by Perry 47 Replies latest jw friends
Granny Linda,
: No matter how you slice it, it's damn scary stuff happening each and every day. And the majority of American citizens continue believing the lies told by those intent upon furthering this global agenda.
You are clueless and believe utter bullshit. You need to do more research.
Farkel
breeze,
Where do I start? You have so much to learn.
: My view is that too much power is dangerous for the US.
Just how MUCH power for the US is acceptible for you, then? Please provide your evidence.
: This whole government is meant to have balances and checks.
This whole government HAS balances and checks. Show me where it doesn't and I will prove you wrong. Take a lesson in Civics. Please.
: The arguing and bickering get old sometimes but this is what keeps one individual from getting too much control and doing something stupid.
You just proved my point. See above about balances and checks.
: The country is in trouble...
How so? Please be specific.
...and always will be under the republicans because of their narrow view of the needs of the few rather than the good of all.
How so? Please be specific. I will attack your argument, so you'd better made a good one.
: Bush is hell bent on doing something to Iraq.
Doh! Just how much slack should civilized nations give Iraq who had already attacked and overrun their peaceful Kuwait neighbor in the south? Just how much slack should civilized nations give to Iraq who has already used biological weapons against its very own Kurdish citizens? Just how much slack should civilized nations give Iraq who is continuing to develop biological and Nuclear weapons despite the fact they signed a treaty when Bush I kicked their ass out ouf Kuwait that said they would never do that again and for TEN years wouldn't cooperate with the very peace treaty they signed? You are a clueless bleeding-heart idiot.
: Is it not fueled by his concerns about the control of oil in the region and the concerns of his fellow oil barons.
When Sadaam drops his first nuke on your sorry ass, you might re-think your idiocy. I said "might" because you would be dead before you got a chance to think about it and try to find another way to give that sociopath some slack.
Read about Neville Chamberlain and get back to me. There WILL be a test.
: Maybe I am a nut,
You're not a nut. You are sadly uninformed.
: but give me good old Bill and his oral sex. At least then my stock was worth something?
Apples and oranges. You must be very, VERY young. You know nothing about history, and you are selfish. You care more about your fucking stocks than you care about what is the right thing to do.
Farkel
I love how Republicans jump on Clintons ass but seem to forget that most of our current problems were born from the Reagan and Bush Sr. years. Osama is our child, we created him and now he's come back to haunt us. Clinton could not take a stronger stance against terrorism because the public would not approve of U.S. forces in some foreign country going after some guy they've never heard of before. If he did go after terrorists Republicans would say he was just doing it to keep the media off of his personal business. They claimed wag the dog when he sent cruise missiles into Sudan and Afghanistan. Now that the public is intimately aware of terrorism action is more acceptable.
I also love the hypocrisy of Republicans who claim to want an end to big government but want to pass laws based on "morality" (read that as christianity). Of course the most ignorant of all remarks is often thrown about, "If you don't like it then leave." That statement is perhaps the most unamerican of any and borders on fascism. All that being said, the Democrats really aren't any better. The key is to keep both evils balanced so the least amount of harm is done to both our civil liberties and tax dollars.
gsx,
: I love how Republicans jump on Clintons ass but seem to forget that most of our current problems were born from the Reagan and Bush Sr. years.
Another clueless statement from someone who likely hasn't LIVED modern history, but thinks s/he knows it. Explain to us how "most" of our current problems were born from Reagan/Bush?
Are you talking about the fall of the Soviet Union and the Berlin Wall that made this world safer than it was in my entire life up to that point? (I was born in 1948) You have a problem with that?
Get a clue. You must ALSO be very young or went to some liberal bullshit college. I've lived long enough to know and observe what works and what doesn't work.
Reagon/Bush was our finest period as far as leadership goes since Kennedy. I'm not so partisan that I don't know what works and what doesn't work. I've lived through a lot of great history.
Farkel
But Clinton went into Somalia and didn't support his troops enough for them to have any success there. Clinton went into the Balkans and got our military bogged down in that situation. He had real chances to go after terrorists after credible threats and sent in cruise missles which did nothing. He stripped our intelligence services so that they were not prepared for what happened on Sept 11 and he pretty much did not use that "big stick" that he had to keep the rest of the world from becoming the threat to the U.S. that it now is. When did Clinton ever get serious with Saddam when Saddam made him look rediculous by non compliance with the treaty he signed?
Do you understand fundamentalist Islam? You are on a witness board, so you should be familiar with the mindset, only they are "proactive" in killing the unbeliever unstead of leaving it "in god's hands". That is the evil we are fighting, the evil that keeps its own people in tyrrany and threatens the rest of western civilization.
I usually enjoy your posts Farkel but you sound like a dumbass little Republican robot. While I don't contend to know it all like you about modern history I've been interested in politics even when I was a witness.
Get a clue. You must ALSO be very young or went to some liberal bullshit college.If being 33 is young then thanks. It is also nice of you to mention the fall of the Soviet Union and the Berlin wall but forget to mention that we supported drug cartels who were willing to fight for us in Central America. Reagan was not the only one to contribute to the fall of the USSR but he sure loved to take credit for it. The falling of the Berlin wall was an eventuality of the fall of the USSR so there is nothing special about Bush Senior. Reagan is the one who offered weapons/money to the militant muslims in Iran. You forget that we were willing to train Osama and friends (Reagan and partly Bush years) then leave them to their own devices after the SU pulled out of Afghanistan. How about all of the rebel groups we funded in Central America that were commiting genocide. While I'm at it, how about all the ass kissing Bush and Company are doing with Saudi Arabia. Apparently you missed the end of my post because I despise the Democrats just as much. If you weren't so blinded by your own prejudices you would be able to see beyond right wing propoganda. Don't confuse my minor defense of Clinton as some sort of endorsement of his actions as president (I voted for Dole 2nd time around). I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the Republican party. Personally, I would prefer to have John McKain in the white house right now instead of the christian coalition corporate ass kisser Bush. You seem too ready to jump down anyones throat who doesn't share your "world view".
GSX said,
I love how Republicans jump on Clintons ass but seem to forget that most of our current problems were born from the Reagan and Bush Sr. years.
When Regan took over, the economy was trash, inflation was through the roof, a long recession was raging, citizen pride was at a low ebb with cynicism and unemployment high. Gasoline was recently rationed to the public, our military was severely dumbed down to pay for precious beuracratic social programs that were terribly ineffective, taxes were high and innovation and entrepanueralship was low. America was the laughing stock at the hands of a little piss-ant country that stormed our embassy and took a hugh number of hostages for months and months.
Regan set the tone for successs even before he was President. The day before he took office the hostatges were freed. He then initiated the largest peace time military buildup in American history. Star Wars scared the living crap outta Russia and was THE bargaining chip that led directly to glasnost and eventually the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was simply brillant. He ended the cold war for God's sake. He did this by having the guts to confront evil. "Mr. Gobechev, tear down that wall!", will surely ring in the annals of historians as one of the greatest quotes of all time.
By the end of the 80's, the economy was in full swing with America repositioning and streamlining its corporate structures to emulate the Japanese' concept of teamwork, small group communication, and total quality control. Better able to compete, we again became a strong country. Big hair and big boobs were in and the dead heads were out. Birkenstocks were traded in for Stacys and Proms were once again popular. America had its pride back.
In 1992, we again forgot about American values and had to watch our new President and his boot licker bumbling sidekick make asses of themselves as they sold our technology to Communist nations in exchange for campainge contributions, turned the White House into a sleazy motel by renting the Lincoln bedroom to foreign nationals, tied up our media airways with scandal after scandal,and lie through their teeth to the American public as well as under oath, leading directly to impeachment. Just exactly how many women did Clinton harrass or worse yet rape?
Now there is a guy in office who seems to have a sense of right and wrong, is devoted to his wife and family, and is faced with the task of confronting great evil. Once again a republican must stand tall and make tough decisions.
I also love the hypocrisy of Republicans who claim to want an end to big government but want to pass laws based on "morality" (read that as christianity).
Instead of showing solidarity, your liberal wholly inaccurate propaganda hurls hate at some for being a christian. Is it moral to steal? Is it moral to cheat? Is it moral to bang your neighbors wife while her husband works his butt off to support his family? Morality is with us genetically silly. That's what makes our species so unique. We will always base our laws on morality from one source or another. Instead of comimg up with a valid argument on a specific moral issue you attack the source of some people's devotion and intimate that only christians have the ability to be moral.
By the way, hypocrisy is a part of life. It is a matter of degree. Did you listen to some screwball ultral liberal spout how the answer to eliminating hypocrisy is to eliminate a sense of right and wrong?
Geez
Edited by - Perry on 9 November 2002 10:22:36
I don't hate all christians; I hate christians who push their own agenda in politics. It is popular today to brush over xianity with the fluffy happy brush. However, the eventuality of that faith is the conversion of everyone to their beliefs. Common morality does not come from religion it comes from people. That is a mistake that is often made. Religion does not equal morality. If all religion in the world suddenly dissappeared there would still be "moral" people, perhaps moreso. I've also seen plenty of hate from christians because I don't believe in their Jesus myth.
As for the Republicans, you have seen fit to present all of their good things and just skip over the bad things. What is it with you people? Someone says something bad about a "political" party and all the sudden you start throwing tantrums like school children. Russia was held in check for years through MAD while their economy slowly crumbled. I really think they used the "Star Wars" program as an excuse to do what they knew had to be done (otherwise suffer another revolution). Personally, I would have prefered Pattons idea of invading Russia right after WW2 but his genius wasn't acknowledged until later. As for the 80's, if you were already poor then you just got more poor. Talk about all the money floating around to the auto plant and steel workers who suffered huge layoffs. Talk about all that money to those in the poor areas of the major cities who didn't get any kind of "trickle down". Reagan can take credit for the huge surge in cocaine profits in this country and the large amount of money his "war on drugs" campaign was making.
All I'm trying to point out is that Clinton is no worse than some of the other presidents we've had (except Carter, who was horrible) in the past and present. He did some good stuff and he did some bad stuff. Whoopty freakin do. The difference is that Reagans troubles weren't publically known until after he was out of office. Does that make Reagan a bad president? No, if I wasn't a JW at the time I would have voted for him as well and probably Bush Sr. also. However, I did not vote for, as did America, Bush Jr. All the way back to Iraq and Operation finish daddies war. Something needs to be done about Iraq but the rest of the world can see us for the hypocrites we are even if we can't. We want to have a war on terrorism but we refuse to do anything to the largest terrorist producer in the world, Saudi Arabia. Why? Because our country, and moreso president and vice president, is more interested in oil than our own safety. Yet we want to invade a country that has remained relatively silent for 10 years. Our economy is in the shitter and getting flushed furthur down as I type. So do we need to invade Iraq? Yes, but the economy and Saudi Arabia need to be addressed first. The tie to Saddam and terrorism is very weak when compared to other countries. I hear the same rhetoric being tossed around with nothing new added in, 'he's building weapons of mass destruction', 'he gassed his own people', 'he wants to destroy the U.S.' Saddam was building weapons of mass destruction and gassed his own people before we invaded the first time but it didn't seem to matter to us then. I'd love to carry on but I have to go to school.
By the way, hypocrisy is a part of life. It is a matter of degree. Did you listen to some screwball ultral liberal spout how the answer to eliminating hypocrisy is to eliminate a sense of right and wrong?Edited to include the above quote: Screwball ultra liberal huh? Where are your screwball ultra conservative quotes? There are plenty on both sides. This quote sounds like it is from the Bible since isn't it written that God didn't want us to know right from wrong/good and bad. The liberal (I'm sorry ULTRA liberal) that made this quote is obviously just as dumb as the story it comes from. I think the way to eliminate hypocrisy is to stop acting holier than thou and admit your faults.
Edited by - gsx1138 on 8 November 2002 11:3:16
I don't hate all christians; I hate christians who push their own agenda in politics.
Then according to this logic, you should hate any group who asserts any agenda in Congress. And, since we have a representative government that relies on constituents, who by their very nature have agendas, you should logically hate our form of government too. In fact, there is really nothing holding you back from hating all people not like you is there? Indeed, you spread your hatred around evenly. An equal opportunity hater:
I despise the Democrats just as much.
The ridiculousness of your first statement above is self-evident. However, just to drive home the unfairness, not to mention the unethicalness of your views, let's just see how it holds up when applied to other groups.
I don't hate all gays; I hate gays who push their own agenda in politics.
I don't hate all white supremicists; I hate white supremicists who push their own agenda in politics.
I don't hate all black folks; I hate black folks who push their own agenda in politics.
I don't hate all environmentalists; I hate environmentalists who push their own agenda in politics.
I don't hate all women; I hate women who push their own agenda in politics.
Your premise is false, and your conclusion is little more than bigotry.
Common morality does not come from religion it comes from people. That is a mistake that is often made.
And, one that you appeared to make yourself below:
I also love the hypocrisy of Republicans who claim to want an end to big government but want to pass laws based on "morality" (read that as christianity).
Your last two quotes are in total opposition to one another. So, which is it? Is morality, or is it not indigenous to only christians. If your answer is no, then you are making MY argument here. Thanks. Sorry, you can't have it both ways though.
As for the Republicans, you have seen fit to present all of their good things and just skip over the bad things.
I already conceded that hypocrisy is inescapable in any sense of totality.
What is it with you people?
It's terrible to be held responsible for the things you write isn't it?
Someone says something bad about a "political" party and all the sudden you start throwing tantrums like school children.
Your argument was attacked and shown to be thoroughly biased and illogical. The audience will decide who are throwing tantrums.
I really think they used the "Star Wars" program as an excuse to do what they knew had to be done (otherwise suffer another revolution).
And you have some source to support this unconventional wisdom?
Personally, I would have prefered Pattons idea of invading Russia right after WW2 but his genius wasn't acknowledged until later.
Isn't that sad? To have your genius go unappreciated until you're gone? Dammit, we could have ruled the world when we had the chance! And just who was it that bestowed this label of genius on the idea of marching on Moscow?
As for the 80's, if you were already poor then you just got more poor. Talk about all the money floating around to the auto plant and steel workers who suffered huge layoffs. Talk about all that money to those in the poor areas of the major cities who didn't get any kind of "trickle down".
As we continued our trend of protecting consumerism in a post modern society, adjustments in new markets meant that people needed to change with the direction of the world economy. Change is never easy on people. Flynt, Michigan is an excellent case study of this shift. They we devastated by the shift in markets and then totally rebounded much stronger after they diversified. Those who refused to change were hit the hardest. I'd argue that America is much stronger through the economic programs of the 80's even if it meant some short term hardship on some.
Reagan can take credit for the huge surge in cocaine profits in this country and the large amount of money his "war on drugs" campaign was making.
And you have proof that ole' Ronnie and Nancy made huge profits on the Just Say No program? I didn't think so.
All I'm trying to point out is that Clinton is no worse than some of the other presidents we've had (except Carter, who was horrible) in the past and present.
And your argument so far appears weak. You are not doing a very good job of it.
We want to have a war on terrorism but we refuse to do anything to the largest terrorist producer in the world, Saudi Arabia. Why? Because our country, and moreso president and vice president, is more interested in oil than our own safety.
You are utterly in the dark here. Do you have any ideal what would happen to the world economy if the oil lanes stopped? Of couse you have no idea. You want to see a real WW III? Shut down those lanes and watch what people do when they lose everything they own. Entire countries would collapse.
It sounds like that you have been reading far too many conspiracy stories to me.
Yet we want to invade a country that has remained relatively silent for 10 years.
By whose standards? Violating UN agreements, shooting at coalition aircraft every chance they get, and actively pursueing a WMD program? Not my idea of going quietly into that goodnight.
Our economy is in the shitter and getting flushed furthur down as I type.
Yes, that is the main issue here isn't it? I really don't think that you will care much about your money when you see a bright flash and realize you have about 3 seconds before you are vaporized.
The tie to Saddam and terrorism is very weak when compared to other countries.
And you have based this on what study? Your evidence is overwhelming.
I'd love to carry on but I have to go to school.
Now I can unreservedly agree with that.
Having lurked for a few weeks this thread has made me join in.
Although I've never been one for conspiracy theories, Gore Vidal published an essay in The Observer (UK Sunday paper) on events following the attacks on the WTC & Pentagon that is rather persuasive. There are highlights here
http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,819931,00.html
(Hope nobody's offended by Mr Vidal, but thought that you Americans would be as easily persuaded by him as you are of JFK and moon landing conspiracies!)
The posts of Perry, Farkel and gsx all have interesting bits of fact and lots of invective but one point raised by you all are the links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. I'm with gsx and Bush, Blair et al seem very reticent with evidence on this front. There's plenty of evidence linking Saudi and the Yemen. All seem agreed that oil is major factor in US interests in Afghanistan and Iraq, but is is it free flowing oil lanes or control that the US wants?
Someone else (lovely person I'm sure) reckoned it was democracy that the US wanted to gift the Middle East. Hhmmm. Has Western democracy worked in countries that have found it imposed upon them?
To me, America's global activities are entirely consistent with those of a dominant world power seeking to maintain its position. If any other country were in their position they would do the same, whether we think this right or wrong. Apart from Scotland who would just export its heart disease and cancer rates to ensure global peace.
