your "bring it on atitude". [/color][/QUOTE]Not making any points? Have you even read my posts? I have made plenty of points, like the fact that you don't ever hear the whole story, and people word and manipulate what they say to make things seem worse, or the fact like that since our media was so eager to be against Bush, that they vaguely mentioned the fact that we [u]did[/u] find weapons in Iraq. [quote][color=green] You make 2 page long post, which you point out yourself, and yet there is little point to them other than to try and pick a fight with TN.[/color] [/quote]Being led around like a sheep. You see, I only devoted the first part of my post to TN, and the rest to other stuff. Don't think I'm so paranoid that I have to devote entire posts to nothing but him. My posts contain multiple subjects in them, just like this one will. [quote] That is not what this is about. I realize that you politics clash, but there are civilized ways to go about them, and you seem to have so much animousity and anger. Your points are lost in your attitude.[/quote] Last time I checked, I'm not angry. Where you came up with this assumption I don't know. You just refuse to see my points. [quote][color=green]Try posting something of a mangeable length, then maybe people wouldn't skip over it and lump your posts into a one sentence reply...[/color][/quote] It really doesn't take that long to read the post. Not reading it would just be being lazy. *waits for TN to jump on it like it's absolute proof* But right now, I recently saw the news on Yucca mountain. There are going to be a bunch of protestors lining up to go against Bush. They don't even know the facts. No. 1: Yucca mountain is in the middle of No Where. There isn't any water sources, except for one that is quite far underground and isn't used for drinking. There isn't any life. Any people living there. Nothing. No. 2: Currently, Radioactive waste that they would stick there is a whole lot closer to people than it will be when they move there. No. 3: Yucca mountain is a salt mine, where if they were to bury the Radioactive waste there, it would be encased in a soot-tomb. No. 4: The cases that the radioactive waste is contained in is nearly unbreakable. The only reason why there's any debate on it is that Yucca mountain is possibly geologically active. Well, if they find it to be, then just stick it to the mountain next to it. But apparently the people here are just plain idiots. These protestors are wheeling around paper-machette radioactive barrels, and carrieng signs around acting like they're going to be poisoned by radioactive waste. As far as the Vegas community is concerned, as long as the radioactive waste isn't in our desolate state, were happy. Just get it out of our state, and we'll be glad. But too bad they don't know that it WILL be in our state, whether they like it or not. And they go around saying it's Bushes fault. Unfortunatly they don't realize that it isn't really his decision. It was the Governer of Nevada who agreed with it. But they're going to do some more research, and consider other sites. But the attacks on Iraq were provoked by 9/11. Like I said: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, Shame on me". Being struck by 9/11 kinda opened our eyes a little. We had spy-sattelite proof, too. We have to be aggressive to them, because otherwise they won't talk. And there are 5 steps that a person goes through during interrogation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cloricus Posted November 25, 2003 Share Posted November 25, 2003 [quote]Regarding the Patriot Act...Chris, what freedoms of yours are being violated?[/quote]I'm not disagreeing with opinions or attacking any one in this post just showing people another possible (bad?) side of the act. I personally don't like the door way the Patriot Act opened, I mean look at it. It is a law aimed at giving the people who hold it more power which they have no need to use now and possibly not in the future. It was snuck in because people were afraid to question it. At the time (just after the attack on WTC/Pentagon) if any one had stood up and said "This is bad!" the government would have just called them unpatriotic which would cut out anything they said after to most Americans like in so many other cases. Just look at its name, the whole thing was put together (as I recall) to act as if it was in the interest of all the people without adverse effects. Though back to the implication, if a government can bring some thing in like that it's going to. Don't believe me? Look at the aptly named "Son of Patriot" which gives the American government stupidly large amounts of power over its own citizens and people over seas! Still not convinced; look closer to the Australian Anti-Spam Bill which gives the Government the right to search a victim?s house and take equipment without a warrant and with only consent from basically any one who has something to do with the house all because some one sent them a single spam email. It also without fully explained definitions allows the laws in the act to be used in cases of other offences, even possibly to by pass our "phone tapping guidelines". So there might not have been anything to bad in Patriot but it gives an amazing test case to prove that that way of sneaking laws in works and if done right can get anything in. [Added] Crimson your post was nearly 5000 words yet barely pointed out anything, you need learn to write in a direct and to the point manor. If you plan to write in a debate you need to have short (compared to that length) responses that give the others incentive to hear/read your opinion and reply. Use this place to learn to write in this fashion like so many of the others including myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts