Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Peregrine_Falcon

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7
Shootin' the Breeze / Re: Adventures in YouTube
« on: April 08, 2008, 11:06:40 PM »
From the same guys who made the Wii fit and Microsoft Surface parodies:

Shootin' the Breeze / Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
« on: April 06, 2008, 12:40:30 AM »
I'm also talking about the US coming out of the Iraq situation. Only I'm not using arguments when I think they work and then retracting them when I see that they don't work, unlike you. But anyway, the aid you speak of will cost money too, and considering the state Iraq is in right now, it'll cost a lot. Not to mention that to make sure things go well, a strong presence will be needed. Which kind of contradicts the "pull out completely and immediately" idea. And do you really think that if the USA pull out of Iraq tomorrow the deaths will stop in the country? Think again.

I do support aid to other countries but not for massive, unfathomable projects; I did not even say Iraq for the reasons you mentioned. I agree that Iraq will certainly not be a peaceful utopia, but our presence is fueling the violence, not quelling it.

Hahaha, you're funny. Why should I go through the trouble of making extra-lengthy, well thought out points when you've been brushing aside any of those made by others in the thread so far? It isn't like you've demonstrated anything yourself anyway, you know. And sorry if my posts make you feel like a moron, but I don't think it comes from me. I'm just honest with you, that's all.

No, you misunderstand. You chose to call me ‘obtuse’ and I recognized it as nothing more than a cheap tactic. I have not retracted my points in this argument Then you say you won’t even bother with these hypothetical, ‘well thought out’ points. Much of what you have come at me with was not well thought out, it was ‘you should have thought of that in the first place’ type statements, which I have refuted. And I have directly addressed other people's points (more than you have addressed my points).

Shootin' the Breeze / Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
« on: April 05, 2008, 07:16:30 PM »
If you think your country's image was only tarnished by the war in Iraq then you are sorely mistaken. You think minding your own business wouldn't bring you criticism? Think again. As the last superpower of the world, people expect the USA to take stances and defend the weak against the wicked.

I know that our image has been tarnished for decades, not just after the Iraq war and I said nothing to state or imply otherwise. Our violence has in many cases protected the wicked and hurt weak, which is what I want to stop.

It depends on your future actions. Do you want to be hated by a minority of people, or a majority? Do you want to be disliked for 15 years or hated for 150? Once again, you try to simplify everything and fail to see the intricacies of the problem. This fatalism of yours is artificial and counterproductive. You cannot use it as a justification for bailing out of the crisis.

I’m speaking about how we come out of the Iraq situation. Our tarnished image is not our primary justification. Lives and cost are my primary justification. I am not opposed to humanitarian aid to other countries, jump-starting struggling economies, and other far less damaging actions and I would not be opposed to helping the world without killing millions in the process.

You misunderstood what I said. It's the situation that is complex, and it's the situation that you don't get. I, like everyone else, am just trying to explain simple things to you (in simple terms) that for some reason seem beyond your grasp. Like on other topics, at times it actually feels like you're being obtuse on purpose.
I think I understand the repercussions of this whole affair far better than you did 5 years ago, than you do now, and that you will do in another 5 years. Which is also why I don't really bother myself to address everything you say, because I know that no matter what people tell you, you'll be as ignorant and misguided in the end than you were in the beginning.

So far your responses have not demonstrated any of this supposed, vastly superior knowledge that you claim to have. I admit, if phrased cleverly, calling someone obtuse/selfish is a good counter that makes people forget that you didn’t cite facts or use practicality. I’m also showing you some simple facts but your response is essentially ‘you’re stupid’, ‘I know a lot’, and ‘it’s your moral duty’. Sometimes it feels like you just want to convince anyone who has an opinion different from yours and does not immediately submit to your opinion that they must clearly be some sort of moron.

No, that's not what he did, and your response didn't address the points he made either. And I didn't accuse you of anything, I'm just commenting on what you say.

You suggested that I don’t care about the lives of people in other countries, which is a pretty big and personally offensive statement. 

Shootin' the Breeze / Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
« on: April 05, 2008, 02:59:49 PM »
No argument there, it's not even a matter of better or worse, but since we already broke the full condom, I want to spill as little as possible pulling out. I think the rip is near the side, and most of it is still hanging in a flap on the bottom of... never mind. =)
No, it's just that I'm not hearing much attempt to just recognize what I'm saying here as a plausibility to consider. Like I said, if there's no discussion to be had, just say so. We both agree about ending the war, but I feel you're being willfully unreasonable about how quickly it should, or even potentially could, be done, especially considering the level of urgency at this point (certainly doesn't compare to Vietnam). It feels like we basically agree, except I want the war to end ASAP in the best way possible, don't fuck things up even worse, but you want out with the same fervor the administration wanted in (though, unlike them, for the right reasons). Still, you literally haven't even acknowledged that there could be, not is, just could be legitimate cause beyond what we know not to leave in a hasty manner. If you don't think there could be ANY reason to cross the T's or dot the I's, then just tell me, and maybe you feel you already did, but I'd love an official, "No, I don't believe there's possibly anything to prepare, or time consuming arrangements to be made before we leave, or even extenuating circumstances to give pause to a withdrawal effort. Nothing we can lose by leaving now is greater than what we lose staying, even in the long term." I'd respect that.

Especially since I wrote it. 
You claim to be against the ‘stay the course’ approach yet when I point out that stay the course with no end in sight is the same thing as withdraw with no end in sight you agree with me but you still advocate phased withdrawal with no end in sight. And you accuse me of being set in my ways. I don’t demand that the withdrawal happens exactly within a year, but if he simply has no idea when it will end then it’s not much of a phased withdrawal.

Can't you just see one of the nukers making a similar remark advocating killing the "ungrateful bastards"? Anyway, whether one happens to be right or wrong, I don't think that attitude helps, but perhaps I'm not the best messenger for this as Mr. Tude himself.

I do not view the Iraqis as ungrateful bastards at all. If China started occupying us, destabilizing our leadership (even if its Dubya), and caused a possibly genocidal number of deaths, we would want them out too. It’s very human of them.

Sorry, you have to take the good with the bad, and accept Bush right along with everyone else who was unwilling to listen or compromise their principles, for better or worse. That's the problem, in most cases like that, you don't know if it's for good or bad until it's too late because everybody thought they had it figured out already ("This is what we need to do, no matter what, no justification for deviating from the plan"). It doesn't really matter if the solution is radical or not, it's how it's applied that's important to me. I'm not even taking a hard stance here, I basically just want our leaders to think not just before they act, but as they act too. No use solving one problem if it leads to another, or ends up canceling out the progress of the solution, and that should weighed every time, up to the minute. Can you agree on that much?

Of course the leader should assess the current situation but he should also have a visible end to his plan or else it’s no different from staying the course. If his plan drags everyone into a thirty year ‘phased withdrawal’ and continues to pile on the current problems then it’s not much of an exit strategy. If, however, the situation does have an enormous shift such that not being there could prove more damaging than being there, in other words, more damaging than thousands of American deaths, possibly millions of Iraqi deaths, and trillions of dollars lost, then yes. The consequences are already enormous and it would be quite extraordinary to find something to beat them.

They're not begging for the US to stay, but that doesn't mean that leaving just like that without looking back wouldn't still be completely irresponsible. And let me tell you as a non-American that most of all it would worsen the USA's image worldwide, more than it has been so far. Including in Iraq. Your hasty generalization of the whole country's opinion is cute, by the way, but not as strong of an argument as you seem to think it is. Like you've been told already, there's unfortunately no way the US can realistically stop spending money in Iraq right now. It will have to be gradual. Your problem here Peregrine_Falcon as far as I can tell is that you are still as ignorant, scared and misled by the media than you were when the war started (paraphrasing your own words). The sort of simplistic reasoning you have exhibited so far is not aligned with the realities of the world at all. If it's just too difficult for you to understand any kind of nuancing or subtlety, then let's just say that the USA made a mess and that now it's up to them to clean it up before leaving. Otherwise your country is setting itself up for an error as big as going to war was, and you'll regret it in 10 years just like you regret the decision to go to war now.

I know that our image is tarnished. We are viewed as selfish, ruthless, warmongers. It is our violent, offensive (not defensive) intervention that destroyed our image. Either way, we are not going to come out of this as heroes; we will be hated either way. I frankly don’t see how any of your reasoning is complex. You speak in general terms as well without any ‘nuancing or subtlety’. Though you may not like my opinion, you haven’t provided convincing evidence that the consequences of leaving could be any worse than the consequences of staying (which are enormous and continue to pile up). You are not aligned with the realities of the world if you can’t see the enormous repercussions that have taken a huge toll on both Iraq and the United States and that we can’t go on this way for an unspecified number of decades.

I like the hypocrisy of what you say. Basically, while you're feigning to care about the occupied population's feelings, your real point is that Iraq costs American money and American lives. Let me tell you that people in South Korea or Japan would be quite happy to see US troops leave their country. But hey, it's not to your advantage, so why do it?

GNM had accused me of being motivated by values, not pragmatism, while ignoring the strategic and financial reasons I gave. So I explained to him why it was strategically and financially unsound as well as morally unsound. Then you accuse me of only caring about America’s interest while ignoring the moral reasons I gave. As a Southwest Asian American citizen, myself, I happen to care very much about the lives lost when our government tries to police Southwest Asia, and the rest of the world, into being their colonies. I see that our intervention has crushed democracy, empowered crazy dictators, killed an enormous number of people, and drove others of us into poverty. I want centuries of peace between the United States and Southwest Asia and that starts by not trying to bomb them into submission.  I also want us to realize that we cannot police the rest of the world for the purpose of being some sort of unstoppable empire.

Shootin' the Breeze / Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
« on: April 05, 2008, 03:52:16 AM »
Iraq is NOT Vietnam. There is no equivalent of the Vietcong and there is no equivalent of the North Vietnamese Army in Iraq. What Iraq does have is suicide bombers and a lot of gangs. Oh and Al Sadr, who is only alive because the US Military wants to bring an end to that with out having to kill anymore of his people. So please do not comparing apples to oranges.

Some people believe that if you made a poor decision before that you should just stick to it to the very end. I'm not saying Iraq and Vietnam are the exact same thing; I'm saying that withdrawal is available and has been used before.

Shootin' the Breeze / Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
« on: April 05, 2008, 03:30:09 AM »
Is that attitude any more enlightened than that of the war mongers? Believe it or not, we do have allies in the country currently relying on our presence and commitment to them.

But as a whole we have been hurting the Iraqis and they do not want us occupying their land. I don’t see why I should be lumped in with people who just want to nuke Iraq into a radioactive crater.

That's basically restating the initial problem though, I thought this was a discussion based around the validity and viability of prospective solutions, in this case, Obama's. If your mind is made up about it, fine, but if we're going to simplify our positions to the lowest common denominator I should just say, "Two wrongs don't make a right." Not that it would be, but could.

The war is the source of financial burden, deaths, and enemies. The longer we stay there, the bigger these problems get. So we should stop doing what’s causing this. You answer as if all I’m doing is talking about the fraudulent charges that motivated this war.

Actually, he didn't even commit to 2013 in the video (which is obviously incomplete), since we're paying so much attention to what he's saying. Not to mention all that other stuff CnC and I pointed out about the "facts" of the video and context that you're running over. Don't say, "Well yes, it's obvious propaganda, but you can't question the truth of what I get out of it."

Fair enough, he said that he wouldn’t know if even 2013 was a possibility. However, you simply cannot deny that Obama was inconsistent about his decision of when to withdraw the troops just because someone timed the clips in a biased way; the words in the video are clearly his words.

Yeah, because they really can't say without being disingenuous or making a dangerous promise that could result in a reckless course of action. You shouldn't believe blanket promises anyway, and if you do believe someone is going to keep a blanket promise no matter what the circumstances, be afraid, because they're a zealot. Again, we've had that kind of strong, decisive leadership for 8 years now, and I've had enough, I say we elect a wuss, a woman, or cripple this time. =)

Not everyone who proposes a radical solution is a zealot. Many are simply ahead of their time. As for Bush: I think zealot is too nice of a word for him.

That would be meaningful if we weren't advocating for the same thing, but again, that's just restating why the war, or any war, is bad. I'm simply acknowledging the possibility and dangers of unintended consequences of simply leaving tomorrow come hell or high water. Just because it was a wrong to go, doesn't make it right to leave under any circumstances, what's done is done and the situation has changed. That's not about staying the course, but not making things worse in the process of leaving, and neglecting the problems we've already created. Again, just because we've only created more problems for ourselves in the region, doesn't mean we now don't have to deal with them. There's no rest button.

But how is a phased withdrawal with no end in sight any different from staying the course with no end in sight? Though it would be wonderful if Iraq had a secure democracy, we also have to wonder if we are even capable of handling this war. Do we actually have the capacity? The situation certainly has changed; it’s gotten worse and with our occupation it will drag on for a long time.

Why the extremes, and the last line is hyperbole I'd even go so far as to call hysterical ("the sky is falling, it's the end of the World!")? Anyway, I never defined the "right thing" that way, there's a difference between crusading around the World and dealing responsibly with a mistake you've already made, it's not mutually exclusive or inconsistent. It's like if I said that by your reasoning, the only alternative to immediate exit was to conquer the entire region, vaporize all potential enemies, and then move in and take all their land and resources. Sounds profitable for the state, so that's what you think we should do if not get out, right!? Yeah, not exactly. I'm simply acknowledging that there's no easy solution to something we've already gotten ourselves in to, whether we like it or not, and I keep that in mind when I listen to the candidates. I'm less impressed or inclined to believe the one's declaring World Peace their first day in office, thus why I liked Obama's most recent take on it better.

We’re not dealing responsibly with the mistake we made. We’re getting them killed, we’re getting ourselves killed, we’re strengthening our enemies, we’re running ourselves further into massive debt, and have no idea when we will ever stop. That’s hardly responsible. There certainly is no easy solution, not when we set our goals so unrealistically high. We could have tried to ensure that South Vietnam would be a secure, capitalist nation, for example, but then we realized that that was too much for us to handle and accepted that withdrawing was a realistic solution. Had we stayed there, who knows how many more people would have died and how much money would have been spent and where we’d be right now.

I’m not sure I follow your logic on tracing my statements to hypothetically proposing vaporization

The point was that it's unreasonable in any case to ask or think that every troop would be withdrawn in a few years, especially without knowing all the ins and outs, which neither of us can claim from our position (netxperts!). Tell us the future, Obama! What is reasonable to expect is that there'd be a real good faith effort to be getting them home ASAP, I just don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater, or have a case where we have to do it even if circumstances make it so we'd actually be shooting ourselves in the foot again somehow (for instance, something totally unrelated to the previous war politics).

Just because we’re not Fareed Zakaria doesn’t mean we can’t discuss foreign policy. There should always be dialogue among citizens about what its government is doing be it on the BBC or on an internet forum dedicated to a Japanese Comic.

Tying it back to Obama and the origin of this debate, let me put it this way, do you want the guy who voted against the war in charge of getting us out, or the two who voted for it?

I hate this two-party system.

Shootin' the Breeze / Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
« on: April 04, 2008, 11:14:38 PM »
Yeah, and just leave the country in ruins. How responsible that would be, after all the promises the US government made. Unfortunately, things have gone too far now to just say "sorry guys, we're not up to the ask after all!"

Because I'm sure that they are begging for the US to stay and now see us as some sort of beacon of human rights and freedom.

Why quote me when you don't even address what I had to say?

You were defending his second opinion and implied that his first opinion would cause problems. I was saying that occupying this country is causing us problems. That was how I was responding to you.

I think you're blowing this out of proportion.  The spliced video you posted are of two different questions, the first one on a general stance on the war, the second was a reaction to the notion that there might still be troops there in 2013.  I could see how you could strongly disagree with the idea of a phased withdrawal but I think it's a bit of a stretch to call what Obama said in one of the early debates a lie.  In our previous military disaster, Vietnam, it took about 3-6 years to completely get everyone out.
On a similar note, I think the McCain "hundred year" war quote is also blown out of proportion.  McCain was speaking of military presence, not combat/full-blown occupation.  Now while I think thats a stupid idea, I at least know what he meant.

My point was he really didn't, and if one didn't allow themselves to be swayed by the editing and obvious purpose of the video, they would realize that. And from what you say about leadership, you basically want an anti-war George W. Bush. Someone that'll do whatever they, and in this case, you, want because they think it's idealogical the "right thing" despite the real world consequences. I'm tired of that kind of autocratic thinking from our leadership, which is exactly what... us in THIS situation in the first place. Anyway, are we talking about Obama's stance on Iraq, or waxing poetic on the horrors of war? If it's the latter, fine, but what does this type of grandstanding have to do with the actual problem we're facing, or how to best proceed? It's exactly that kind of emotional rhetoric and hasty action that got us into this in the first place, and we can't just go back in time, it's too late to do the right thing by simply not being there. I'd rather have a reasonable course of action to responsibly disengage without causing more severe damage. Isn't that important to you however cynical you might be about the prospect? In any case, it takes time, and how we leave is more important than when, but people just want the instant gratification of an arbitrary date (that'll get pushed back). It's like people think that because we're the one's that made the hole, we should now just pull our finger from the dyke in shame. That's not okay, that's not the right thing, and it's not going to fix the problems we've created over there or do anything to improve our stance or reputation abroad, on the contrary, it would be quite disgusting of us.

To CnC and GNM:
Obviously the video was edited and did have an agenda but that doesn't change the fact that in one video he said they would all be out within a year and another said that they would be out by 2013. What next, 2030? I had heard this from many other sources, but I chose to find and post the video since it contained his exact words. I can’t even be sure that politicians who say, ‘phased withdrawal’, are not actually saying "It's politically inconvenient for me to say at no point in the near future."

I gave both financial and strategic reasons, not just moral ones. Boosting enemy recruitment and costing us three trillion dollars is bad for the state. A person who does the "right thing" would be someone who picks every violent conflict around the world and stretches our troops and sinks billions of dollars immediately and believes that we must use every ounce of energy to force the world into a peaceful utopia of industrialized, authentic democracies. I'm against bankrupting ourselves and creating more enemies than we can handle. Unprovoked, costly wars, and massive debts have killed civilizations.

It depends on what they, or you, mean by occupation, the U.S. military rarely ever leaves somewhere it engages like this. We still have a military presence and bases in sovereign nations all over the world, which is a difficult concept for us to really grasp since we don't see a lot of foreign soldiers walking down our streets over here. Anyway, considering that opposite extreme, what makes you think it's realistic to expect us to just leave immediately? I want us out ASAP, but that's still going to take years after we begin the process, and won't include extremes like every troop being gone.

With this supposed ‘phased withdrawal’, the situation of soldiers in Iraq would be nothing like the situation of soldiers in Japan and Germany and keeping troops in hostile territory for decades is also an extreme.

Shootin' the Breeze / Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
« on: April 04, 2008, 04:56:55 PM »
Should have thought about that before going there in the first place.

And now we should accept our losses and bring our soldiers home. Let's not let our lack of knowledge, our fear, a biased media, a lobby that does not care about our interests, and corporate greed continue to hurt us.

Shootin' the Breeze / Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
« on: April 04, 2008, 04:39:26 PM »
I don't see what's so bad there, other than the idea of the original bill honestly, his later answer to a similar, though not the same question, was actually the more thoughtful and reasonable one if anything. Blindly pledging to remove all troops from the region no matter what is a totally unrealistic and irresponsible one to make, impossible even. While it does leave something to be desired, I like his reserved answer a lot better than some disingenuous promise he can't keep.

Either Obama is being indecisive or is saying what is convenient for his campaign, as opposed to what he actually thinks is best for our country when he changes his stances like this. I don't want to elect someone who doesn't know how to make a decision or who isn't honest about what our future under him will entail.

This war has created a disaster and staying here would increase our problems. Continuing this war would further endanger our soldiers, drain our budget, and kill even more Iraqis. This war has cost us THREE TRILLION dollars, and the lives of 4,000 Americans. I have seen estimates putting the number of Iraqi deaths at 600,000 and over 1.2 million (more than the Rwandan genocide). These numbers of course do not reflect the number of people who have gone insane or who have become permanently crippled. And as more people suffer, terrorist groups will become even more influential.

Analysts have said that this war would require decades of occupation. Can we even afford that?

Of course, like so many of us here, I'm typing this in between cleaning Obama's sheets and making his bed. Anyway, I'll have more time tomorrow after I cook his breakfast and finish cleaning the pool. =)

I don't doubt that you spend a lot of time on his bed :)

News & Not News / Third graders aimed to hurt teacher
« on: April 03, 2008, 07:16:42 PM »;_ylt=Ass43b3YMVq6lA8KzEN9L3Ws0NUE

WAYCROSS, Ga. - A group of third-graders plotted to attack their teacher, bringing a broken steak knife, handcuffs, duct tape and other items for the job and assigning children tasks including covering the windows and cleaning up afterward, police said Tuesday.

The plot by as many as nine boys and girls at Center Elementary School in south Georgia was a serious threat, Waycross Police Chief Tony Tanner said.

"We did not hear anybody say they intended to kill her, but could they have accidentally killed her? Absolutely," Tanner said. "We feel like if they weren't interrupted, there would have been an attempt. Would they have been successful? We don't know."

The children, ages 8 and 9, were apparently mad at the teacher because she had scolded one of them for standing on a chair, Tanner said. A prosecutor said they are too young to be charged with a crime under Georgia law.

School officials alerted police Friday after a pupil tipped off a teacher that a girl had brought a weapon to school, Tanner said.

Police seized a broken steak knife, handcuffs, duct tape, electrical and transparent tape, ribbons and a crystal paperweight from the students, who apparently intended to use them against the teacher, Tanner said.

Nine children have been given discipline up to and including long-term suspension, said Theresa Martin, spokeswoman for the Ware County school system. She would not be more specific but said none of the children had been back to school since the case came to light.

The purported target is a veteran educator who teaches third-grade students with learning disabilities including attention deficit disorder, delayed development and hyperactivity, friends and parents said.

The scheme involved a division of roles, Tanner said. One child's job was to cover windows so no one could see outside, he said. Another was supposed to clean up after the attack.

"We're not sure at this point in the investigation how many of the students actually knew the intent was to hurt the teacher," Tanner said.

The parents of the students have cooperated with investigators, who aren't allowed to question the children without their parents' or guardians' consent, he said. Authorities have withheld the children's names.

Police expected to forward the results of their investigation to prosecutors, Tanner said.

Children in Georgia can't be charged with a crime unless they are at least 13, District Attorney Rick Currie said.

Martin told The Florida Times-Union of Jacksonville, Fla., that administrators would follow school system policy and state law in disciplining the students.

"From what I understand, they were considered pretty good kids," Martin said. "But we have to take this seriously, whether they were serious or not about carrying this through, and that's what we did."

Four mothers of other third-grade students at Center Elementary called for the immediate expulsion of the suspected plotters.

Stacy Carter and Deana Hiott both cited school system policy stating that any student who brings "anything reasonably considered to be a weapon" is to be expelled for at least the remainder of the school year.

"We don't want our children around them," Carter told the Times-Union. "The one with the knife could have stabbed my child or someone else's child at lunch or out on the playground."

"This is an isolated incident, an aberration. ... We have good kids," Center Principal Angie Coleman told the newspaper.

News & Not News / Re: 12 year old kills man trying to murder mom
« on: April 03, 2008, 07:12:29 PM »
If someone's trying to hurt or kill you (or in this case, someone nearby) it's perfectly justified to hurt or kill them in defense.  That's my belief, anyway.

I agree with you. They just need to make sure that that was what actually happened.

News & Not News / Re: 12 year old kills man trying to murder mom
« on: April 03, 2008, 06:55:04 PM »
But it needs to be verified that the boy is not lying about why he killed the man. If this story is true, then a young boy proved that he was a loyal son. If this story is false, then an innocent man was brutally stabbed and a clever murderer walks free.

Shootin' the Breeze / Re: Adventures in YouTube
« on: April 03, 2008, 05:56:51 PM »
For everyone who likes South Park:

News & Not News / Re: Nazi Hookers Exist!
« on: April 01, 2008, 02:09:22 AM »
One of the girls filmed it.

She sent it to the tabloid as well?

News & Not News / Re: Nazi Hookers Exist!
« on: April 01, 2008, 02:05:16 AM »
How the hell did this tabloid get a hold of such a video in the first place?

Shootin' the Breeze / Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
« on: March 30, 2008, 09:07:37 PM »
I don't feel good about anyone except for Ron Paul.  He would, in fact, cause an economic revolution.  He is not televised, though, and you know the media elects these fools.

I would choose Ron Paul over any of the republican candidates but I disagree with his philosophy on big government vs. small government.

Ron Paul talks about how our current policies are driving us into a depression, but lack of regulation is what caused the great depression in the first place. The government can many times be a positive thing. It has intervened to make sure that workers are properly paid and treated and has also made sure that businesses follow quality standards and environmental regulations. Many students would not even be in college if it were not for government scholarships and how many people could afford something other than public schools?

The government can also make sure that more of our money gets spent on science and research rather than the many extravagant things that we buy. Had it not been for the government, we would not even have an internet.

However, I don't always think the government trying to expand its power is a good thing; especially when it involves violating our first amendment, fifth amendment, sixth amendment, and eight amendment rights. I also agree with him, for the most part, that our role as policeman of the world has done more harm to us and the world.

One of my biggest issues with Obama:


ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) — Yet another delay is expected in the trial of two former pro-Israel lobbyists accused of disclosing U.S. secrets after prosecutors told a judge Friday they plan to appeal a critical ruling on how classified information will be introduced at trial.

The ruling issued this week by U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III is sealed, but a lawyer for one defendant portrayed prosecutors' decision to appeal as the latest in a series of setbacks to the government's case.

Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, former lobbyists with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, were accused in 2005 of illegally disclosing sensitive national defense information. Their trial originally was set for 2006 but will now have to be rescheduled an eighth time — the latest date had been set for next month.

"It's now pretty clear that the government does not want to try this case," said Rosen's lawyer, Abbe Lowell. "They filed these charges without thinking them through, and there appears to be no one in government with enough authority or courage to admit they made a mistake."

A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney in Alexandria declined to comment.

Even if the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond hears the appeal on an expedited basis, it will likely take at least several months.

The charges against Rosen and Weissman fall under the 1917 Espionage Act, a rarely used World War I-era law that has never before been applied to lobbyists. They are not charged with espionage.

The indictment alleges that Rosen and Weissman conspired to obtain classified reports on issues relevant to American policy, including and U.S. policy in Iran, the al-Qaida terrorist network and the bombing of the Khobar Towers dormitory in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 U.S. Air Force personnel. The men are accused of sharing the information with reporters and foreign diplomats.

Rosen and Weissman have argued that the information in which they traffic is commonly traded by Washington insiders, and that government officials tacitly support such disclosures.

Over prosecutors' objections, Rosen and Weissman have already won the right to subpoena Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other top administration officials. The defense believes their testimony will support their claim that the United States regularly uses AIPAC to send back-channel communications to Israel.

Lawyers have been meeting for weeks in secret hearings in an effort to take classified evidence and develop unclassified substitutes that can be used at a public trial. The process is frequently unwieldy, but has been especially so in this case.

Ellis has voiced frustration several times at the inability of prosecutors and the defense to agree on the wordings of the substitutions.

Ellis previously rejected an earlier proposal by prosecutors to use a series of secret codes to conduct the trial, in which lawyers would have referred to "Country A" or "witness B" to keep classified information out of the public realm. Defense lawyers had said the plan would have been tantamount to holding a secret trial.

Current Episodes / Re: Episode 295
« on: March 25, 2008, 01:51:32 PM »

Shootin' the Breeze / Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
« on: March 24, 2008, 11:43:57 PM »
Edit: Peregrine what I was talking about was on page 128 on this report:

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)

Talking is one thing, doing it is another.

That is true, but the talking is coming from both sides, the organization (which is a lobbyist group that does not need to lie about its goals and beliefs since they aren't elected by the public) that puppeteers the two major parties also wants to invade Iran, and the media keeps trying to make Iran into a global threat. These were the almost identical events that also led to the invasion of Iraq. When all of this happens together, I worry.

I'm fully aware of that and I would project it more around a few million. But also realize that the people who decide all these things don't care about how many people die on either side. They're the ones pushing for the conflict, not the general population. 

That is true, but civilians are not "someone their own size".

Shootin' the Breeze / Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
« on: March 24, 2008, 10:12:07 PM »
Yes and no, the intelligence reports used for the war in Iraq were 100% true, but the catch was they were done back in the 80's when Iraq was at war with Iran and we had given them all those weapons we invaded them for.

The reports done before the Iraq war were not used when Bush was trying to go to war because they said Iraq didn't have WMDs.

Where did you hear this?

Shootin' the Breeze / Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
« on: March 24, 2008, 08:16:35 PM »
I'd be really surprised if the US invaded Iran. It would be a very stupid decision, and the result would likely be catastrophic. I'm not even sure it's feasible in the first place.

Where are you hearing that?  Not that I'm accusing you but I'd like to know your source.

I wouldn't be worried if our society was sane and not so bent on building a fake case against Iran, but it isn't. Far too many people are under the impression that Mahmud Ahmadinejad is a modern Hitler with plans to nuke Israel and then America.

The media keeps on saying that Mahmud Ahmadinejad spoke of plans to "wipe Israel off the map" when his actual quote neither mentioned the words 'Israel' nor 'map'. They also don't clarify that he does not have the power to drop any of Iran's hypothetical nukes, Ayatollah Khamenei, who has been the supreme leader of Iran since 1989, would. They also don't mention the fact that not even our own intelligence could prove that Iran has any nukes or is trying to get any. They also don't mention the fact that India, Pakistan, and Israel have nukes, because we would laugh at anyone who proposed invading them on those grounds (we have plenty of nukes as well).

I'm also worried because AIPAC, an organization that controls millions of dollars of funding to both the Democratic and Republican party and that will cut funding to any candidate who dares to oppose their policies thus killing his/her chances of getting elected, want us to fight and die there so badly and all of our main candidates are in a race to who can sell out our country to them the quickest. Even Barack, the supposed anti-war candidate of change, has been pandering to AIPAC throughout this election.

Our country is in danger when its system allows for people who say that they will not rule out a nuclear strike on Iran, sing "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran", or people who want us to believe that Iran has plans to commit a second holocaust to have a very good chance of winning the election.

Though catastrophic, it would actually be interesting if Iran had nukes, then when a few major cities in the states go up in smoke, people might realize they picked on someone they're own size.

Before you talk about it that way, just remember that those nukes would kill thousands of innocent civilians (including children).

Shootin' the Breeze / Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
« on: March 24, 2008, 06:06:40 PM »
Well the States have already proven their intelligence reports aren't worth diddly squat.

Obviously they're not 100% reliable, but it makes the justification for a war in Iran even more flimsy when we have even less proof that they have nuclear weapons than we did for the invasion of Iraq. Even if we were 100% sure that they did have nukes, invading Iran would still be a terrible idea.

Shootin' the Breeze / Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
« on: March 24, 2008, 04:53:05 PM »
I don't have to worry about all the nukes Iran will launch when McCain gets elected and decides to invade Iran.

According to our own intelligence, Iran does not have nukes and isn't trying to get any. Of course, that doesn't come up during the debates and it makes no difference to a neocon like McCain.

Shootin' the Breeze / Re: 2008 Presidential Primaries
« on: March 24, 2008, 02:17:34 AM »
Why does Obama have the majority of the Berserk manga reader vote?

Creation Station / Re: Supposedly funny edited pictures
« on: March 24, 2008, 12:26:07 AM »
Well at least a link. It must be shared with the world! the very very least...send it to me in PM please. I really want it!

I don't think links in this forum are permanent, so look for a thread named "Berserk Porn contest!!!!" in the search engine. It will be on page 2.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7