toms Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 could anyone ever get elected in the US without going on and on about his christian credentials? The Kerry vs Bush thing almost seemed to turn into a "i'm more christian than you" contest. Which is weird in a political election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 And yet you clearly bought into all the bad things about John Kerry's politics in the exact same way. You got me there. Since he was never in Office, I can only go by what he said he would do. ... That is without a doubt the most retarded thing I've ever heard and I hope you feel ashamed for saying that. Not just out of principle but as a christian. You'd let a political figure shake your religious beliefs? You need to work on your convictions. You know how many times you have said the above phrase? Its getting old. Either you missed my point of view, I missed yours. If you were a christian you wouldn't vote the guy who makes decisions that conflict with your religion. A political figure won't shake my beliefs, but he can altar the religious world around me. Some change, can be a lot of change to some people. Im a Christian, I don't agree with moving religious monuments, crap, I don't pay attention to any other religious monuments, or symboles, etc, only my own. I don't agree with gay marriage. I don't agree with abortion. Kerry said (at least the last two) he would change that. And while, I know there would have to be votes, in my opinion it shouldn't even be questioned. Its against my morals. Bush didn't want to change that, only enforce it. You don't pick the guy who is going to do the exact opposite of what you want him to do. could anyone ever get elected in the US without going on and on about his christian credentials? The person's morals are partly shown when they discuss their religion. I know they may not stick with it, but at least you have a better idea of how they might run the country vs. the guy who doesn't discuss his morals. Morals are important in an election. And yes, im 100% convinced religion is used as a tool to get in office sometimes, if not just to boost votes. Second Hussein didn't support terrorist leaders, they want the exact opposite of what he wanted. You could argue Hussein was a terrorist to his own people... some of them. And 2 wrongs don't make a right. Terrorist action isn't exactly very "American". It all depends, that can be said about any war, conflict, etc. So lets just sit back and let them do it again, right? Look at England, I've heard a lot of brittish were anti-bush, right? Now that they have been attacked, I am sure they will see things from his point of view. Remember after 9-11, many many people signed up for the military, almost instantly. My point is, killing thousands of people is slightly hard to ignore, especially when they have the power to do it again. The simple fact is, while a lot of people disagree with the war, they agree with Bush's morals. They don't agree with what Kerry would have done. That doesn't mean they are rednecks, or Christians. An average athiest who is anti-abortion may have voted for Bush, because of Kerry's "Im not Bush campaign" -- Which lets face it, thats pretty much all it was. "Islamics"? Actually I believe it's just extremists as religion really has no basis, it's used as an excuse just like abortion clinic bombings. Islamic extremists then, however the point still remains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 You know how many times you have said the above phrase? Its getting old. Either you missed my point of view, I missed yours. If you were a christian you wouldn't vote the guy who makes decisions that conflict with your religion. Not everyone (although the vast majority sadly do) would vote based on their religious beliefs. Doing so is literally wasting your vote, because you're not really considering any of the issues because all you care about is making sure that America stays christian. Which is totally wrong, because that takes away freedoms from non-christians and especially athiests/agnostics. That's forcing people to adapt to a christian lifestyle when they are not of the christian faith. It's not a good thing! Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 A political figure won't shake my beliefs, but he can altar the religious world around me. Some change, can be a lot of change to some people. Religious world as in... the government? The government is SUPPOSED to be secular. Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 The person's morals are partly shown when they discuss their religion. I know they may not stick with it, but at least you have a better idea of how they might run the country vs. the guy who doesn't discuss his morals. Morals are important in an election. And yes, im 100% convinced religion is used as a tool to get in office sometimes, if not just to boost votes. Kerry has said that he's catholic, he believes abortion and gay marriage is wrong, but his religious morals have nothing to do with the way he would run the country. So he decides to allow freedom over forcing his lifestyle on others. Bush, on the other hand, is enforcing laws that border on being unconstitutional (probably are, actually), that force people to live in a christian lifestyle and persecutes minorities such as homosexuals. Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 You could argue Hussein was a terrorist to his own people... some of them. So really, why is that our problem? Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 It all depends, that can be said about any war, conflict, etc. So lets just sit back and let them do it again, right? Of course not. What needs to be done is, this country needs to secure its borders, step up security, and search the middle east for terrorists. No I don't mean declare war on countries, I mean send in special forces who will hunt them down. Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 Look at England, I've heard a lot of brittish were anti-bush, right? Now that they have been attacked, I am sure they will see things from his point of view. Maybe, but I'm sure some of them blame Bush for getting England involved in it and now they hate him more. Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 Remember after 9-11, many many people signed up for the military, almost instantly. Yeah and that's great and all, but the president needs to wage war wisely. It's not like all these gentlemen are at his disposal. Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 My point is, killing thousands of people is slightly hard to ignore, especially when they have the power to do it again. Exactly, which is why stopping such acts of terror must be done strategically. Marching into Iraq is only inviting such acts, as we now see from the London bombings. Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 The simple fact is, while a lot of people disagree with the war, they agree with Bush's morals. They don't agree with what Kerry would have done. Which is so totally the problem. Some people might disagree with 95% of Bush's policies, but vote for him just because he will fight abortion. That's like cheating yourself out of your own right to vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Religious world as in... the government? The government is SUPPOSED to be secular. And it is, having someone with christian values doesn't make it a theocracy. Not everyone (although the vast majority sadly do) would vote based on their religious beliefs. Doing so is literally wasting your vote, because you're not really considering any of the issues because all you care about is making sure that America stays christian. Which is totally wrong, because that takes away freedoms from non-christians and especially athiests/agnostics. That's forcing people to adapt to a christian lifestyle when they are not of the christian faith. It's not a good thing! Thats right, you guys are really suffering. Theres a lot of persecution for athiests, and I won't even start talking about the terrible crimes commited against the agnostics. What freedoms have you lost? Besides abortion, you have lost nothing. You could argue that you have actually gained in recent years. America has always been this way to a certain degree. TK, unless your gay, or want an abortion, YOU don't have much to worry about. Christians are not the only people who are anti-abortion, or are not for Same Sex Marriages. Exactly, which is why stopping such acts of terror must be done strategically. Marching into Iraq is only inviting such acts, as we now see from the London bombings. You forget 9-11. Judging by the actions of those terrorists, they don't need to be provoked. We were not declaring war on them at all. Yet they found the need to blow the world trade center buildings, and part of the pentagon. Its like that with any war, you can't expect the other country to do nothing. England is involved in this now, and you have to expect attacks. Im not saying its good, but if I hit you, I should expect you to return the favor. Most likley, if we had never invaded Iraq, they probably wouldn't have bombed London, but, you can't be sure that they wouldn't have bombed America, again. So really, why is that our problem? Bush declared a War on Terror, long before the War in Iraq. To answere your argument more clearly, Bush did send in men only to track down and attack terrorists, before Iraq was mentioned. They were going after Osama. Soon after, Hussien was pulled into the conflict, for what seemed like good reasons at the time, except, now the reasons just don't sound good... Do we even really know if Bush just made up a lie? He was probably misinformed. They had some evidence he may have been working on WMDs, which could have been put into terrorist hands. If you think about it, he was being preventative, or trying to be. He was trying to prevent nuclear war. I know that doesn't justify the war now, but back then Bush didn't want something worse than 9-11 on his hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CloseTheBlastDo Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Look at England, I've heard a lot of brittish were anti-bush, right? Now that they have been attacked, I am sure they will see things from his point of view. With as much repect as I can muster up at this point - PLEASE do not speak for the British people! We'll speak for ourselves - thank you. We weren't bombed because we were anti-bush. We increased our liklehood of being bombed because our goverment stood next to America! As a UK citizen (who lives about 30-odd miles out of London), I won't let terrorists change my way of life. That also means I won't let them change my viewpoint... In any case, I doubt very much the bombings in London will create a wave of Bush supporters. It's beyond me why you'd think this... You forget 9-11. Judging by the actions of those terrorists, they don't need to be provoked. While I dont' condone the acts of Terrorists, this statement shows a deep lack of understanding about the world you live in. If you think a group of people (no matter how extreme a small group of them may be) feel the need to attack the western world with such hatred because of - nothing...? then you really need to open your eyes a bit. You may not agree with the reasons, but there are reasons non-the-less... Ignoring these reasons only makes you weaker, and making you (and us collectively) far more open to further attacks. You see, degrading their huimanity will only make them want to attack you more. Invading their homelands will only make them want to attack you more... These are the only tactics Bush can concieve of. ...And the more he continues to pursue these avenues without any plan B, we will continue to be under attack. Do we even really know if Bush just made up a lie? He was probably misinformed. They had some evidence he may have been working on WMDs, which could have been put into terrorist hands. If you think about it, he was being preventative, or trying to be. He was trying to prevent nuclear war. I know that doesn't justify the war now, but back then Bush didn't want something worse than 9-11 on his hands. The word lie is too extreme. And the people involved know it. And would love the accusation of lies to continue so that any 'true' critism of the desisions that were made regarding the Iraq war will appear irrational and overblown. That said, I've got no doubts whatsoever that a certain amount of 'spin' was involved. Possibilities were promted to facts. Doubts were downplayed. This goes on all the time in politics of course. This is just a high profile 'incident' where spin is more clearly demonstrated. It is discouraging for those who hold too many high ideals to their leaders. To the rest of us, it's kinda business as usual (depressingly enough...) but back then Bush didn't want something worse than 9-11 on his hands. Of all the things that Bush could have done to stop future terrorist attacks, he pretty much made one of the worst choices. That's irrelavent to whether you believe he was 'mistaken' or not. Doesn't matter. The result is the same... TK, unless your gay, or want an abortion, YOU don't have much to worry about. Abortion is a more complex topic to talk through. But I don't think the gay comment is. Please explain - very clearly - how increasing the rights of gays affects YOUR non-homosexual freedoms. Your talking like it's 'us' or 'them' - which is utterly perposterous. Your idea of 'freedom' only centres around you and those who hold the same beliefs. From your language and attitude, it seems those of other beliefs, attitudes etc. can pretty much go hang. If these 'other people' do mange to scrap some freedoms together, well ok. But those who don't hold to your worldview shouldn't get their hopes up...?! Even when some of their specific freedoms won't conflict with yours in any way..? That's your 'morally superior' viewpoint?! Really? ...so much for the 'Land of the free'... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 And it is, having someone with christian values doesn't make it a theocracy. It is when those values are based on religion and god. If there was really any good argument for such values that did not rely on the bible, it'd be fine to have such values expressed in government. But this is not the case. Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 Thats right, you guys are really suffering. Theres a lot of persecution for athiests, and I won't even start talking about the terrible crimes commited against the agnostics. You may be being sarcastic here, but sadly it's true. Stuff like abortion clinic bombings. Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 What freedoms have you lost? Besides abortion, you have lost nothing. You could argue that you have actually gained in recent years. America has always been this way to a certain degree. TK, unless your gay, or want an abortion, YOU don't have much to worry about. True, true, most likely I personally will not be effected by such laws, unless I find myself with a pregnant girlfriend (I consider myself more responsible than that though). So yeah, I personally don't have to worry about that. But I'm thinking of other people not in my situation - I mean, in the big picture, I mean nothing to the world. I could disappear from the face of the earth and it's not that big a deal. Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 Christians are not the only people who are anti-abortion, or are not for Same Sex Marriages. Yes, that's true. However, christians are the very vast majority of those against such things. Christians control America because of their overwhelming support in government. Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 You forget 9-11. Judging by the actions of those terrorists, they don't need to be provoked. We were not declaring war on them at all. Yet they found the need to blow the world trade center buildings, and part of the pentagon. We provoked it by sticking our noses in the middle east where we don't belong. Stuff like the Gulf War and all the other business we should never have gotten into over there. Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 Most likley, if we had never invaded Iraq, they probably wouldn't have bombed London, but, you can't be sure that they wouldn't have bombed America, again. Well, they're trying in America. They're cathing them coming over the border from Mexico. Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 Bush declared a War on Terror, long before the War in Iraq. To answere your argument more clearly, Bush did send in men only to track down and attack terrorists, before Iraq was mentioned. They were going after Osama. Yeah, and that was better. I would have supported it if they stayed after just the terrorists. Iraq was a bad move. Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 Do we even really know if Bush just made up a lie? He was probably misinformed. They had some evidence he may have been working on WMDs, which could have been put into terrorist hands. If you think about it, he was being preventative, or trying to be. He was trying to prevent nuclear war. I know that doesn't justify the war now, but back then Bush didn't want something worse than 9-11 on his hands. But now that he was unable to find WMD's, we should just finish up and get out of there. But doing so would be like admitting defeat and the American patriots could not stand that. At this rate their Iraq ordeal will drag on for years... like so long that I might be facing a draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Who is the they that bombed London you're talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted July 13, 2005 Author Share Posted July 13, 2005 Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 Let me get this straight: Its ok for Middle Easterners (well, actually Islamics) to fly plane "bombs" into our buildings, killing thousands of US citizens. Did they commit those acts of violence because they were "Middle Easterners" or because they were criminals & terrorists? Nearly every one of the "Middle Easterners" that were involved were from Saudi Arabia. How does it follow that Saudis trained in Afghanistan who commit sucide terror warrant an invasion of a nation that wasn't involved? Why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia? Saudis commit attrocities and oppress women. Or why not simply finish the job in Afghanistan? Instead, we all but abandon the war on terrorism and invade a sovereign nation that was already near collapse from UN Sanctions. Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 On the other hand, when our own leader bombs em back, hes wrong? No, sir. He was right in attacking the terrorists. He was wrong for giving up the war on terror to send our boys & girls to Iraq, wasting billions of our tax dollars in the process. Indeed, he betrayed the United States by doing so and lying about the justifications to convince us. Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 Hussein did support terrorist leaders. Cite a source, bubba. Don't just say it because you want it to be true. Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 It was, and still is a War on Terror, Right. Keep marching lock-step to the music of the traitors running our great nation to ruin. Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 and you have to hit them anyway you can. I'd rather hit them where it actually hurts them. Where it actually means something and something can be accomplished. Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 While I am uncertain about the war, I wait to see its results. I am not in favor of abortion, or homosexuality. And while Bush is in office I can be assured that my Christian lifestyle is a lot safer, than if Kerry was in office. That's the stupidest set of reasons of all to favor a nation's leader. I saw no indication that Kerry was pro-abortion nor that he was homosexual. Indeed, I can't think of a single instance in which a President would have the power to legalize or prohibit either without massive support from legislaters. Wedge issues like the two you mentioned are used by political parties to create a culture war in the United States and, in reality, only affect a small percentage of the nation's population directly. Whereas, wars affect most of the population directly. Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 Its not about what someone told me... its about my morals, and my ideas. I think Kerry could harm my religion, which is important to me. He is Catholic, I am Protestant, we believe very different things. You both believe superstitious, supernatural, paranormal things from my perspective. Yet, I was able to find good and bat traits in all three of you (incl. Bush). Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 He is for things, that I am against. Like what? He's against abortion, doesn't care for homosexuality. Oh... I know: he was against the needless deaths and permanent injuries of thousands upon thousands of people in a country that had no ability to harm our nation while those that did were ignored. You had a different opinion? One must wonder WWJD? Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 On the another note, I think Skin's first arguement is clearly one sided. It only focuses on the bad. I think its more fair, at least for this debate, to present Bush's good qualities along with his bad. Why would I focus on the few things that Bush does well when the thread was about justifying his impeachment? I'll let his supporters do that... they have yet to, however. Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 For example, I can say all the bad things I want about Joe over there, and people will think he is aweful. On the other hand if I tell his good and bad qualities, people can make a better unbiased decision on the quality of his character. See my point? Joe over there isn't in charge of the most powerful nation on the planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 With as much repect as I can muster up at this point - PLEASE do not speak for the British people! We'll speak for ourselves - thank you. We weren't bombed because we were anti-bush. We increased our liklehood of being bombed because our goverment stood next to America! I was born in England, just so you know. I have family over there. And I didn't say you were bombed because England can be Anti-Bush. The reason I feel they may support (but I also agree with TK) is because now they have an actual reason to fight terror now, before they were just following the United States' decision to declare war on Iraq. Fighting terrorism should be an all round thing, everyone should contribute to making the world a better place. But, I think you may help more when have a real reason to fight. A threat and an attack are two completley different things. You see, degrading their huimanity will only make them want to attack you more. Invading their homelands will only make them want to attack you more... These are the only tactics Bush can concieve of. ...And the more he continues to pursue these avenues without any plan B, we will continue to be under attack. Read, we did absoulutley nothing to Arabic nations before 9-11 that I am awhere of. Why do you think all of this stuff started? Because of 9-11! Bush may not have even looked at the Middle East, if it wasn't for 9-11! You do know what happend on 9-11? right?! Your idea of 'freedom' only centres around you and those who hold the same beliefs. From your language and attitude, it seems those of other beliefs, attitudes etc. can pretty much go hang. If these 'other people' do mange to scrap some freedoms together, well ok. But those who don't hold to your worldview shouldn't get their hopes up...?! Even when some of their specific freedoms won't conflict with yours in any way..? That's your 'morally superior' viewpoint?! Really? I think Gay Marriage is inevitable, it will be legal... probably, as much as I really don't want it to be. You may be being sarcastic here, but sadly it's true. Stuff like abortion clinic bombings. That has nothing to do with Athiest and Agnostics. I could understand if you said women who want an abortion, but you didn't. Even some Christians are pro-abortion! And some Athiests and Agnostics are anti-abortion! It is when those values are based on religion and god. If there was really any good argument for such values that did not rely on the bible, it'd be fine to have such values expressed in government. But this is not the case. No, a theocracy is when the Church rules the country, like back in old puritan societies. A few men making decisions that have Christian morals is not a theocracy. A theocracy is unconstitutional. Besides, we do have checks and balances. This helps to prevent theocracy, to a point. We provoked it by sticking our noses in the middle east where we don't belong. Stuff like the Gulf War and all the other business we should never have gotten into over there. That was 10 years before 9-11. And that war was against Suddam Hussein. He had nothing to do with the attacks on 9-11. Yeah, and that was better. I would have supported it if they stayed after just the terrorists. Iraq was a bad move. Yeah, I agree. But like I said, I still wait to see the full outcome of the war, which won't come for many years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 Read, we did absoulutley nothing to Arabic nations before 9-11 that I am awhere of. Why do you think all of this stuff started? Because of 9-11! Bush may not have even looked at the Middle East, if it wasn't for 9-11! Wow! Now THAT'S a huge subject! I wouldn't even know where to begin on that subject, except to say that US involment in the Middle East truly began when oil was discoved in huge quantities there early in the last century. Since then it's been non-stop. You could go back to the founding of the modern nation of Israel, (highly unpopular in that particular region) and the US support of that nation. You could also go back earlier to the British Empire controlling that entire area for decades, much to the dismay of the indigenous people. You could even go back to the Crusades for real background, but that may be beyond the scope of this discussion (although there is much relevance there.) EDIT: I found this article online that's a nice overview of modern US involvment in the affairs of the Middle East. A little long, but a worthwile read: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-159.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 I think Gay Marriage is inevitable, it will be legal... probably, as much as I really don't want it to be. Oh, don't worry, it'll probably always be illegal in the United States. The world around will adapt, Canada and Spain have, but because America is so christian it will stay under religious law. At least not in any of our lifes, that is. Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 That has nothing to do with Athiest and Agnostics. I could understand if you said women who want an abortion, but you didn't. Even some Christians are pro-abortion! And some Athiests and Agnostics are anti-abortion! Would a christian who has an abortion/performs an abortion be a true christian though? Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 No, a theocracy is when the Church rules the country, like back in old puritan societies. A few men making decisions that have Christian morals is not a theocracy. A theocracy is unconstitutional. Besides, we do have checks and balances. This helps to prevent theocracy, to a point. As far as I'm concerned, the country is basically under christian rule. Indirectly, but the christian church has been the deciding factor for many issues. Compaired to democracy in other countries, America's is a joke. It's all about "I'm more christian than you." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Originally posted by TK-8252 Would a christian who has an abortion/performs an abortion be a true christian though? Most likely not, although I was always taught that there was nobody totally beyond redemption in the eyes of God. Although it brings up an interesting point: I am assured by my Catholic friends that use of any artificial means of birth control (chemical, surgical, or mechanical barrier) has always been and is still a sin, and was considered so by almost ALL Christian churches right up until this century. Now, for the most part, only the Catholics are so strict about not using ANY forms of contraception. Most have relaxed the restrictions to only a few instances. But suppose all known forms of artifical birth control were to somehow be banned by federal on moral and religious grounds in this country, even between married couples? Now that raises the interesting dilemma that if you are a Protestant Christian who has no moral objection and a clean conscience about using artifical birth control, and don't see it as a sin in use in an otherwise faithful and happy marrage: Should you be forced by the state to obey the moral laws set forth by others that believe differently from you? Seems to me that if you have been taught to never use any kind birth control, then just don't use it... But don't work to keep me from using it if I don't believe it's a sin. That's something I'll have to work out with God on my own when the time comes. Don't use the power of the federal government to protect myself from sins that I may not even believe in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Windu Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 That was 10 years before 9-11. And that war was against Suddam Hussein. He had nothing to do with the attacks on 9-11. The votes are in, the judges have counted them... BEST POST EVAR!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CloseTheBlastDo Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 I was born in England, just so you know. I have family over there I have family in a lot of places too - including America, Canada and India. But I'm not going to speak on behalf of Americans, Canadians or Indians, since I am a citizen of none of these countries... The reason I feel they may support (but I also agree with TK) is because now they have an actual reason to fight terror now, before they were just following the United States' decision to declare war on Iraq. Fighting terrorism should be an all round thing, everyone should contribute to making the world a better place. But, I think you may help more when have a real reason to fight. You mean you hope we'll suddenly 'see red' and jump even further on the 'eye-for-an-eye-and-a-tooth-for-a-tooth' USA bandwagon? ..no thanks. I hope my nation - as a whole - takes the more Christ-like route. I hope we don't make the mistake of fighting violence with more violence, thus only increasing the bloodshed on all sides. Rather, I hope we turn the other cheek (whilst keeping our security strong) and take the time to help heal the wounds in this world which are the base cause of all these troubles. I want no part of Bush's idioitic 'Axis of Evil' - thank you very much. Take that from someone who wants to see less bloodshed, not more... Read, we did absoulutley nothing to Arabic nations before 9-11 that I am awhere of. Why do you think all of this stuff started? Because of 9-11! Bush may not have even looked at the Middle East, if it wasn't for 9-11! I think edlib's reply sums it up: Wow! Now THAT'S a huge subject! It's no secret that a lot of American's knowledge doesn't extend much past their own border. (Note I'm not saying most - but I think 'a lot' is fairly accurate). Just becuase you don't know (or don't care to learn about) the possible reasons, doesn't mean they dont' exist. I think Gay Marriage is inevitable, it will be legal... probably, as much as I really don't want it to be. You mean people will be allowed freedom's which don't diminish the freedom's of others - including yourself?! Wow - you must be pissed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Windu Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 You mean you hope we'll suddenly 'see red' and jump even further on the 'eye-for-an-eye-and-a-tooth-for-a-tooth' USA bandwagon? ..no thanks. I hope my nation - as a whole - takes the more Christ-like route. I hope we don't make the mistake of fighting violence with more violence, thus only increasing the bloodshed on all sides. Rather, I hope we turn the other cheek (whilst keeping our security strong) and take the time to help heal the wounds in this world which are the base cause of all these troubles. I want no part of Bush's idioitic 'Axis of Evil' - thank you very much. Take that from someone who wants to see less bloodshed, not more... Contrary to popular belief, when we invade countries in search of "terrorists" and people who aren't terrorists get harmed, that adds on to the huge pile of resentment that the Middle East already has for the U.S. Which results in more and more people being tempted to join extremists. Seeds of terrorism anyone >_> It's no secret that a lot of American's knowledge doesn't extend much past their own border. (Note I'm not saying most - but I think 'a lot' is fairly accurate). Just becuase you don't know (or don't care to learn about) the possible reasons, doesn't mean they dont' exist. Sucks, doesn't it? You mean people will be allowed freedom's which don't diminish the freedom's of others - including yourself?! Wow - you must be pissed! IT'S A THREAT TO HIS CHRISTIAN MORALS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted July 13, 2005 Author Share Posted July 13, 2005 Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 The reason I feel they may support (but I also agree with TK) is because now they have an actual reason to fight terror now, before they were just following the United States' decision to declare war on Iraq. Fighting terrorism should be an all round thing, everyone should contribute to making the world a better place. But, I think you may help more when have a real reason to fight. You know, it's really the U.S. that is late in the so-called war on terror. Europe dealt with a very high rate of terrorism prior to 1990. Bombings in London (as well as mortar attacks from the backs of vans!) were not rare occurances. Assassinations and bombings in Germany, France, Italy, and other Euro nations were so commonplace that an out-of-place fire extinguisher was often cause enough to evacuate a building. Europeans have been dealing with terrorism for decades. The United States is a novice in the field. Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 Read, we did absoulutley nothing to Arabic nations before 9-11 that I am awhere of. Why do you think all of this stuff started? Because of 9-11! Bush may not have even looked at the Middle East, if it wasn't for 9-11! What? You can't be serious. Then again, I have to remember you're still young -I forget this at times when engaging in discussions on msg forums. The United States, as edlib pointed out, has had its mitts in much of the affairs of the Middle East. But we have to bear in mind that we weren't attacked by "Arabic nations". We were attacked by a very small minority of extremists who happen to be Muslim. Our interferences with Middle Eastern affairs also included troops and material in Saudi Arabia & Egypt as well as Kuwait; the Iranian coup in the 1970's which installed the Shaw who eventually had go into exile (in the U.S.); massive financial and military support for Israel - a land appropriated from the Palestinians who were forcibly evicted and subsequently oppressed by continued occupation and terrorist attacks on their homes and businesses by Israel; corporate manuvering by U.S. companies in the pursuit of petroleum resources; etc., etc. Terrorism is a symptom, not the cause. If we keep addressing the symptom without acknowledging the root causes of our 'bad rap' in the Middle East (and other regions of the world), then we are sure to suffer the wrath of terrorism for decades to come. Invading a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with 9/11 was a serious mistake on our part. We fouled up. Big time. Bush & company have betrayed the trust of the citizens of the United States and Bush deserves to be impeached if not jailed. Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 I think Gay Marriage is inevitable, it will be legal... probably, as much as I really don't want it to be. Who cares? It is yet another example of the self-righteous and elite classes looking for ways to appeal to segments of the nation and divide them so they can get what they really want: power, wealth and prestige. Gay marriage affects you none in the slightest. You could live in a neighborhood where half the families were comprised of same-sex marriages and nothing would change for you beyond the likelihood that half or more of the homes would be better decorated than the rest. Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 Even some Christians are pro-abortion! And some Athiests and Agnostics are anti-abortion! Precisely. I'm anti-abortion because I value life. I don't, however, think it should be illegal to obtain an abortion in the earliest stages. It doesn't mean that I agree with the choice. I find it ironic how "pro-life" people are often very much in favor of the death penalty. Either you "err on the side of life" or you don't. If you disagree with abortion: don't ever have one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Originally posted by SkinWalker If you disagree with abortion: don't ever have one. Indeed. And if you're against gay marriage don't propose to another guy. It's all very simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted July 19, 2005 Author Share Posted July 19, 2005 I'm sure everyone is aware of the Karl Rove scandal going on in the Whitehouse. Ages ago, Bush stated that he would "fire" anyone who was determined to have leaked Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative to the press. But now that its clear that it was Rove, Bush hasn't fired him. Scott McClellen stands before the press acting like an ass and simply repeating that he cannot comment on an ongoing investigation -one that he was fully able and willing to comment on up to the point that Rove was outed as the leak. Indeed, McClellen even reiterated Bush's comment that the leak would be fired before it was known that the leak was Rove -during the investigation! How much more casual lies and underhanded dealings will even the conservative base of our voting public and legislature take? I suspect they are finally seeing the Bush administration for what it truly is: traitors to the American people. They are only looking out for their own well-being and damn anyone that gets in their way. Rove's act of treason was entirely based on the fact that he wanted to take revenge on Wilson for daring to criticize the President (and, by association, Rove) and question the logic of the Iraq war. For that, a CIA operative lost her cover and others may well have lost their lives. Plame was working in a front organization that was getting human intelligence. Once she was named as an operative, the next obvious connection was that anyone she worked for or with must be CIA as well. What happens to those operatives that are abroad? If they're in hostile nations, they get a contract on their heads. If they're not, then they're unable to do business. The word goes out: kill or avoid anyone associated with Valerie Plame; kill Valerie Plame if the opportunity presents itself. Rove is a traitor. And, by extension, so is the President of the United States. The law clearly prohibits the knowing exposure of intelligence operatives. It is treason. Fire Rove. Fire Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 Originally posted by CloseTheBlastDo As a UK citizen ..., I won't let terrorists change my way of life. That also means I won't let them change my viewpoint... CloseTheBlastDo becomes my new hero! (badge in post). I know 9/11 was a bit of a shock for the US, but its beyond me why they think that we would loose all common-sense after an attak in the way that they did. For one thing we've been putting up with terrorism of one form or another for years, and we know that knee-jerk reactions almost always cause more trouble than they solve and that changing your viewpoints and way of life is simply gifting a victory to the terrorists. Its possible our government will try and exploit the attacks in the same way the bush government did after 9/11... but hopefully the opposition parties won't collaborate and the people won't stand for it. It should probably be pointed out that no-one yet knows WHAT the motivations of the UK bombings were, or if the men were linked to the nebulous coalition that is Al Quaida. However the REASON Al Quaida was formed was to get US troops out of Saudi Arabia, one of the many corrupt and dictatorial regimes that the US supports in the middle-east because it is in their financial interests to do so. And while it is possible that the bombers just woke up one day and thought "i think i'll kill people for no reason" its probably much more likely that they (like hundreds of other poor saudis) were fed up with the US government's hypocritical approach of supporting undemocratic states when it suited them, and decrying them when it didn't (usually when they were islamic in nature). The US has since removed its troops from Suadi, but unfortunately in the meantime they have managed to alienate even more people, inserted troops in several OTHER countries and caused 24,000 iraqi civilians to be killed. (more than 6 iraqi 9/11s). So there are EVEN MORE people with reason to hate them. And unfortunately with reason to hate us because we stood with you in your misguided crusade. ------------------- For a supposedly enlightened 21st century country which is supposed to be a beacon of freedom to the world its amazing how often the US spectacularly fails to set any sort of example for the rest of the world to follow... and then berates them when they don't "do as we say". It is also amazing to people in a lot of countries that the US political system has become so religious in its motivations. "Spreading Democracy" has become dangerously like "spreading christian democracy" - convert the heathens or wipe them out. (all of them! ) By any REASONABLE standards Kerry was far more christian than much of the population. But because he was "the wrong sort of christian" and because he was willing to not force some of his religious views on others (or at least give their views consideration) he was portrayed as being some form of evil heretic by a number of religious leaders. Shame on them, and shame on the americans that bought it. I thought he was a bit of an idiot personally, but the fact that american elections are now being decided by preachers from their pulpits isn't really a good sign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 They constantly show the same 3 pictures of Brits crying and then flash the bit of London attacks, one would only assume you've gone ape**** crazy over the devastation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 Skin, the Rove 'scandal' is no such thing - Plame was not a covert operative when Rove said whatever he said, Plame's identity had been outed (I think by Robert Novak) prior to Rove's comments (in fact, there is evidence showing that Rove was simply reffering to press reports that talked about Plame), and furthermore, I heard today that Plame registered to vote prior to the 2000 election (when she was a covert operative) under her cover name, and furthermore, donated to the Gore campaign, blowing both her cover and the cover of a CIA front organization in the process. This whole thing is just a politically motivated smear job by the press. Wilson is nothing more than a political hack who has been given a soap-box by the press because they'll do anything they can to take down the administration. Sources inside the CIA have said that Wilson's initial report supported President Bush's statement that Iraq was trying to acquire enriched uranium from Niger, and, in fact, was part of the reason that the statement was in the President's State of the Union speech. It wasn't until much later, when Wilson became a political operative, that he said the President's statement wasn't true. If anyone has committed treason by exposing CIA agents, it's John Kerry, who blew the cover of Fulton Armstrong during the committee hearings on the nomination of John Bolton. The press is committing an extreme act of hypocracy by not pursuing Kerry with many times the zeal with which they are attempting to crucify Rove...after all, Armstrong was a covert operative at the time that Kerry mentioned him in the hearings (and he knew it - he had been told not to reveal the man's identity during the hearing), whereas by the time Rove mentioned Plame's name to a reporter, she was no longer a covert agent - she was sitting behind a desk at Langley. The petty political motivations behind this supposed scandal are further evidenced in the fact that the press glossed over Sandy Berger's crime of attempting to remove documents from the National Archives in order to hide Bill Clinton's record of inaction on terrorism from the 9/11 commission. There is no doubt that Berger committed a crime, yet the media was largely silent, and he got off with a slap on the hand. What's more, Berger was one of John Kerry's political advisors during the 2004 campaign. The press are more than willing to gloss over crimes committed by just about any Democrat, but when a Republican might have committed a crime (which it's abundantly clear by now that Rove didn't), the press pursues him with every ounce of energy that they possess. So, who is really at issue here, Karl Rove, who may have mentioned the name of a CIA desk jockey/former undercover operative to a reporter, or the press, who are making themselves look like nothing more than politically motivated idiots with no pretense of credibility by pursuing a man who has committed no crime simply because he works for a Republican administration? Get your face out of the main-stream media - it's blindingly obvious by now that they care much more about their own political views than they do about the facts...and this business with Rove is just the latest example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 Originally posted by riceplant www.fahrenheit911.com What a wonderfully horrific contribution. Anyway, rccar, I hardly find that any mainstream media would be wanting Bush out since most of his economic plans are good for them. Plus the strong ties they have with this administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted July 20, 2005 Author Share Posted July 20, 2005 Originally posted by rccar328 Skin, the Rove 'scandal' is no such thing - Plame was not a covert operative when Rove said whatever he said, Plame's identity had been outed (I think by Robert Novak) prior to Rove's comments Poppycock. White House senior adviser Karl Rove indirectly confirmed the CIA affiliation of an administration critic's wife for Robert D. Novak the week before the columnist named her and revealed her position, a lawyer involved in the case said last night. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/15/AR2005071500036.html Face it, rccar, Rove is a sneaky, dirty, underhanded bastard and he deserves to go to jail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 What about that reporter they sent to jail for refusing to name her sources... even though she didn't write the story? Has there been a huge fuss about that? Considering the way the US goes on about freedom of speech and freedom of the press it seems like the country should be in outrage over that event. Novak on the other hand, who actually wrote the story, seems to be both a coward and scum for chickening out at the first moment and naming his source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 Rove probably does deserve to be fired for this, and perhaps jail.... but it will never happen in this or any other lifetime. I don't believe that he'll ever get as much as a mild repremand. If anything, I suspect that he'll probably get promoted. "Chief Justice Rove" has a certain ring to it, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.