Ah, Gug, you are more perceptive than most on both sides! I guess you have heard of the carrot and stick theory, too, and realize that if the mule reaches the carrot it will stop....
| |
But we have heard from Osama and his followers (see the tape?), because we never apprehended bin Laden or those responsible for organizing Al-Quaeda. Not that it would matter too much, so long as the conditions exist where these people can rise to power. Indeed, recruitment has surged as they wage attack after attack on US troops. Saying we need someone like Osama is absurd. We need to address the situations causing these groups to form and we need to stop isolating ourselves and painting a big bullseye on ourselves with our foreign policy. Unfortunately, our current administration doesn't want to hear that and is convinced that a military solution will work. Just like we thought in Vietnam, Korea, and Central America's drug production. Just like Russia thought in Afghanistan in similar conditions.
| |
The military plan will work, it will just take longer. Killing off everyone will slow down the process...massively.
| |
Jotdaniel wrote:
I would just like to state I've lost respect for many people over the course of these two major threads. Funny...I was just thinking this a split-second before I clicked on this post. Very odd.... | |
See http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/ SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12263&c=206 for a list of areas threatened by the Patriot Act. http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/ SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12224&c=207 provides some more info. Other problem areas include classifying American citizens and others as "enemy combatants" without charge or access to their lawyers and imposed government-funded religion by providing taxpayer money to faith-based programs.
| |
Perhaps you should read the very next paragraph from where you stopped reading.
Further, it reflects very poorly on you when you don't take an entire post in its entire context. If you don't want to read the entire post, commenting on it proves that you're vindictive. =P | |
What??? Governments do have money; look at that tax check you write each year. That becomes government funds. A deficit means they spend more then they have coming in. A surplus means they have more coming in than they spend. Simple, yes?
What you are talking about is reductions in spending and projected spending. Related, but different. | |
Hate to break it to you, but the country is deeply divided and I don't think the whining/complaining/etc. is going to stop anytime soon. Such political discourse can actually be very good. Ironically, name calling (as in your post, which, in a way negates your point unless you are a liberal :-) and negative campaigning is not going anywhere, especially since it has been so successful for strategists like Karl Rove (who found it better to tear down Kerry rather than run on the Bush record).
On the upside, voting was up for this election, so people are doing something! On the downside, thousands of votes still get tossed for errors like being at the wrong voting location adds to questions about the system itself :-/ At least the winner actually won the popular vote this time, though! | |
Zlegend2 wrote:
Gay marriage is wrong, end of point. It just is Real nice circular argument you have going there: "Gay marriage is wrong!" "Why?" "Because!" "But why?" "BECAUSE!" "But WHY?" "Because... because... because I said so! Shut up!" You need a valid reason to believe anything. If you can't produce a valid reason for a given belief, then you shouldn't hold that belief. If it's just because you feel uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage, I just have this to say: GET OVER IT ALREADY. It won't affect you anyway; what difference will it make to your life? None! Do you think that God punishes homosexuality? If so, you're wrong, but fine, believe that; nobody can stop you. Just don't try and enforce your beliefs on other people. THAT is what I call wrong. | |
U know Gore will be a more better president then bush. What president gives American Jobs that go over seas and gived them tax cut only bush will.
| |
Crispy wrote:
Zlegend2 wrote: Because being gay completly destroys the whole point of being alive. Our main goal in life is to reproduce and if you are gay you cant exactly do that. I respect your choices, but if everyone turned gay the human race would be going backwards. | |
Our main goal in life is to reproduce and if you are gay you cant exactly do that. Your life must be sad and empty if that's your main goal. If the only purpose of existence is to keep existing, well... that's completely circular, meaning, there is no purpose. I respect your choices, but if everyone turned gay the human race would be going backwards. What you're not realizing is that if everybody reproduced as fast as they could, the species would go extinct almost just as fast. Luckily, nature knows this, and so it creates some individuals with different priorities. This is why homosexuality naturally occurs in all complex organisms. Saying "If everybody was gay the species would go extinct!" is not an argument against gays, any more than saying "If everybody was a straight male, the species would go extinct!" Both statements are completely true... but neither is relevant. | |
I think the people in this forum would make better presidents than Bush or Kerry. Bush is NOT an idiot, for he wouldn't be president if he was an idiot. However, he is careless. Kerry is too much flash and pizazz, and not enough brains.
We truely need someone to take office who has some real intelligence, and marks high in all categories. We should be electing presidents who are going to think more about concequences, measure the situations, and care about all people in general, without becoming compleatly doughy like Jimmy Carter. I'm sick of seeing only dirty polititions taking office. | |
Hedgemistress has said most of what I would have said had I replied first, so I won't bother repeating it. Just one thing I'd like to clear up:
Critical wrote: I respect your choices Heh. I'm not actually gay myself; I just champion gay causes because I hate seeing anyone discriminated against. And, I'm sorry to say, there's a lot of homophobia hanging around these forums. | |
Critical wrote:
Crispy wrote: Yeah, we only live *because* we live. But if you're going to go with that, and only that, then you may as well take into account that entropy will cause the entire Universe to fizzle out into a "big nothing" of around 2 Kelvin. So why NOT be gay? We're all going to burn regardless. | |
Crispy wrote:
Hedgemistress has said most of what I would have said had I replied first, so I won't bother repeating it. Just one thing I'd like to clear up: That's why free-speech isn't a good thing. Ack, I've just set up this thread to go even further. But yeah. Saying free-speech is bad is slightly hypocritical, but, it works out pretty well in England. | |
GokuDBZ3128 wrote:
Abortion will be made illegal one day, but, not anytime soon, I presume. I think we'll have to make abortion mandatory, and only let the kids who have had gene therapy to make them more useful to the economy live. | |
Kholintian Destroying Army wrote:
That's why free-speech isn't a good thing. I like my freedom of speech, thanks very much. And I still support other peoples' freedom of speech even if I don't agree with them. They're allowed to say what they like; but I'm allowed to say what I like back to them, so that's okay. =P Saying free-speech is bad is slightly hypocritical But you're free to say it anyway! Ain't it grand? =) | |
Crispy wrote:
Kholintian Destroying Army wrote: Oh, that reminds me, something relevant to the start of the thread: You Bush supporters come here telling us to love Bush, and yet, didn't he once say: "There should be limits on freedom"? Sounds more like an oppressive dictatorship to me. You Americans have been living a lie! Come to England! (Crispy, you can sleep on my sofa) | |
Just a suggestion though, feel free to ignore it as you see fit!