Liberal/Democratic Corner

[Masah]

http://www.internationalflag-banner.com/decorative%20flags/images/Democrat.jpg

Okay you politic lovers favoring the liberal side of spectrum, time for us to reunite!


Kerry rocks! Bush is an incompetent moron!

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

I don't know exactly what your looking for lol. So, I'll just say that gay marriage should be legalized and abortion is not murder. Instead of tax cuts which favour the rich, basic necessities, such as toilet paper and diapers for babies, shouldn't be taxed at all, thus benefiting the poorest people most because of the percentage of income that is saved. Health care is a basic human right all people should have access to. Public schools should be of the best caliber and should never be underfunded. University should be subsidized by the government. We have a definite responsibility to lower our emissions. Finally, I also support euthanasia in cases of incurable diseases, there is no reason to make someone die painfully from disease when it can be ended quickly. Well thats what i can think of for now.
If your in Canada I would recommend supporting the ndp.
www.ndp.ca

[narutoIZZAbest]

yo heeey im sorta a little of both but more leaning towards the liberal/democratic side. :D

what do you guys wanna discuss ?

[NarutoNineTails]

I definitely support the democratic cause. Republicans support the top 1% of america...if u r that 1% then I understand.

[Masah]

Where do you stand on abortion?

Generally i'd say I'm pro-life, but there are circumstances where I'd have to go pro-choice, rape, etc;

[zoldic777]

Great,now you even raped someone,*JOKE, i dont understand anything,But is there someone who woul'd explain me what this topic is about

[NarutoNineTails]

I lean more towards choice. This doesn't mean I like the idea of abortion as a "contraception choice." A kid having no option but to have a kid doesn't sit well for me. It would depend on each specific situation and I don't think goverment should decide this decision for us.

[zoldic777]

oh wait,i know abortion,I also dont agree with the idea of abortion,By the way,Does abortion kill the one who does it,i mean is there any chance of that happening

[Final Fate]

That whole pro-life pro-choice concept is pure bullshit. Just because people are with abortion doesn't mean they aren't pro-life, otherwise they'd go around killing everyone and themselves, its a very ignorant term.

I support neither side, and I'm not against either side. I think gun laws should be relatively lax (not so anyone can just own one, but pretty much stay the same as it is currently), considering in the vast majority of crimes involving firearms, the weapons in question were illegaly owned. But I do agree with the tax POV's of the liberals, and its goes back and forth.

[Masah]

That whole pro-life pro-choice concept is pure bullshit. Just because people are with abortion doesn't mean they aren't pro-life, otherwise they'd go around killing everyone and themselves, its a very ignorant term.

And your logic for them running around killing everyone and themselves are what? Even if they ARE pro life, you think that dubs them as homicides?

[Final Fate]

That whole pro-life pro-choice concept is pure bullshit. Just because people are with abortion doesn't mean they aren't pro-life, otherwise they'd go around killing everyone and themselves, its a very ignorant term.

And your logic for them running around killing everyone and themselves are what? Even if they ARE pro life, you think that dubs them as homicides?

Did you not read it right?

If someone is "pro-life" they are against abortion
If someone is "pro-choice" they are for abortion

Those are horrible labels. Just because is someone is for abortion doesn't mean they aren't pro-life, get it?

[Masah]

What..? I know that..

I'm not up for labeling, but the terms are whether or not they accept abortion, no one's LABELING anyone, if someone labels me as a democrat, so be it, it's the truth, do YOU get it?

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

Abortion isn't murder because a fetus is not a complete human being, it is only a package of cells. Its unlikely for people to use abortion as a form of birth control because its painful and multiple abortions would make a woman infertile forever. Abortions should be illegal after the first trimester of the pregnancy because the risk to the mother is high and the fetus starts to look human. The conditions for an abortion should be a psychological examination and the woman pursuing it should be given access to alternatives, such as giving the baby up for adoption immediately after birth.
The argument that an embryo shouldn't be aborted because it has the potential to be a human isn't good enough because it can be extended to sperm and eggs which all have the potential to become a human, but its ridiculous to start saying that wasting sperm and eggs is immoral.

[Nova]

Sleepy, that's not necessarily the point. Despite what you think, alot of people believe that a fetus is human. Abortion shouldn't be used, it's an irresponsible method for disposing of a problem, that those people got themselves into, and imo should deal with. For me it has nothing to do with morality, it's just plain irresponsible to have an abortion, I mean honestly, have we as a people gotten so lazy that we can't except our own mistakes. And for rape victims, if they go to the hospital after they are raped it's easy for the doctor to remove the "human stew" in there uterus within about 72 hours of the rape, which I believe isn't even close to being a fetus yet, so I don't see the problem. I really think the U.S. should legalize the morning after pill, I think it's illegal, correct me if I'm wrong. But that's my opinioin. I don't know why I'm posting here, I am a bit more of a conservative/republican, but hey I vote for who I think can do the job, and come 2008 if Hillary Clinton is the Democrat, I don't care if the Republican is a psycho, serial-killer, I'm voting for that guy.

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

I just can't define a fetus of the first trimestre as a human being. A human being isn't an unconscious bunch of cells with only a small semblance of order. Moreover, up to 8 days from conception the embryo is only a package of unspecialized cells. Although i think really left wing abortion laws are a bit reckless. Here in Quebec a girl can get an abortion over the age of 14 without the consent or knowledge of her parents, and of course its free because of universal health care.
To the argument that people should have to live with their mistakes. A person who acts like an idiot and breaks their leg still has the right to have it treated even though its their fault their leg was broken. If a woman wants to perform an abortion its atleast partially her choice because the fetus is not a human being thus it is the property of the mother and its her decision to have it aborted or not; its difficult to say that the father should be given any legal weight because the man is not affected as heavily as the mother by a pregnancy.
Also, in cases where the girl is 12 or 13 then she should be allowed to have an abortion because its dangerous for her to give birth. Moreover, in other unique cases where the mothers life is put in danger by giving birth she should be allowed to choose her life over the potential life of a bunch of cells.

[Kuroda]

Wow Masah, what a post. Do you enjoy all this controversy?

[Kuroda]

....But I stand right in the middle, Repulicrat if you will. I agree and disagree to some extent with both Kerri and Bush's decisions. Lets say depending on the circumstance one abortion is ok, but after two or three, youre obviously not learning from the mistakes you made and it should not be permitted.

[CRtwenty]

I'm independent as of now, and a Moderate.

But regarding abortion. The majority of claims against it are religious. And as their are no laws saying exactly when a zygote or fetus is classified as a human being... it become difficult to say when an abortion should or should not be allowed.

Personally, I feel that there are times when it is a valid option, and times when it is not. Each case has to be looked at on an individual basis, I feel that making a blanket law about abortion is the wrong way to go about it.

People wanting to get an abortion should receive some sort of counseling before hand though, and have a waiting period in most cases.

[Nova]

I agree CR. In extreme cases it is actually something that could be considered as an option. But it seems like people have just been using it to get rid of the responsibility of having a child. And in my personal opinion I don't believe in that, I believe, you make a mistake you live with it. But I guess in a rape case, it wasn't their mistake, it was whoever raped them, and I guess if they don't want that baby to come to term, than that is their decision.

[aki_san]

personaly i dont think is right to kill babies. if the mother wants to make that desision it is her own choice.
and on the subjet about gay marrage, why do we have to ban it? when has it done harm to the people? if gay guys/woman want to marry it is their choice. they are not hurting ANYBODY.

[Masah]

What do you guys think of O'bama claiming on NATIONAL TELEVISION that he will never resort to using nuclear weapons. That shows countries where our boundaries are.

Anyone else angered?

[NarutoNineTails]

I think it is a good idea to never use nuclear weapons ever again but to come out saying that as a president hopeful of the USA was not a smart move? Then again he first needs to win the primary so the statement above won't hurt him too too much within the democrat circle. I'm sure republicans would be very offended by that.

[Arty]

I think it was a rather wise decision?

Besides... Who would USA nuke lol?

The world isnt split in "two" now days. If someone lunches a nuke the world will split into multi able factions. USA cant stand on its own and i'm not sure there are many countries who would support USA in their crusade after recent events.

The only question imo is : " Whats gonna happen in Europe if.. lets say Asia gets nuked " - Frank S.

A nuke lunched at the big countries or alliance's such as China , japan , Russia , Germany , Sweden - Norway ( filthy rich bastards ) , England , Italy etc - WILL most likely result in MMD.

And thats pretty bad :0

[NarutoNineTails]

Hey the american public isn't the most smartest folks around the world u know. They reelected for bush for pete sakes...-_-.

[Hidden Ninja]

I think it was a rather wise decision?

Besides... Who would USA nuke lol?

The world isnt split in "two" now days. If someone lunches a nuke the world will split into multi able factions. USA cant stand on its own and i'm not sure there are many countries who would support USA in their crusade after recent events.

The only question imo is : " Whats gonna happen in Europe if.. lets say Asia gets nuked " - Frank S.

A nuke lunched at the big countries or alliance's such as China , japan , Russia , Germany , Sweden - Norway ( filthy rich bastards ) , England , Italy etc - WILL most likely result in MMD.

And thats pretty bad :0

if you are going to speak politics then you should know who are allied and who aren't allied to the usa.

china is one of the bigger worries in a nuclear race.

also while the usa does not have complete blinded support from big countries, it still has their support. this holds true for europe, a major reason is that if a nuclear attack were to happen coming from the middle east, europe could be destroyed in a matter of minutes, giving them almost zero time to respond to such an attack.


Hey the american public isn't the most smartest folks around the world u know. They reelected for bush for pete sakes...-_-.

kerry was the bigger idiot. also bush at least had the balls to stand up for what he believed in (even if it may have been skewed). kerry never held his ground and always shifted what he believed in to try to save face.

though mistakes were made, it was important that the states be seen to stand their ground rather than falter and be perceived as weak, which would invite many more attacks.

so in that respect the american public made the correct decision.

[Arty]

if you are going to speak politics then you should know who are allied and who aren't allied to the usa.

I think you need to grow up from the sandbox. - Alliances varie from each topic - There are no "Friends".

also while the usa does not have complete blinded support from big countries, it still has their support. this holds true for europe, a major reason is that if a nuclear attack were to happen coming from the middle east, europe could be destroyed in a matter of minutes, giving them almost zero time to respond to such an attack.

In all honesty - If that was the case couldn't that be applied to all cases? -

Nuclear lunch can be ordered at any time at any minute in any circumstances.

There will be no nuclear war and if there is - Well lucky me , i have highest chances of survival in my underground base in the middle of the Atlantic

[papfles]

What do you guys think of O'bama claiming on NATIONAL TELEVISION that he will never resort to using nuclear weapons. That shows countries where our boundaries are.

Anyone else angered?

Obama is the first senator since Clinton that I can actually appreciate.

And your point about "it shows countries where your boundaries are"... This isn't the game "civilization" where every country started negotiations with the terms "our words are backed by NUCLEAR weapons"...

Your boundaries are right there where the map shows them. Not where the US "thinks" they are needed or where they "think" they should interfere...

Learn to stick to international protocol and stop acting the tough guy (i'm talking to the US, not Masah personally).

I just hope that Obama remains as honest / straightforward as he portrays himself. It would be a nice difference from the past several years. Let's not hope he turns out to be "the first African-American president" followed by "the first African-American president that got shot"...

[Arty]

*thumbs up for Papfles !

I agree with most or not all of it :D

[Hidden Ninja]

if you are going to speak politics then you should know who are allied and who aren't allied to the usa.

I think you need to grow up from the sandbox. - Alliances varie from each topic - There are no "Friends".

what? where in my quote did i make mention of friends. u made mention of Asian countries which are a considerable threat and stated them as if they were allied to usa. i said nothing of friends, i said alliance. and i said that blind alliances did not exist. a blind alliance is one where the allying party just agrees with everything that the other party says. and grow up from the sandbox....yeah, thats a good refute on my argument :thumb:


In all honesty - If that was the case couldn't that be applied to all cases? -

Nuclear lunch can be ordered at any time at any minute in any circumstances.

There will be no nuclear war and if there is - Well lucky me , i have highest chances of survival in my underground base in the middle of the Atlantic

yes nuclear attacks can be used at any time. but the main powers do not resort to that. they instead are trying to prevent such an event from occurring. it is the fact of preventing third world countries from having this kind of destructive power that prevents a devastating war from occurring.

just like your sig says ignorance is bliss, that is the same attitude you have of just hiding it out while the world has the possibility of being destroyed. in other words you preach morality but in fact are a coward that will hide when things get tough as you showed through your quote.



edit: papfles: my issue with obama is that he lacks experience and his so called honesty about being a muslim.

[NarutoNineTails]

kerry was the bigger idiot. also bush at least had the balls to stand up for what he believed in (even if it may have been skewed). kerry never held his ground and always shifted what he believed in to try to save face.

though mistakes were made, it was important that the states be seen to stand their ground rather than falter and be perceived as weak, which would invite many more attacks.

so in that respect the american public made the correct decision.

U mean Bush ran a better campaign. Bush's spear campaign worked well and they played the "flip flop" message well.

Bush could very well fall under weakest presidencies in US history. Look at what happened in the next election cycle and this year. The american public FINALLY realized US was heading in the wrong direction and threw out republicans out of power in the senate and the house.

Kerry just ran a poor poor campaign...how sad indeed.

[Hidden Ninja]

U mean Bush ran a better campaign. Bush's spear campaign worked well and they played the "flip flop" message well.

Bush could very well fall under weakest presidencies in US history. Look at what happened in the next election cycle and this year. The american public FINALLY realized US was heading in the wrong direction and threw out republicans out of power in the senate and the house.

Kerry just ran a poor poor campaign...how sad indeed.

you do realize that even with the democratic party holding that now that they changed their policy completely. they realized what they were saying was to radical and should not be implored.

also since the democratic party controls both now, they could have reigned over president bush if they desired so but their actions have gone along with him still. what is that supposed to suggest?

im not saying at all that bush held a strong presidency. even now the vote is still split. im just saying he held his ground and was not a pansy in standing for what he thought.

[NarutoNineTails]

What are you talking about??? Democrats are pushing for change that the public demanded when they put them in power but guess what bush is doing to those bills?

The problem is bush's presidential veto power. And the narrow margins democrats have in the senate and house isn't enough to override the vetos. :P

[papfles]

my issue with obama is that he lacks experience

JFK was even younger

About his time in office...some people have the talent and skill to get to the top fast, because of ability and such... Why deprive these people of their opportunity to show what they are made of? Afraid he might do WORSE than Bush? :-/

[NarutoNineTails]

How bush set the bar so low these past 8 years...if the next president can't do better...I should consider moving to another country...lol.

[Hidden Ninja]

What are you talking about??? Democrats are pushing for change that the public demanded when they put them in power but guess what bush is doing to those bills?

The problem is bush's presidential veto power. And the narrow margins democrats have in the senate and house isn't enough to override the vetos. :P

democrats push for the change. that's their policy of pushing but never following through. im a centralist, so i don't favor any particular party. i most certainly am willing to see the faults of both sides. my problem is that before was if we the democrats have the house and senate we can make things go our way. now they are saying its not enough. its one excuse after another.


JFK was even younger

About his time in office...some people have the talent and skill to get to the top fast, because of ability and such... Why deprive these people of their opportunity to show what they are made of? Afraid he might do WORSE than Bush? :-/

jfk was also shot so we didnt see how things turned out. i know he was starting to be a great president but that doesn't mean that is how things would have turned out. (playing sort of the devil's advocate on that issue.)

as to obama, he is one of the favorites in my eyes but there are some things about him that bother me.

How bush set the bar so low these past 8 years...if the next president can't do better...I should consider moving to another country...lol.

no, it just means that the democrates spoke so much out of their ass that they blindsided the public.

[Arty]

also while the usa does not have complete blinded support from big countries, it still has their support. this holds true for Europe

Sorry ? contradiction?

Also , if your European you should know what the "general" view on USA is now days... I don't think i go through a day without hearing at least 10 jokes about retarded Americans.

u made mention of Asian countries which are a considerable threat and stated them as if they were allied to usa.

Sorry? Are you trying to pull something out of my ass?

i said alliance. and i said that blind alliances did not exist.

if you are going to speak politics then you should know who are allied and who aren't allied to the usa.

Are you joking or is this just another contradiction?

I dont see the topic you are referring to? So allied to USA in ? And how the hell can you predict who will side with USA after 5 years? 10 years?

and grow up from the sandbox....yeah, thats a good refute on my argument

its a joke and its on you... So your gonna use a joke for your logical rebuttal?

yes nuclear attacks can be used at any time. but the main powers do not resort to that. they instead are trying to prevent such an event from occurring. it is the fact of preventing third world countries from having this kind of destructive power that prevents a devastating war from occurring.

And this has 0 to do with the argument?

just like your sig says ignorance is bliss, that is the same attitude you have of just hiding it out while the world has the possibility of being destroyed. in other words you preach morality but in fact are a coward that will hide when things get tough as you showed through your quote.

No it is not... I suggest you read on about the term "ignorance" and then try and understand my quote a bit better.

I do intend to hide while the world goes boom... Why is that? Cause i cannot make a difference - So why not wait till i can - I might be a coward , but im not hiding - I live in the middle of the Atlantic and i intend to stay there while the war goes on.

You can dress up in red and object the war while the nukes fly above your head.

I have no idea where you are going with this... Especially the last quote - Are you trying to insult me by calling me a coward? Calling me ignorant when you do not seem to know what that is?

The last option is ofc a big misunderstanding and i feel , after reading all those contradictions im pretty sure ether me or you are missing a part of the point.

[NarutoNineTails]

democrats push for the change. that's their policy of pushing but never following through. im a centralist, so i don't favor any particular party. i most certainly am willing to see the faults of both sides. my problem is that before was if we the democrats have the house and senate we can make things go our way. now they are saying its not enough. its one excuse after another.

I guess a presidential veto is an excuse to you? That is bush not the democrats. From what you say here, overriding a presidential veto is some walk in the park?


no, it just means that the democrates spoke so much out of their ass that they blindsided the public.

Are you kidding me? Yeah politicians do talk lot of smack but Republicans do so much better than Democrats on messaging. And u r telling me the democrats blindsided the public? LOL. It wasn't because democrats suddenly ran unbelievable campaigns to win all those elections. It was republicans letting it slip away was what happened...it was republican congress just rubber stamping bush's policies without any check and balances. At the very least we are getting some check to what else bush wants to get done now.

[Arty]

For those who can see the mis post - im sry <.<

[papfles]

yes nuclear attacks can be used at any time. but the main powers do not resort to that. they instead are trying to prevent such an event from occurring. it is the fact of preventing third world countries from having this kind of destructive power that prevents a devastating war from occurring.

NO country should have this power, because it corrupts, and it is abused. It is hypocritical to want the power and when other countries want it too (for whatever purpose), then try to deny them the capabilities. Every nuclear power should lose their nuclear (war-)potential, not try to limit the number of countries that have that power, so that the power of the world can be divided amongst these countries instead amongst even more countries.

Threatening to use nuclear power (showing your muscles) is nowadays an act of pure stupidity. You do not get a nation down by doing something like that, you're only inspiring nationalistic feelings, patriotism amongst other nations, potentially creating enemies.

The modern-way of handling a potentially volatile situation is creating fast, efficient resolutions, smacking down with every possible country against countries that are trying to swim against the current. Not the "they si teh evil, teh europe does not want teh helpzorz? No worriez, we threaten to leave teh UN and bash another country anyway, tee-hee"-way.

You want allies? treat your allies the way you want to be treated, and you might get some back again.

if we the democrats have the house and senate we can make things go our way. now they are saying its not enough. its one excuse after another.

Welcome to the failed application of the checks and balances-system...
It's turning out to become like communism, nice in theory, but unworkable in present day USA

[Hidden Ninja]

Also , if your European you should know what the "general" view on USA is now days... I don't think i go through a day without hearing at least 10 jokes about retarded Americans.



I dont see the topic you are referring to? So allied to USA in ? And how the hell can you predict who will side with USA after 5 years? 10 years?



its a joke and its on you... So your gonna use a joke for your logical rebuttal?



And this has 0 to do with the argument?



No it is not... I suggest you read on about the term "ignorance" and then try and understand my quote a bit better.

I do intend to hide while the world goes boom... Why is that? Cause i cannot make a difference - So why not wait till i can - I might be a coward , but im not hiding - I live in the middle of the Atlantic and i intend to stay there while the war goes on.

You can dress up in red and object the war while the nukes fly above your head.

I have no idea where you are going with this... Especially the last quote - Are you trying to insult me by calling me a coward? Calling me ignorant when you do not seem to know what that is?

The last option is ofc a big misunderstanding and i feel , after reading all those contradictions im pretty sure ether me or you are missing a part of the point.

1. what you hear as jokes means nothing when it comes down to actions and policies. the same could go for all the french quips that were made by americans. but now the french give support to the usa.

2. what are you talking about 5 or 10 years. i am talking of the now. why are you switching to a time frame that noone has even brought up or discussed.

3. actually the joke was on yourself because you couldn't provide a statement so you made a whimsical and illogical statement. it just showed how you were unable to refute a serious statement and decided to fill your response with one that had no basis.

4. the point of doing all this is so that nukes DONT go flying over people's heads. if people were to take your stand point and wait for after destruction occurs then we'd be dead.

5. yes i know the meaning of the statement but your ignorance is bliss combined with what you say should be taken in the literal sense and not in the philosophical kind. saying to wait until the ashes settle until you take action shows no perception of knowledge. those who have knowledge act upon the ignorance that they now have discovered.

as for the defintion of ignorance it is:
1. the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc.
2. The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.

thats why i say your sig should be the literal translation rather than the other because you rather ignore a threat and let war occur than take action and prevent it.




edit:

nnt:no overriding is not a walk in the park. my point is that they say one thing and when they cant do it they use a different excuse. im saying u fuck up, swallow it and take the heat. as to blindsiding, i am saying for the FUTURE that if nothing gets done, then everything the democrats said would have been blindsiding. i am in no way judging before they act, but i am saying if they fail to act after they receive the power, then their tactics were all show.


papfles: yea nuclear power sucks, but it exists. you can't uncreate something. that philosophy is a great one but it is impossible to ever dream of. bigger and badder weapons will always be created. it is the maintenance of those weapons that need to be done.

as for the un, it is a failed union. it is a gathering of countries where the lesser and third world countries get handouts. in no way would those countries support something that would take away the possibility of them becoming a threatening and more substantial power.

[papfles]

but now the french give support to the usa.

Hmmm, no, they don't...

Their president has only started to better the relations between both nations again (which was necessary), but only after forcing Bush to back down on another matter (which he did). So the US (in this instance) have shown that they need to start their charm offensive to gain back support.

as for the un, it is a failed union.

Funny how it has always been a "failed union" when the UN decides against something the US wants...Quite the lovely alliance the US wants apparently, is it called the "shut up and do as we tell you"-alliance or "mommy, the UN won't play my game"-alliance?

[NarutoNineTails]

nnt:no overriding is not a walk in the park. my point is that they say one thing and when they cant do it they use a different excuse. im saying u fuck up, swallow it and take the heat. as to blindsiding, i am saying for the FUTURE that if nothing gets done, then everything the democrats said would have been blindsiding. i am in no way judging before they act, but i am saying if they fail to act after they receive the power, then their tactics were all show.


As you said overriding a presidential veto is not easy. Democrats are still applying pressure but what else can they do hidden? Really? Nothings getting done because we still have the same stubborn president in the white house with that veto power. Don't blame that to democrats. :P

[Arty]

what you hear as jokes means nothing when it comes down to actions and policies. the same could go for all the french quips that were made by Americans. but now the French give support to the usa

what are you talking about 5 or 10 years. i am talking of the now. why are you switching to a time frame that none has even brought up or discussed.

Do you not understand?! I am talking about future cases! If a nuclear war bursts out do you honestly think the alliances will just hold cause you say they do?!?! This is my whole point ! ITS NOT A FUCKING SANDBOX FULL OF FRIENDS!....

The alliance you share now will be nothing when you face the consequences of lunching a nuke!

And yes! Public opinion does matter! Because the next generation will be painted black with hatred towards USA!!! And ffs you can already see it happening in all Europe!

actually the joke was on yourself because you couldn't provide a statement so you made a whimsical and illogical statement. it just showed how you were unable to refute a serious statement and decided to fill your response with one that had no basis.

WHAT?!?!? If you cant find the concept of what i said re-read my fucking post! OR YOU COULD READ THIS ONE A BIT BETTER NO?!?!

the point of doing all this is so that nukes DON'T go flying over people's heads. if people were to take your stand point and wait for after destruction occurs then we'd be dead.

WHAT?!?! Are you trying to piss me off my twisting my words , ignoring your own contradictions and going out of context with every reply?!?!!? We are not discussing how we can prevent nuclear war are we!

yes i know the meaning of the statement but your ignorance is bliss combined with what you say should be taken in the literal sense and not in the philosophical kind. saying to wait until the ashes settle until you take action shows no perception of knowledge. those who have knowledge act upon the ignorance that they now have discovered

Instead of quoting something philosophical just go with what you said down below! How the hell can you take a philosophical saying literal?!


as for the definition of ignorance it is:
1. the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc.
2. The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.

Great , go re-invent the wheel.

thats why i say your sig should be the literal translation rather than the other because you rather ignore a threat and let war occur than take action and prevent it.

Yet again you go out of the context! This is WHEN MMD happens.. Not befor!

[Dream Catcher]

MMD ?? Mass Multiplayer Death??

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

Hmmm, no, they don't...

Their president has only started to better the relations between both nations again (which was necessary), but only after forcing Bush to back down on another matter (which he did). So the US (in this instance) have shown that they need to start their charm offensive to gain back support.



Funny how it has always been a "failed union" when the UN decides against something the US wants...Quite the lovely alliance the US wants apparently, is it called the "shut up and do as we tell you"-alliance or "mommy, the UN won't play my game"-alliance?

The UN was doomed from the start when Russia and China got permanent seats on the security council, those countries are by far the biggest supporters of war crimes going, and France isn't much better. They all have a long track record of propping up dictator's and supporting foreign wars, then using the UN to block international interference. Christ during the Rwandan genocide the French dropped off weapons as they evacuated their nationals, while the UN peace keepers couldn't get a mandate to stop the slaughter because the USA and France were blocking it.

[papfles]

The UN was doomed from the start when Russia and China got permanent seats on the security council, those countries are by far the biggest supporters of war crimes going, and France isn't much better. They all have a long track record of propping up dictator's and supporting foreign wars, then using the UN to block international interference. Christ during the Rwandan genocide the French dropped off weapons as they evacuated their nationals, while the UN peace keepers couldn't get a mandate to stop the slaughter because the USA and France were blocking it.

You can turn this around very easily to confront / blame the US for the exact same reasons... (panama - noriega - iraq - iraq again - iran - ...). The biggest difference between Russia / China and the US is that there have been sanctions / restrictions against the crimes that Russia and China have committed (not commenting on the effectiveness though), while there have been no sanctions EVER against the US.

The US, the biggest defenders of justice, are probably the country with the biggest "as long as it doesn't interfere with our way of life"-followers out there.

[Drizzt_13]

well I don't know about sanctions but we no longer get to say french fries so thats a bit of a sanction ad we were convicted of federal terrorism 15 years ago, but we completely ignored it.

[Arty]

french fries has nothing todo with France...

Even i know that.

[papfles]

well I don't know about sanctions but we no longer get to say french fries so thats a bit of a sanction ad we were convicted of federal terrorism 15 years ago, but we completely ignored it.

=>

The US, the biggest defenders of justice, are probably the country with the biggest "as long as it doesn't interfere with our way of life"-followers out there.

Told you ;-)

edit: and i'm not even going to comment on the absurd "freedom fries"-idea...

[Arty]

French fries refers to "chopped" fries..

It has nothing todo with "France" !

There is a 95minute long movie on this.

It contains around 40 minutes of interviews with belgian guys who claim the chips are their idea.

[Drizzt_13]

i would very much like rto see this video, and tell that to geaorge bush i swear this will be is reaction
Bush: godamn it!, he he he pardon my freedom

[Arty]

Well =/ You'll have to watch out :) Bush does not talk to people with sunglasses <.<

[papfles]

It contains around 40 minutes of interviews with belgian guys who claim the chips are their idea.

Well, French fries ARE part of our national heritage across the world, same with beer and chocolate :)

[ScareCrow]

- I'm a liberal.
- These are my views.
- Rawr!

Fact:
First of all, I've noticed a lot of Americans have the misconception that the United States is a democracy. If you believe that, you are only half right. The United States is a democratic republic! Thus the votes of the electoral college count more than the popular vote, which explains the reason Gore did not win the 2000 election even though he had more popular votes. So if you are a minority in the United States, and the armed forces want to recruit you and say "You'll be fighting for democracy!", they're not telling the whole truth.

Opinion: Second, George Bush's reasons for going to war against Iraq were completely without reasoning. He had ultieror motives for going into Iraq.
a) for Oil
b) an American stronghold in the Middle East (Puppet Gov't)
c) To make his friends a lot of money (ie, defense contractors who are supplying the U.S. Armed forces with equipment)
d) To shift attention away from search for bin Laden, because Bush does not want bin Laden to be found.
e) To reinforce his politics of fear and terror

Bush claims that his reasons for going to the Iraqi war was because of a) Proof of Al Qaeda camps in Iraq and b) WMD's. First, Saddam Hussein ran a tight ship. Therefore no terrorist camps were in Iraq. Second, none of the intelligence agencies could prove a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Third, Dick Clark, former head of Counter-Terrorism, claims that Bush forced him to find a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Fourth, if Bush's reasons were altruistic (aka I'm getting rid of a dictator), why not go after the other dictators in the world while he's at it? Fifth, what is George W. Bush's definition of Weapons of Mass Destruction? WMD is a relative word. For example, in my opinion, a man with a submachinegun in a mall is a weapon of mass destruction. A grenade is also a weapon of mass destruction. A "biological bomb" can be a cough, expelling the common cold from one person to another. Bush's vague references to WMD's are never clear or clarified.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
My Opinions:

Abortion: Pro-choice. Gov't has no say over a person's body.
Affirmative action: For Affirmative Action. Most minorities are stuck in poor areas with no education, no after school programs, no money for new textbooks/equipment, and no salaries for teachers. Thus, they are stuck in the area for the rest of their lives, earning minimum wage, working 9-5 with no hope of college. It is a vicious cycle and thus, AA is needed.... for now.
Death Penalty: Personally, I believe that a life sentence in jail with no parole is the best penalty. However, it costs a state around $30,000 dollars a year per prisoner. If we abolish the death penalty, we will overwhelm the already crowded prisons. Ex: A man is sentenced to life in prison at the age of 20. He lives to be 80. 60x30,000=$1,800,000 per person. At the same time, a life is a life, and lives are priceless. I'm still thinking about this one.
Business: We need the Gov't to regulate business, especially the big corporations.
Environment: Protect the environment. The U.S. should sign the Kyoto Treaty to reduce carbon dioxide emitment. (Note: The U.S. is the ONLY 1st world country NOT to sign the Kyoto Treaty.)
Gay-Marriage: For.
Healthcare: UNIVERSAL FREE HEALTHCARE
Immigration: Amnesty for current illegal immigrants. I believe that they take the jobs no one else wants.... so why stop them? If every illegal immigrant was to be deported today, whole businesses would be halted. The U.S economy would be in serious jeopardy.
Religion: Seperation of Church and State.
Foreign Policy: The U.S. is NOT the WORLD POLICE.

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

Actually Canada and Australia signed Kyoto and then opted out lol.

[ScareCrow]

WHAT?!??!? Blast them... now the U.S. have others to hide behind..... GRRRR!

[Hidden Ninja]

your facts, some are good, some aren't.

there is no way that the US can afford universal healthcare and be successful. those in the medical field know that by 2009 we are going to start to have a major problem in the fact that there will not be enough new doctors to fill the shoes of those that are retiring. there are simply not enough doctors.

also illegal immigrants kill the economy in many ways. sure many of them take the crappy jobs, but the money that leaves the country is tremendous. i am not saying deport them all, but find a means to make them legal and prevent even more illegals from coming in.

death penalty should be instituted. i believe the lowest i have seen is about $80 a day per inmate. and that is on the state level, if you go federal it is even more. 80x365x60 = 1,752,000. on the low end. are you kidding, you claim life is precious but those serving those long term life sentences aren't there because they were a pick pocket.

also with the US being the World Police, they get involved in things that are to help others. the US has yet to claim further territory or demand that they receive compensation of that sort. as is the fuel economy is getting destroyed because of who controls the oil is simply raising the price to extreme levels. also how is the US being the world police, they were attacked and still maintain a stronghold in preventing further terrorism. but do those sort of things ever get reported, no, just the fact that another amount of soldiers have died. i don't like the loss of life, but this is a war and by far the amount of casualties in this war in no where near the amount in past wars. the majority of the media just enjoys to slander anything for ratings and to get the public riled up with massively misconstrued points.

im sorry, but saying the US has others to hid behind is just wrong. if you are first saying that the US was the first to opt out of signing then others later decided to follow, wouldn't it be the other way around. US being the leader would be on a bigger chopping block than the followers. they can just claim they did it because of the power of the US.

you contradict yourself in your own argument. you complain about the US being the world police but then you say if you are going for one dictator, then not why not the rest. as is, this campaign is expensive, it would be utterly ridiculous and stupid to try to take on other dictatorships. the US would simply be spread out to thin.

a weapon of mass destruction is something that can wipe out masses of people at a time without the possibility of preventing it once it has started. 10 people dying is not a massacre, 1000 immediately dying and another 500 following from health hazardous effects is.


also don't get me wrong, i don't think all the reasons why the war is happening were stated but people quickly forget that it wasn't just one singular event that caused this to occur.

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

Well you have to take figures on health care cost with a grain of salt, physicians have a long history of bashing universal healthcare proposals because it lowers their pay.

The USA is already spending more per capita on health care then a lot of countries with universal healthcare. Also, UH has a cost lowering effect, a single nationalized insurance plan that operates as a non-profit organization is the best way to lower health care cost. There atleast has to be legislation to provide government health care insurance for the uninsurable, like type I childhood diabetics and others who make too much money to be covered by the government, but are refused by all the private insurance companies.

Edit: btw the entire world has a doctor shortage.

[Arty]

Lol , you are liberal but your against free trade?

tsk tsk , Free trade could ensure low-tax socialism. Proven at the KHC.

[ScareCrow]

Well you have to take figures on health care cost with a grain of salt, physicians have a long history of bashing universal healthcare proposals because it lowers their pay.

The USA is already spending more per capita on health care then a lot of countries with universal healthcare. Also, UH has a cost lowering effect, a single nationalized insurance plan that operates as a non-profit organization is the best way to lower health care cost. There atleast has to be legislation to provide government health care insurance for the uninsurable, like type I childhood diabetics and others who make too much money to be covered by the government, but are refused by all the private insurance companies.

Edit: btw the entire world has a doctor shortage.

HIdden NInja, I'll reply to your post later on, because I don't have the time to.
In regards to Universal Health Care, doctors in European countries make a decent salary, somewhere between 200-400k USD. That's a pretty good salary. Plus, my friend's cousin (who's a doctor in U.K) says that he's not as overworked as some U.S. doctor's are.

I know that it would cost the U.S. a shitload of money to convert to Universal HEalthcare, however, I believe it should be done. Bush has spent half a trillion dollars on the Iraqi War.

You think there isn't much of a difference between Universal Healthcare and the Healthcare we adopt in the U.S? Watch Sicko directed by Michael Moore. I had Republican friends who hate Michael Moore watch it and said it was informative.

edit: The U.S.'s healthcare is for the rich...and American Medical Insurance Companies constantly rip people off for money.

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

HIdden NInja, I'll reply to your post later on, because I don't have the time to.
In regards to Universal Health Care, doctors in European countries make a decent salary, somewhere between 200-400k USD. That's a pretty good salary. Plus, my friend's cousin (who's a doctor in U.K) says that he's not as overworked as some U.S. doctor's are.

I know that it would cost the U.S. a shitload of money to convert to Universal HEalthcare, however, I believe it should be done. Bush has spent half a trillion dollars on the Iraqi War.

You think there isn't much of a difference between Universal Healthcare and the Healthcare we adopt in the U.S? Watch Sicko directed by Michael Moore. I had Republican friends who hate Michael Moore watch it and said it was informative.

edit: The U.S.'s healthcare is for the rich...and American Medical Insurance Companies constantly rip people off for money.

I've seen sicko, and I'm in favour of universal health care, I just said it lowered cost lol.

On the topic of the death penalty, it is state legislated murder, the worse kind of murder. Any country that values freedom and morality should not engage in the practice.