Bush's America asks: Why us? by Ghoulman

Quote:
Originally posted by JimNightshade:
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
In all seriousness, these threads are almost getting boring as defeating the pro-Bushies has almost become like shooting fish in a barrel.

You only think you "win" arguments because you agree with yourself. Of course you would think that. We have a difference in opinion, that's obvious. Even John Kerry knew Saddam was a threat and thats why in 2003 he voted to go to war. The US is safer without Saddam and with a free Afghanistan.

The only reason I had posted on this thread is because someone on this board seems to only want to start posts on his political beliefs. I am all for expressing what you believe in, but do so in the right venue. Is a website dedicated to a (one of the best, if not the best) TV show the right venue? I would answer no. This thread wont change anyone's mind. The fact is everyone has their own ideals and beliefs.

But I will say that I am glad I live in a country where we have the freedom to all discuss our concerns about our goverment openly with one another, even if we disagree.

Your problem is that you use the word "belief" *a lot*. I use facts to make my decisions and that is the difference.

I have read news papers not only from my own country but from others as well. I know that the *facts* do *not* support your belief. But, that is fine as long as you know that it's just unfounded belief.

I know that we "win" because we present the *facts* and no-one is able to prove them wrong. They just bring up parallel but unralated arguments to try to side track the discusion. When that doesn't work they leave.

I'll admit that there is right and wrong in some places. For example, the WMD issue has been settled in "our" favour (among *all* others) as there weren't any found. So, much for all that "exact" "intellegence".

The US is actually less safe now as the bombing that you guys have done over there has converted a country into a recuiting hot spot for the terrorists. Over there, if someone in your family is killed then you must revenge or you are not respected (source: interview with an Iraqi M.D. on CBC Sunday).

Saddam was never a thread to the US. Hell, he wasn't even a thread anymore to his neighbours. Looks like all those resolutions and sanctions (diplomacy) worked with regards to dis-arming him, eh?

No-one should be using Afghanistan as an example right now. The place is almost a lost cause. We went in with there being ~50,000 Taliban troops and when the dust settled there where about 40,000 Taliban troops that went into the hills (source: interview CIA agent on CBC Sunday). This has made *a lot* of no travel zones outside of the, what, one or two held cities? The countryside is chaos! And since most of the country is countryside, I'd say that the future is quite dim there. To bad the US had to pull out there troops and divert them to Iraq, eh? (source: any reliable news paper)

And according to your own government you cannot discuss freely your concerns about them. After all, to critize your president in war-time is not patriotic, right?

Sorry, but your arguments don't hold water to me. Actually, they just don't hold water at all.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

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

Friday, October 1, 2004 4:21 AM

BOYD

I have this exact argument with this American bloke down the road every other day... You are not going to change his mind any time soon. He just eventually stops inviting you around for tea and his wife starts bitching about you!
But its amusing me so keep arguing!

And when your tired come down to New Zealand and enjoy our nuclear and war free country!

Vote Kerry '04

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

Friday, October 1, 2004 4:29 AM

BOYD

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Jim,

The only thing we seem to have in common is a desire to see Saddam tried for his many crimes.

But I would also like to see the Americans responsible for supporting him, while he was commiting these crimes, on trial beside him.

The US, Britian, and France all provided weapons, training, intel support, aircraft... before, during and after these crimes were committed ???

So why not offer the ones who supported this to trial as accessorys to mass murder?

Comments?

Sadly most of us allied nations have helped in someway or another. Should Saddam be tried for his crimes to humanity? Definitely. Should the countries and individuals who funded him be brought to justice? Definitely! For that is the 'reason' *cough* OIL *cough* Bush went after Afghanistan isnt it? To bring those who funded (and supported) Osama Bin Laden to 'justice'.

Double Standards Blow

Cheers
Boyd

Vote Kerry '04

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

Friday, October 1, 2004 4:32 AM

DACUTE1

I just have to tell this. I was working at a Ren. Fest this summer and listened in on a conversation between some of the actors. One of which commented that he was talking with a young girl, maybe 5-years-old.

The little girl told the actor that she was hoping that we would reelect Bush, because, I quote "Daddy says if we reelect Bush we're moving to Australia, and there's beaches in Australia."

Sorry, the invitation to New Zealand reminded me of that.

Kaylee: Wash, tell me I'm pretty
Wash: Were I unwed I would take you in a manly fashion
Kaylee: 'Cause I'm pretty?
Wash: 'Cause you're pretty

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

Friday, October 1, 2004 4:34 AM

BEENWITHAWARRIORWOMAN

What did you guys, if you saw them, think of the debates last night? I was very disappointed in Kerry, and totally unsurprised by Bush. The man has no command of the English language and nothing of substance to say. Kerry wasn't much better.
Mostly, it seemed to me they spent the evening playing down things the other said they did and flinging poop at one another. Thoughts?

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

Friday, October 1, 2004 5:43 AM

" Your problem is that you use the word "belief" *a lot*. I use facts to make my decisions and that is the difference. "

So did Bush during the debate.....

I BELIEVE

if Bush wins you all are screwed

" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "

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

Friday, October 1, 2004 6:29 AM

Bush was relying on the same few, out of context, "facts" over and over again. He hasn't had anything new to say in a long time.

Kerry was better, I thought, but still disappointing. But I would also partially attribute that to the fact that they were asking the same one question over and over in different forms and practically inviting the candidates to beat up on each other.

I'm sorry, but that is not a debate.

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

Friday, October 1, 2004 6:34 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

That's the thing about "belief" - nothing as unpleasant as "reality" ever seeps in.

Global warming??? POOF! Doesn't exist!

WMD??? POOF! They're someplace else!

Disappearing jobs??? POOF!! Not a factor!

Jim's head lives in a world of "belief and ideals". So does Bush's. Too bad for him. Too bad for us.

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

Friday, October 1, 2004 6:39 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

BTW- I listened to the debates rather than watching so I missed all of the body language. But overall, I thought Bush did terribly. He sounded defensive and lost. There were a couple of moments when he sounded just like a whiny teenager rationalizing something to his dad (Kerry) when he said "I know that. I know we were attacked by Al Qiada" and the other time when he was defending multilateral talks with N Korea.

And Bush kept saying "It's hard work". This must be the first time he's ever encountered that phenomenon. So what does he want for finally doing some work- a medal?

I alos think that Kerry made an extremely important point when he said that the Middle Eastern countries and Europe ALL have a stake in a stable Iraq. And they do. If America pulls out, they would HAVE to step in. If I were President, I would simply say- "We're pulling out most of our troops. You're going to step in, but you're alos going to get a piece of the reconstruction pie." I think it's a deal that Europe would HAVE to go for.

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

Friday, October 1, 2004 6:45 AM

lol. SignyM, I completely agree. My friends and I watched it and we were continually making fun of Bush's guilty expression. He always had that "But...but...but...!" look and his responses were just variations on each other. When he spoke, though, he adopted that self-righteous look and that occasional smug grin that I hate so much.

Kerry looked smug as well...but that's just cuz Bush wasn't doing very well on rebuttals.

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

Friday, October 1, 2004 7:42 AM

ARAWAEN

Quote:
Originally posted by RocketJock:
Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:

I am appalled at how many Americans, Christians no less, are glad we invaded Iraq. The love of Jesus, turning the other cheek - where did that go?

My non-Christian friends are the ones opposed to the war. It's kind of strange.

It's not so strange. American Christians are so used to having the power of the majority on their side that they forget that the teachings of the Nazarine aren't about getting the biggest hammer to slam your foes with.

Ask any Anerican Non-Christian, especially one who belongs to a small sect. Ask Wiccans, Pagans, Deists. American Christians take it for granted that they're right because there are more of them than anybody else. It's the same reason Americans are so lousy at learning foreign languages, I think. -- Why bother, when 2/3rds of your continent speaks English?

It isn't quite fair to lump all Christians together. There are numerous denominations and several competing theologies that make them quite a diverse group (not unlike Islam, Buddhism, etc.) Combine this with the fact that people tend to be hypocritical, regardless of the specific belief system they profess and you can get all kinds of behavior.

Absolute pacifism has only been practiced by a few Christian sects, most have been more moderate in their approach. Compromising belief with so-called practicality is hardly limited to Christianity either.

I don't support the war in Iraq, I think the national security issue at stake is oil, not terrorism. I don't think the world is safer with one despot removed, on the simple grounds that as long as the world powers are willing to support these brutal dictators and assist them in obtaining and retaining power there will be no shortage of them. At the same time the resolution to attack Iraq was passed overwhelmingly so I don't limit my dismay to the Bush regime.

By some definitions I am Christian even though I no longer go to church, having lost my faith in the redeemability of mankind, I wouldn't be offended if classification was doubted.

Homines quod volunt credunt
-- Julius Caesar

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

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

Friday, October 1, 2004 10:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I alos think that Kerry made an extremely important point when he said that the Middle Eastern countries and Europe ALL have a stake in a stable Iraq. And they do. If America pulls out, they would HAVE to step in. If I were President, I would simply say- "We're pulling out most of our troops. You're going to step in, but you're alos going to get a piece of the reconstruction pie." I think it's a deal that Europe would HAVE to go for.

Mind you there is the other school of thought...

If the American Military is tied up in an Iraqi meat grinder for the indefinate future, then the reasources to make trouble elsewhere will not be readibly available.

Hell, I would pull NATO out of Afganistan and leave that for them to clean up as well.

If your going to hand out pie.... shouldn't it be your pie to start with ?

Besides once the US is defeated the victors would look upon the neutral part of Europe ready to hand out their own contracts, sending their companys in now would only cause them to loose face... and heads

" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "

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

Friday, October 1, 2004 11:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Boyd:

But its amusing me so keep arguing!

Will do

Quote:
Originally posted by Boyd:

And when your tired come down to New Zealand and enjoy our nuclear and war free country!

Thank you for the invite, and we do plan on one day going there for a vacation. But, we quite like it here in Canada

The wife is still doing term work though, so maybe I'll end up living there for a few years. Wouldn't mind a bit

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

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

Friday, October 1, 2004 11:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by beenwithawarriorwoman:

I was very disappointed in Kerry, and totally unsurprised by Bush. The man has no command of the English language and nothing of substance to say.

So, true!

Quote:
Originally posted by beenwithawarriorwoman:

Kerry wasn't much better.

I don't know what you were watching, but from what I saw (and everyone outside of the US by the news reports) Kerry *crushed* Bush. To me, that means quite a bit better.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

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

Friday, October 1, 2004 11:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

If I were President, I would simply say- "We're pulling out most of our troops. You're going to step in, but you're alos going to get a piece of the reconstruction pie." I think it's a deal that Europe would HAVE to go for.

Would will make the US more or less liked around the world?

Wait a go, you just made the US's forgien policy worst. Did think that was possible.

There is also a word for what you would do. It's called, blackmail.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

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

Friday, October 1, 2004 11:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
[B Kerry *crushed* Bush. To me, that means quite a bit better.

The way I see it, *I* coulda crushed Bush. My kid brother coulda crushed Bush. Hell, my dog...hehe. You get the picture. Compared to Bush, yes, Kerry did very well. But when looked at isolated from the BushMonkeyMan factor, Kerry coulda done a lot better.

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

Friday, October 1, 2004 11:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:

I don't think the world is safer with one despot removed, on the simple grounds that as long as the world powers are willing to support these brutal dictators and assist them in obtaining and retaining power there will be no shortage of them.

This is only one aspect of the problem. The whole problem cannot be simplified to these terms.

Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:

At the same time the resolution to attack Iraq was passed overwhelmingly so I don't limit my dismay to the Bush regime.

Qualify this, because I know that the UN didn't.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

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

Friday, October 1, 2004 11:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirikoli:

The way I see it, *I* coulda crushed Bush. My kid brother coulda crushed Bush. Hell, my dog...hehe. You get the picture.

LOL, indeed

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirikoli:

But when looked at isolated from the BushMonkeyMan factor, Kerry coulda done a lot better.

What exactly do you mean by this?

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

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

Friday, October 1, 2004 11:44 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Blackmail???

Ooops! You're right, I guess! I'm looking at it from an entirely US view, so it's always good to get another opinion.

OTOH, the USA could sweeten it with a LOT of reconstruction contracts, a policy that promises to lean on Israel and Saudi Arabia, and perhaps make some other adjustments in trade or foreign policy.. maybe sigbing the Kyoto Protocol or the Land Mine treaty, or promising to do some generic good that really DOES make the world safer- like rounding up loose nuclear material.

I honestly don't see Europe waiting for Iraq to become a failed state. Even if (when) the USA is defeated, it doesn't mean there will be a clear set of victors in Iraq. It would probably develop that nobody would be "in charge" and since Europe depends on imported oil as much or moe than we do, wouldn't they have an interest in seeing Iraq oil exports resume?

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

Friday, October 1, 2004 11:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirikoli:

But when looked at isolated from the BushMonkeyMan factor, Kerry coulda done a lot better.

What exactly do you mean by this?

Um...just that I thought that Kerry's answers, while good compared to Bush's, were not up to his usual standards.

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

Friday, October 1, 2004 11:59 AM

" since Europe depends on imported oil as much or moe than we do, wouldn't they have an interest in seeing Iraq oil exports resume? "

A little less actually if you check this out

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/ene_oil_imp_net/EUR

Russia alone would likely supply these needs, Russia has a ton of resources but is shy on cash for development and high tech. Europe has the high tech, the support industry, and the cash.
Give it twenty years, Russia will be a full EU member, and if Bush keeps going, the replacement for the US in NATO.

" the USA could sweeten it with a LOT of reconstruction contracts"

paid for with Iraqi oil ?

" or promising to do some generic good that really DOES make the world safer "

Assuming credibilty which no longer exists

" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "

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

Friday, October 1, 2004 1:01 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Yes, but with China coming on-line the world oil supply is going to be very very tight. China is already in negotiation with Russia.

No, actually paid for by US tax dollars.

US credibility in the world? I know Bush doesn't have any, Kerry might, tho.

Well, maybe I'm just dreaming that the USA can avoid complete disaster. I guess my patriotism is showing! But if Bush gets re-elected, I'm headin' for the border- ANY border!

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

Friday, October 1, 2004 1:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

No, actually paid for by US tax dollars.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26310-2004Jul3.html

I know its from last July... but it is pretty up to date still

" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "

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

Friday, October 1, 2004 5:48 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I have been and still am awash in a project. I haven't forgotten about a promise I made to show that Bush (and his administration) deliberately lied to go into Iraq. But it will be weeks before I'm done with this job.

I have been scanning the posts from time to time, and they bring me honest delight. I truly enjoy the perspectives and the wit.

I saw most of the debate. I thought Kerry had a better command of the facts, and that he came across as sincere, but serious. Bush ran between folksy and petulant, visibly hunting for stock talking points to apply to the questions at hand.
But I saw some 'undecideds' being interviewed and I came to the conclusion that for them it's not about issues, they want to be swept off their feet. Neither Kerry's message nor his delivery are about to do any sweeping, while Bush, with his simple rhetoric and frequent smiles comes across as reassuring.
Kerry did a good job giving people reasons to vote for him. But people **want** to believe what they hear on the news (it's all better and better every day in every way). That they don't truly believe and do harbor unease makes them seek reassurance.
In my opinion, Kerry needs to do more than give people reasons to vote for him, he needs to give people reasons to throw Bush out. The issues have been already framed and he's not going to get traction redefining them (Iraq - it's STILL our problem?). So he needs to personally portray Bush as a short-sighted wheeler-dealer and opportunist. And Kerry needs to smile more. Basically, he has to point out whenever Bush ducks a question, or answers with a half-truth, in a casual, friendly way, of course.
Though, one of my co-workers took off his glasses and, looking straight at me said Kerry SHOULD have said : "Bush lied"; but with such a delivery it sent chills down my spine (I ain't kidding.)
So maybe there's room for a strong, plain, condemnation.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 2, 2004 4:15 AM

BOJESPHOB

Why I am voting for NEITHER candidate:

I have come to realize that the two party system is NOT what the US is. Unfortunately, that is what everybody is brainwashed into believing. MAYBE if people started voting for the right person for the job instead of the "Only other guy" for Pres, we wouldn't have the problems that we are having. Too bad they fill us with the crap that they do. Anyhow, VOTE FOR SOMEBODY ELSE!!!!! And I don't mean Nader!! Do some research, find the person who will best run this country, then vote for them! Not the morons they have us trying to vote in now! Bush is power hungry, and guess what, Kerry's no better! (Do your own research, don't just take somebody's word on it) I wouldn't trust Kerry with my $700 camera, let alone the country!

and for the seperation of Church and State question, no, the seperation is of State from Church, not Church from State.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That means that they cannot make a law that says that everybody has to be part of a religion to be American. It also says that everyone can FREELY exercise their religion. Basically, if a judge in Alabama wants to put up the Ten Commandments, he's allowed to because he's practicing his religion! BUT, he cannot say that everyone has to follow them! That's the differance. If the people say that they want the Ten Commandments in the yard of a courthouse, they are allowed. The goverment is for the people, of the people, and by the people. Those people that live there have the right to decide what goes in THEIR property. The people own the courthouse, the land around it and the street that runs in front of it. That's what taxes go to. The government owns NOTHING, because it itself belongs to the people.

Anyhow, as I was saying, it seems as though both "parties" are trying to make this country a socialist state, and if you ask me, they are doing a fine job of it. Whatever happened to the "let them govern themselves" attitude that the founding fathers had (hence the reason we broke away from England)? Too bad too many people don't understand their rights enough to where they keep getting taken away from them........

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

Saturday, October 2, 2004 6:04 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Gino- Yes, I know that is what THIS President is doing. But Kerry very plainly said that we ought to make it CLEAR that we have no long-term economic (or military) designs on Iraq and specifically pointed out that the only building that was saved from looting was the Oil Ministry buidling, asking "what kind of message does THAT send?" He also said that the US should open up rebuilding contracts in Iraq. So tying one point (They all have interests in a stable Iraq) to the other (we should get our greedy mitts of Iraq) I don't think it's too much of an extrapolation to imagine that Kerry plans to sweeten security participation with economic benefit.

He also pointed out somehting I didn't know- that we are building 17 military bases in Iraq. I'm sure NONE of the countries in the region especaily Russia are happy about that. And imagine- Bush is STUPID enough to think that Putin is his friend!!

HAHAHAHA!!!!!

Anyway, I think Kerry actually has a pretty pratical viewpoint of Iraq. We made a pile of manure and then jumped in it, now we need help getting out. How and why that happens has- alas- little to do with right or wrong but more with what others can get out of the situation.

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

Saturday, October 2, 2004 6:15 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

BOJESPHOB- Dang! I had to copy/ paste than name! My fingers kept trying to type bob joseph!

------------------------------------------

Quote:
That means that they cannot make a law that says that everybody has to be part of a religion to be American. It also says that everyone can FREELY exercise their religion. Basically, if a judge in Alabama wants to put up the Ten Commandments, he's allowed to because he's practicing his religion! BUT, he cannot say that everyone has to follow them! That's the differance. If the people say that they want the Ten Commandments in the yard of a courthouse, they are allowed. The goverment is for the people, of the people, and by the people. Those people that live there have the right to decide what goes in THEIR property. The people own the courthouse, the land around it and the street that runs in front of it. That's what taxes go to. The government owns NOTHING, because it itself belongs to the people.

The judge can follow HIS religion individually, but he cannot use tax dollars or public property to do it with. What if he wanted to put up a minaret or a statue of Buddah or Moloch! I think you've truly misudnersttood the Consitution, and if you were to read Jeferson and Madison in detail, they go on in GREAT LENGTH about the need to build a WALL OF SEPARATION between church and state, separating not only the State fomr the Church, but the Church from the State.

Jefferson refused to proclaim religious days of fasting and thanksgiving, and explained it this way:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god that he owes account to none other (NOTE: including judges in Alabama) for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. (Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

Madison also made many references to the separation of church and state:

"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State."

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."

"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together."

"I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others.

"To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself"

So, you obviously have not done your homework on what the Founding Fathers really meant- a quick google search would have cleared up your misconception!

---------------------------------

Anyway, as to your general point: "Let them govern themselves" I think that went the way of the dinosaur about the time that the contiguous United States was settled. The Founding Fathers often referred to malcontents being able to move westward, they planned on that safety valve.

Well, that safety valve no longer applies. Not only is the US basically fully settled, we've changed from an agrarian to an urban society, the world is basically impacted by economic and environmental issues that affect many nations at the same time, and the only way to address them is with force and organization large enough to deal. "Let them govern thmeselves" is a nice idea but no longer practical. (Yes, I know, many Libertarians will throw mushy tomatoes and stinky eggs at me, but if they want to debate the issue I'd be happy to. I'm always willing to learn something new.)

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

Saturday, October 2, 2004 7:23 AM

While I'll admit Kerry has more credibility than Bush... It's not saying much.

He can say what he says, but I'll believe it when it happens. An American puppet state in Iraq or Afganistan will only be in American interests, a collapse and failure resulting in an American withdraw I think is inevitable. There are the examples of Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia... if they fight long enough... cost you enough lives and treasure... you will give it up and leave. Mind you the longer you stay the more extreme the counter reaction, as in Iran ( after putting up with the Shah for so long ) and Afganistan they will might turn to a religious based government in order to curb foreign influences.

The main European governments excluding Britain have taken a stand against what you are trying to accomplish, the stand wasn't against the violence of war, the French nor the Germans are by no mean delicate to using force in foreign policy, they made the stand because they did not like the post war plan, a few contracts here and there, will not bring them into the fold. They will sit back and deal with whomever comes out on top. Besides which, you'd have to be a moron to go and have your head lopped off... who needs that.

In is in the interest of the world for the US to eat some of that manure for a while longer, I think Kerry while less of an idiot than Bush is either overstating how the rest of the world will respond for election purposes or is very naive.

Mind you, I think I might have said this in another thread, if American forces are fully committed in Iraq, this might keep the war from spreading to Iran, at least until they have their Nuclear deterrent in place.

The election in the US, I feel is a side show. Neither side will disengage from the spoils of war enough to make a reasonable go of it. Upcoming elections in countrys who presently support the US, and may well withdraw that support is much more interesting.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040928/wl_nm/brit
ain_blair_dc

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3433087.stm

http://www.worldpress.org/Asia/1875.cfm

http://www.japantimes.com/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20040907f1.htm

Imagine if Iraq causes a backlash, people around the world voting into office on one issue, who will oppose the US the most. I believe it was a major failing for the Conservative party in Canada during our last election, people ( myself included ) some who traditionally voted for the conservatives did not due to their support of US policys. The Liberals were riding scandal after scandal, but the policy of bumlicking to the US cost the Conservatives the election. Will the rest of the world be any different ??

edit: another point in case

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/business/business-group-iraq.html?oref=
login

" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "

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

Saturday, October 2, 2004 9:33 AM

BOJESPHOB

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
BOJESPHOB- Dang! I had to copy/ paste than name! My fingers kept trying to type bob joseph!

Lol, for some reason that makes me think that you are dislexic, because that is where I got my handle from (since I am dislexic as well!).

Anyhow, so where does civil duty and freedom of expression and religion seperate? He does his civil duty to be a judge, why can he not have the freedom to practice his religion? I understand what you mean by not using public property, but I can go to a courthouse and hold a sign with a cross on it on public property, legally and not have any issues other than the occasional idiot that is a bigot. I have done research, and I agree that there should be a seperation so that no specific church can tell the government what to do and vise-versa, but that does not mean that we have to limit religious freedom to counter it. I am allowed having any non-offensive stuff up where I work (I know some people find religion offensive, but that's their problem, not mine), why can he not? It is his right to display his religion. Again, he cannot force someone to believe in those things, as that would be forcing religion on someone, which is what the spirit of the whole seperation thing was about. Basically, if you tell him to stop practicing his religion, you are jumping the divide between the seperation, just as if he told someone they had to believe in the God that gave those commandments. We are guaranteed the right to practice religion AND the right to not have the government tell us to stop, as well as have the religion not tell the goverment what to do. There has to be a balance, or it doesn't work at all!

Quote:

Anyway, as to your general point: "Let them govern themselves" I think that went the way of the dinosaur about the time that the contiguous United States was settled. The Founding Fathers often referred to malcontents being able to move westward, they planned on that safety valve.

Well, that safety valve no longer applies. Not only is the US basically fully settled, we've changed from an agrarian to an urban society, the world is basically impacted by economic and environmental issues that affect many nations at the same time, and the only way to address them is with force and organization large enough to deal. "Let them govern thmeselves" is a nice idea but no longer practical. (Yes, I know, many Libertarians will throw mushy tomatoes and stinky eggs at me, but if they want to debate the issue I'd be happy to. I'm always willing to learn something new.)

So, does that mean that since times have changed that we have to give up the right to govern ourselves? Why have a Constitution then? I agree that we have to have a Federal government, but we have to have MORE of the local stuff. BUT, when you have the power of the masses in the hands of a select few, there are MAJOR abuses, and they will only get worse until people get fed up with it enough and take back control. I think it was Jefferson who said "There needs to be a Revolution every once and a while" or something to that effect. I know these are kind of retarted comparisons, but look at Firefly AND Star Wars (the prequals). Both Joss and Lucas both have a grasp on what too much central power does to a society. That is the main thing that the founding fathers were against. I would bet that Jefferson and Madison wouldn't care if a judge had the ten commandments on a courthouse wall compared to the injustices that the Fed AND the Prez have done recently (and I'm not just talking about Bush).

Anyhow, SignyM, I am not trying to show you up, and I am not trying to be argumentative. I am just trying to point out that there are differant viewpoints of things in this country, and that the ways things are now, we only get one, and that is what the government wants us to see. You cannot tell me what to think, or believe. That is, as Jefferson said, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god that he owes account to none other". But, if I were a judge, I would not throw out my beliefs to be that judge. Those beliefs would guide me to be a good judge.

As a point of reference, you have to have balance. If there is no balance, then things are not going well, and they are not going right. Just as if you don't eat a balanced diet, you will get sick, this country has become unbalanced, and it is becoming sick. Just drive through downtown Cincinnati, LA, Detroit, New York and tell me what the people do on the street there is healthy.

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

Saturday, October 2, 2004 10:37 AM

BILLYBUMBLER

Quote:
Originally posted by beenwithawarriorwoman:
Oh, and that draft thing? It's in Congress now. Being voted on. And my guess is, since it's not getting a lot of coverage, it won't matter half a hump who gets elected, both of 'em support it. Here's an article:
http://www.bushdraft.com/proof.html

If you follow that link, you'll find out that the sponsors of the draft legislation are DEMOCRATS.

House -- Rep. Charles Rangle, D-NY (plus 14 other Democrats)
Senate -- Sen. Ernest Hollings, D-SC

I'm not sure what their motivation is, whether it's purely anti-Bush, or if there is a racial component, as the house members are in the Democratic Black Caucus.

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

Saturday, October 2, 2004 11:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bojesphob:
Anyhow, so where does civil duty and freedom of expression and religion seperate? He does his civil duty to be a judge, why can he not have the freedom to practice his religion? I understand what you mean by not using public property, but I can go to a courthouse and hold a sign with a cross on it on public property, legally and not have any issues other than the occasional idiot that is a bigot. I have done research, and I agree that there should be a seperation so that no specific church can tell the government what to do and vise-versa, but that does not mean that we have to limit religious freedom to counter it. I am allowed having any non-offensive stuff up where I work (I know some people find religion offensive, but that's their problem, not mine), why can he not? It is his right to display his religion. Again, he cannot force someone to believe in those things, as that would be forcing religion on someone, which is what the spirit of the whole seperation thing was about. Basically, if you tell him to stop practicing his religion, you are jumping the divide between the seperation, just as if he told someone they had to believe in the God that gave those commandments. We are guaranteed the right to practice religion AND the right to not have the government tell us to stop, as well as have the religion not tell the goverment what to do. There has to be a balance, or it doesn't work at all!

The separation of church and state was meant to be exactly that. Of course you can go into a court and wave around a cross legally. The judge has that same right. However, the separation occurs between his job and his private life. Whenever he is acting in his capacity as a judge, he is a representative fully endosed by the state. As such, it is not proper for him to parade his religion, as that violates the separation dictated in the Constitution. That judge's courthouse is not only public property, it is a public institution, a place where the Constitution and the freedoms of individuals are upheld everyday. All freedoms, not just the right to due process.

Quote:
So, does that mean that since times have changed that we have to give up the right to govern ourselves? Why have a Constitution then? I agree that we have to have a Federal government, but we have to have MORE of the local stuff. BUT, when you have the power of the masses in the hands of a select few, there are MAJOR abuses, and they will only get worse until people get fed up with it enough and take back control. I think it was Jefferson who said "There needs to be a Revolution every once and a while" or something to that effect. I know these are kind of retarted comparisons, but look at Firefly AND Star Wars (the prequals). Both Joss and Lucas both have a grasp on what too much central power does to a society. That is the main thing that the founding fathers were against. I would bet that Jefferson and Madison wouldn't care if a judge had the ten commandments on a courthouse wall compared to the injustices that the Fed AND the Prez have done recently (and I'm not just talking about Bush).

I don't think we've given up the right to govern ourselves at all. The heart of democracy is participation. The founding fathers obviously had a bit of an easier time with this, seeing as there were not only less people, but, let us not forget, they only allowed the participation of few of the many.

It's so much harder now for two reasons: there is less direct participation and people simply don't care anymore. Studies show that participation in government has not rose with education and I blame this firmly on shoddy school systems, which, incidentally, are controlled by the state and local governments.

I know so many people who just aren't going to bother voting in the upcoming election. I, too, am disgusted with the two-party system, but not voting is not the answer nor the start of a revolution. Sure, we have to pick the lesser of two evils, but it is a step in the right direction. Pick the candidate that protects the rights you value most. And really...if people won't bother to vote in the presidental election, how many bother to look closely at local elections?

Putting power in the local hands of a few is not much different than putting it in the federal hands of a few except that it is easier to hold the federal few accountable and for them to set an equal standard for everyone. Maybe that sounds like socialism but it's really not. It's just the wish to have equal rights without others infringing on those rights. And those rights include things like an equal education...which local governments are not providing.

And you're probably right. Jefferson wouldn't have a problem with the ten commandments in a courthouse, but his reasoning would have nothing to do with the current affairs in the federal government. Just because those injustices seem bigger, doesn't mean we should let little things slid.

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

Saturday, October 2, 2004 11:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

OTOH, the USA could sweeten it with a LOT of reconstruction contracts, a policy that promises to lean on Israel and Saudi Arabia, and perhaps make some other adjustments in trade or foreign policy.. maybe sigbing the Kyoto Protocol or the Land Mine treaty, or promising to do some generic good that really DOES make the world safer- like rounding up loose nuclear material.

All good ideas, and things that really need to be done no matter what.

But, I think that the best diplomatic solution would be for the US ask the rest of the world, "What would it take for you to become involved?" Have us think about it and then all have a sit down and then go from there.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

I honestly don't see Europe waiting for Iraq to become a failed state. Even if (when) the USA is defeated, it doesn't mean there will be a clear set of victors in Iraq. It would probably develop that nobody would be "in charge" and since Europe depends on imported oil as much or moe than we do, wouldn't they have an interest in seeing Iraq oil exports resume?

True, if no-one really holds control then the country would be in chaos. Something similar to what is going on now, but *much worse*. And how to recover from that would be a horror of a challenge.

But, Europe doesn't depend on oil nearly as much as the US. They are the ones that are the eco-people and actually act as such. When you think that the US is 5% of the worlds population and makes up 25% of the worlds oil usage, I'd find it hard to believe that anyone else would come close.

At any rate, something *does need* to change.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

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

Saturday, October 2, 2004 11:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirikoli:

Um...just that I thought that Kerry's answers, while good compared to Bush's, were not up to his usual standards.

Ah. The way I was reading your comments it seemed to me that you were saying that he didn't do much better than Bush. But, that makes sense and I can't really argue it much as I would believe that you've seen him talk more than I since I get most of my info from papers and such.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

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

Sunday, October 3, 2004 2:44 AM

BOJESPHOB

Well, Kirikoli, I guess that's what the government is supposed to be for, helping us to interperet a document that was written a long time ago.

But, I was not saying that one shouldn't vote, though! That was the last thing I was trying to get people to do! I was saying that one should vote for the person who's most qualified for the job, not what the two major parties have put forward. Bush is a boob and Kerry is a puppet. By all means, vote!!!

Anyhow, I totally agree with the education thing. I live near an area that you wouldn't exactly call an upper class neighborhood, and it's amazing that they don't try to help those children learn more and get themselves out of the hell that they live in. Just the other day there was a high schooler shot and killed, right in front of school! He was trying to stop a fight and they shot him! Stupid gangs!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 3, 2004 8:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bojesphob:
Well, Kirikoli, I guess that's what the government is supposed to be for, helping us to interperet a document that was written a long time ago.

Yeah...I'm really not sure how you got that out of what I said. I believe the government's job is to support individual rights, including the right to not have your rights violated (i.e. you can't kill people, even if that is arguably a right, because they have to right to live, etc.). I also think it is the government's first duty to change with the times and be efficient. I would argue that, for example, the second amendment is out of date.

Perhaps you believe the separation of church and state is outdated? I'm sorry if I misunderstood what you said.

Quote:
But, I was not saying that one shouldn't vote, though! That was the last thing I was trying to get people to do! I was saying that one should vote for the person who's most qualified for the job, not what the two major parties have put forward. Bush is a boob and Kerry is a puppet. By all means, vote!!!

In the interest of being accurate, I would agree that Bush is a "boob" or, to be more specific, in my opinion, dumb, biased, irrational, and disrespectful, but how exactly is Kerry a puppet?

Quote:
Anyhow, I totally agree with the education thing. I live near an area that you wouldn't exactly call an upper class neighborhood, and it's amazing that they don't try to help those children learn more and get themselves out of the hell that they live in. Just the other day there was a high schooler shot and killed, right in front of school! He was trying to stop a fight and they shot him! Stupid gangs!

I completely agree but the problem goes even deeper than that. I come from upper middle class suburbia and while we did have our share of violence, it nowhere near compares to, say, city schools. Our problem is, the state doesn't budget itself well enough to give us even a decent fraction of the money it is literally responsible for...I didn't even realize how limited and, frankly, stupid my high school was until I came to college.

In my opinion, equal education for *all* would solve a lot of problems. Which is why I think it should be a federal responsibility and not just in the "No child left behind so schools will pass anyone through so as not to get even less money" sense.

Seriously...some of the people that graduated from my high school...they couldn't even grasp the concept of percentages. I have no idea if they could read.

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

Sunday, October 3, 2004 9:04 AM

ARAWAEN

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:
I don't think the world is safer with one despot removed, on the simple grounds that as long as the world powers are willing to support these brutal dictators and assist them in obtaining and retaining power there will be no shortage of them.

This is only one aspect of the problem. The whole problem cannot be simplified to these terms.

I am not sure what you are getting at here. I am objecting to Bush's claim that we are safer with Saddam gone when he is unwilling to accept the responsibility that America has for his being in power and our continued support of brutal dictators around the world wherever and whenever it suits our interests (Pakistan and Libya being the most recent).

Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:
At the same time the resolution to attack Iraq was passed overwhelmingly so I don't limit my dismay to the Bush regime.

Qualify this, because I know that the UN didn't.

I was talking about the resolution the U.S. Congress passed to use force and the fact that a large number of Democrats as well as Republicans voted in favor.

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

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

Sunday, October 3, 2004 9:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:
I don't think the world is safer with one despot removed, on the simple grounds that as long as the world powers are willing to support these brutal dictators and assist them in obtaining and retaining power there will be no shortage of them.

This is only one aspect of the problem. The whole problem cannot be simplified to these terms.

I am not sure what you are getting at here. I am objecting to Bush's claim that we are safer with Saddam gone when he is unwilling to accept the responsibility that America has for his being in power and our continued support of brutal dictators around the world wherever and whenever it suits our interests (Pakistan and Libya being the most recent).

You wrote "world powers" in your origninal reply which I retain above. This statment is thus not limited to a comment only about the US. This is how I believe you to be misleading in this comment.

I do agree with your clarification

Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:
At the same time the resolution to attack Iraq was passed overwhelmingly so I don't limit my dismay to the Bush regime.

Qualify this, because I know that the UN didn't.

I was talking about the resolution the U.S. Congress passed to use force and the fact that a large number of Democrats as well as Republicans voted in favor.

Ah, when I saw the word "resolution" my mind imediately jumped to the UN which didn't exactly fit.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

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

Sunday, October 3, 2004 12:03 PM

ARAWAEN

I can see how my use of the word resolution could lead you think U.N., a very bad choice on my part.

I used the word 'World Powers' because I think China's support of the Sudanese leader is just as bad. Whether it is France, England or the U.S., I find the willingness to support such brutal figures to nullify the benefit of removing any particular individual.

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

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

Sunday, October 3, 2004 2:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:

I used the word 'World Powers' because I think China's support of the Sudanese leader is just as bad.

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

How do you feel about the US arming and funding the rebels in Sudan for the past twelve years ?

While not supporting the measures the Sudanese have taken in suppressing what is a civil war, but by taking a side here, don't you

A) Lose credibility with the other side in negotiation,

B) Lose credibility with any involved third party ( UN, China, etc )

C) Accept some measure of responsiblity when you prolonged a losing fight beyond the point where a normally peacefull compromise might have been reached ?

" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "

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

Sunday, October 3, 2004 2:36 PM

LEXIBLOCK

Quote:
Originally posted by JimNightshade:
Why is GHOULMAN always starting political posts about the American election when he lives in Canada? Just wondering.

Perhaps he is afraid that the anti democractic zealot in the whitehouse might invade Canada one day?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 3, 2004 2:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by LexiBlock:
Quote:
Originally posted by JimNightshade:
Why is GHOULMAN always starting political posts about the American election when he lives in Canada? Just wondering.

Perhaps he is afraid that the anti democractic zealot in the whitehouse might invade Canada one day?

About the only reason I have a basement full of unregistered guns

" They don't like it when you shoot at them, worked that out myself "

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

Sunday, October 3, 2004 6:16 PM