| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Erebus
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1834 Posts |
 Posted - 07/10/2003 : 08:07:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Carolynanna
Interesting Erebus,
but holy shit what country do you come from, that's not a cut I'm just curious? Also how can you address the effects of violent crime if you haven't figured out any causes? And I also think that there have been so many historical human horrors (shut up speedy) that have always been and always will be. Just look at the middle east, those things have been going on since the beginning of time and will continue. I'd be more concerned about how we are all going to die because of how we pollute this earth. And at least, not in my neck of the woods at least, we don't all go to public executions on the weekend anymore.
I live in the USA. I think that to a great extent we do understand the causes of violent crime but that the remedies have largely served only to make the problems worse. In referring to an explosion of human horror I was implying pollution, water wars, increased vulnerability of high tech societies to high tech attacks by otherwise low tech parties, race war, increase in weapon efficiency, over-population, viral evolution, increased insensitivity to violence, immigration/invasion, ethnic intolerance, mass-media driven propaganda and resultant group-think, .... |
 |
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2003 : 08:15:36
|
Six killed in gun rampage at Miss. plant
Some say that angry shooter disliked black people
By Reed Branson
branson@gomemphis.com
July 9, 2003
MERIDIAN, Miss. - An employee sprayed a Lockheed Martin manufacturing plant with shotgun blasts Tuesday morning, killing five co-workers and wounding nine before turning a gun on himself.
It was the nation's deadliest workplace shooting in 21/2 years.
More at:
http://www.gomemphis.com/mca/midsouth_news/article/0,1426,MCA_1497_2095944,00.html
- - - -
I don't think Iraq or Afghanistan are in very good condition right now. |
|
|
|
Erebus
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1834 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2003 : 08:44:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by speedy_m [snip]
If we could attack the problems of violence and crime on both a social and economic front, than mabye something could actually be done imporve things. I would disgree with you that it's "too late" for the cause, and I think inevitability doesn't exist, at least not in this context. People have the power to change, both themselves and the world around them. Perhaps you beleive this need be done with the bayonette rather than the olive branch, which is certainly how it has been done in the past [snip]
that eventually there would be no need to feel that you require a gun to possibly over throw the government that is there to serve you.
I think that for the most part social welfare solutions only make the problem worse. Solutions to the problems of an underclass can only come from within that class. Instead, the left has succeeded in convincing much of that class that they cannot succeed without help, thereby fostering a culture of dependence. I find it impossible to avoid thinking that he left does this deliberately simply because without a permanent, dependent underclass the left has no political future. No group has a greater investment in the perpetuation of American poverty and despair than the American Democrat party.
Finally, I find it regrettable that the idea that government should "serve" has become so entrenched in western thinking. It is a curse upon this nation that the Constitution did not include an explicit prohibition on government service to the people. Want service? Get thee to a private party. They do it better anyway, and they don't drag the rest of the population kicking and screaming into pet projects of "service". And, regarding guns as the people's defense, my concern is not so much with overthrow of a renegade government, though that has been a sane response of almost all peoples at some time in their histories. Rather, the guns are necessary to potentially resist, and discourage, governmental tyranny. In the USA the threat of tyranny comes from the left, not from the right. Indeed, one could make a strong case that Americans already live under tyranny. Both the Republicans and the Democrats have signed on to the welfare state, strictly for political reasons, creating a tyranny by majority, in which over a third of the average American's wages go to taxes, in which we are FORCED to contribute to risk pools (Social Security, Medicare, ...), in which employers are FORCED to provide health benefits and minimum wages, in which governmental entities are FORCED to provide services to illegal aliens and FORBIDDEN to inquire about citizenship, in which PRIVATE companies are FORCED to abide by defacto racial quotas, in which the US Supreme Court has deigned to continually re-invent a "living" constitution and thereby violate basic separations of powers, to include those expressly reserved to the individual states. This is tyranny, and I needn't remind you that the American Revolution was fought over far, far less. Yes, Mssrs. Noisy & Dallas notwithstanding, the people of the United States better keep their guns, for they will be needed, and welcome.
|
|
|
|
Carolynanna
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Canada
6556 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2003 : 09:06:02
|
| Where the hell is blackpurse? |
|
|
|
speedy_m
= Frankofile =
Canada
3581 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2003 : 09:37:47
|
| I beleive the idea behind government as a service provider is that it should (idealy) provide services to EVERYONE, whether they can afford it or not. Taking just the example of health care (being Canadian and all), do you mean to say that a family that cannot afford the costs of private health care does not deserve it? That a child born into a poor family doesn't deserve to be healthy and treated when sick or seriously injured? This is small example in a very large issue, but one worth considering. |
|
|
|
Erebus
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1834 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2003 : 10:24:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by speedy_m
[snip] do you mean to say that a family that cannot afford the costs of private health care does not deserve it? That a child born into a poor family doesn't deserve to be healthy and treated when sick or seriously injured
They NEED it. They don't DESERVE it. Desert is a function of merit, and I don't think possession of 46 (or 47) chromosomes qualifies as merit. Whether or not that need should be met is a moral problem. I happen to think that it should in some but not all cases, end then only through private action. That way those motivated to help will not be forcing those differently motivated to assist with that help. Some of those not motivated to help might think no help would actually help more. I tend to approach these things from a Darwinian perspective. The "purpose" of children is propel parental DNA forward into the future. Expending disproportionate resources on the weak, reproductively non-viable child often (usually?) has the effect of depriving its viable siblings of the resources they will need to maximize grandchildren for the parents. Given that the best hope the non-viable child has of getting its DNA into the next generation consists of the success of its viable siblings, it, and its DNA, would be better off if resources were not expended on it. Within the context of examples of the sort you offer, the error of the left lies in analyzing benefits at the level of the individual human being, rather that at the level of the DNA itself. The individual is just a temporary shell built by the DNA for the perpetuation of the DNA. It is the DNA that persists, with mutations, through time. If you want to benefit any lifeform, you should structure your logic in terms that maximize DNA.
That's one way in which some people may disagree with conventional conceptions of social welfare, and should therefore be allowed, out of simple respect for their right to moral self-determination, to opt out of support of social welfare programs. In many, many cases, "helping" a family with its weak children has the effect of diminishing, or even dooming, the DNA of that family. Such help should be restricted to that which can return the child to a state of reproductive viability. Fix the broken leg. Cure the disease that is not permanently debilitating. But withold assistance that would be diverted from the more viable. Hopefully you understand me from what I've said here. I would say more except that I assume I've already pissed off enough people, assuming they care. |
|
|
|
blackpurse
= Cult of Ray =
USA
299 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2003 : 10:26:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Carolynanna
Where the hell is blackpurse?
Torn on some of the very articulate replies. Especially since I haven't seen "Bowling for Columbine", its difficult for me to comment, although I was a huge fan of "Roger and Me" and "TV Nation" -- both of which were great, muckraking journalism in the positive sense of the word. I would normally come to Moore's defense, but I'm not qualified to as I haven't seen the work in question. I sort of doubt that its all as bad as his opponents say, given that his previous work is well-documented, and his books are cross-referenced and well fact-checked. Moore knows about libel and slander and he's never been convicted (or even brought before a grand jury) for either. It sounds like a bunch of people are just angry that he's made his point in a humorous and gut-wrenching manner, just as liberals hate it when Rush Limbaugh takes his cheap shots. (although Limbaugh has been proven outright wrong or a liar for some of his stuff, and his picking on minors such as Chelsea Clinton for physical appearance was finally deemed out of line by even some right-wingers).
I'm torn -- really really torn, on the the issue of gun control, so much that steaknsabre have agreed to disagree. While I do agree with the concept of government as service provider, I find myself getting more libertarian and thus distrustful of government in my old age. Overall, I agree there needs to be some control of guns, but the general concept of the government -- (or in worse case scenario) -- the police state, being the ones to decide just who may have the means to protect and defend one's self really gives me the creeps. I suppose this might contradict my views on things like national health care, federal regulation of commerce, etc. But by and large, I tend to trust the government fiscally (sounds like a joke) more than with civil liberties. I absolutely don't give any government any leeway when it comes to free speech issues, for example. The more I thought about this, the more I began to consider gun ownership to be a civil liberty, and in a very "politics makes strange bedfellows" type of vein, conceded this issue on the basis that NRA members also tend to be staunch 1st Amendment supporters (my personal passion), and I feel as though I owe 'em one -- specially since both the NRA and the ACLU came together to fight that ridiculouus "Homland Security Act". Why should I trust a government -- any government -- whom I don't trust to regulate what I may say, read or or write, to also decide what means of defending my self, family or property I may have? Although I do trust this same government (in terms of a social agency), to take my money and build roads, feed the poor, and maintain amenities for me. I guess my attitude is that they can have my money, that's replaceable. My life and soul, that's another story.
On the other hand, fortunately, neither I, nor any of my family or friends, have ever been the victim of gun violence, so its real easy for me to be all theoretical about this. I might turn into James and Sarah Brady if, say, my daughter were ever injured in a drive-by shooting, you can be damn sure of that. So maybe I haven't studied this as in depth as many here because honestly, it hasn't hit my life yet.
|
|
|
|
Carolynanna
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Canada
6556 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2003 : 10:27:53
|
| I cannot even reply except to say that I completely disagree, where is your morality and compassion Erebus? If you thought that Jews had lesser DNA would you agree to their extermination? |
Edited by - Carolynanna on 07/10/2003 10:31:50 |
|
|
|
Erebus
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1834 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2003 : 10:43:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Carolynanna
I cannot even reply except to say that I completely disagree, where is your morality and compassion Erebus? If you thought that Jews had lesser DNA would you agree to their extermination?
If you read closely you will see that what I propose is more compassionate than what is proposed by the conventional left.
The second sentence is a truly cheap shot and I resent it. I said nothing about Jews or extermination. I merely suggested that nature is the final arbiter on the viability of DNA and that citizens should have the right to disagree on what actually constitutes social welfare. You want to "help"? Go to it. But please allow those of us with more elevated conceptions of life to define, and act on those definitions, in ways that we support. |
|
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2003 : 11:02:42
|
The evidence that Moore is a liar and fabricator is linked in several places on this forum. Its not even in question. The only question is does it matter? Those who agree with his conclusions obviously dont give a damn how he supports them. Most others dont accept his bogus facts and fabricated movie scenes under the guise of a documentary.
He showed a banker handing out a gun after a customer opened an account. An event that has NEVER EVER EVEN ONCE happened in America. Moore was fabricating it. A bank did offer a certificate for a free gun (a marketing ploy I wouldn't personally endorse) that required the holder to go through all the proper background checks, brady bill waiting period etc. as if they walked in off the street and bought it. Not dramatic enough for Moore, he wanted impressionable people to think that some banker had a drawer full of guns that he was handing out. Its patently dishonest and never explained in his fictional film. |
|
|
|
speedy_m
= Frankofile =
Canada
3581 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2003 : 11:06:35
|
| Erebus, have you seen the film "Gattaca"? It's not really the same thing as your DNA discussion, but it brings up some of the same questions. I wonder how you feel about this movie? Can you value a person based on things like their genetic make-up? Or are we more than the sum of our parts? Can we, at this stage of human development, even begin to understand or calculate the relative worth or viability of the DNA of a person? You point out that it is nature that is the final arbiter, and that may be true, but are we truly wise enough to understand the way nature works, and to decide that some people are simply not worth saving? Perhaps I misinterept you, but it seems you are saying it would be better or ideal if humans were in a sense bred so that the so-called "stronger" survive. I may be going off on a tangent here, but human evolution has taken place over thousands and thousands of years, wouldn't a majority (if not all) of the "weak" people have been weeded out? Perhaps those "weak" people that exist today are a product not of poor genetics, but of a society that has created a vast disparity between classes, and the weak people are simply the strong who have been neglected. |
|
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2003 : 11:10:46
|
| I dug Gattaca, pretty underrated movie |
|
|
|
gracie
= Cult of Ray =
United Kingdom
573 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2003 : 11:31:43
|
i saw the film last night and although i can't comment on the validity or accuracy of moores assertions the women behind the bank counter did say that the bank kept 500 guns in the vault and gave moore a catalogue to look through showing the guns on offer.
living in a country where guns are restricted i cannot imagine a situation where someone could buy one in a shop without too much restriction. i suppose you get used to it. do any of you actually own guns or have you ever been involved in a gun incident? the media in general, and the moore documentry especially, give the impression that guns are a big problem. do you agree or think the promblem is exaggerated? |
|
|
|
ivandivel
= Cult of Ray =
394 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2003 : 11:36:57
|
Some serious misconceptions about Darwin here....and some pissing on his grave. If anything, his theory actually would support some of Moore's claims (allthough i'm no fan of Moore). Fear is probably the emotion that people react the most to. It can be an healthy emotion, but it can also be exploited. And (white) americans seem very, very scared. And you too Erebus (or concerned, but it's a derivate of fear - from an evolutionary perspective). Now, african-americans seem very, very angry (i may not be correct, so correct me if you will). This is a very adaptive emotion. If you want the best dna, you go for the angry ones. They're most likely to innovate and dominate.
But, humans haven't really evolved for some time, because nearly all (in the western world) live long enough to spread their DNA. If the the president of the usa is the most powerfull man in the world, then one could make a strong argument that evolution has been reversed (ok, i know that's still evolution, but since we might get some influence over evolution it is an interesrting point).
Finally, I would like to hear someone, anyone, that can give me a good reason for that people claiming that god is on their side is suited to be president.
Ok, i'm just rambling nonsense. But please, don't try to wrap this into pseudo-evolutionary thinking. One can NOT use evolutionary theory as an argument in moral discussions (ok, obviously, you can, but only when it is not properly understood). |
|
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2003 : 11:52:34
|
Gracie - here is a quote regarding that scene, the Lyons referenced is a writer:
"Lyons found that the scene in a bank in Michigan that that opens the film was staged. Customers who open long-term CDs at the bank actually have to go to a gun store to pick up the weapon after a background check. Yet the film clearly indicates that the bank itself stores and hands out guns to customers and Moore even jokes as he walks out, "Here's my first question: do you think it's a little dangerous handing out guns at a bank?"
To answer your broader question, I do think guns represent a problem. However, I dont think the solution is taking guns away from responsible people who observe the law. Because guns have been a part of American society since its inception. Never in the history of the US has disarming the public been possible. You can only disarm those who live within the law, thus making the law abiders more vulnerable to attack.
I dont have an easy answer. Any answer is unpalatable. My answer would be making the sentences for gun crimes exponentially higher than similar non-gun (I would probably open it up to other weapons as well) related crimes. Or revoke parole options for gun related crimes. Society (publice and/or private sector) can continue trying to address 'root causes', but, once the crime has been committed the punishment needs to be harsh. |
|
|
|
Carolynanna
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Canada
6556 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2003 : 12:09:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
quote:
Originally posted by Carolynanna
I cannot even reply except to say that I completely disagree, where is your morality and compassion Erebus? If you thought that Jews had lesser DNA would you agree to their extermination?
If you read closely you will see that what I propose is more compassionate than what is proposed by the conventional left.
The second sentence is a truly cheap shot and I resent it. I said nothing about Jews or extermination. I merely suggested that nature is the final arbiter on the viability of DNA and that citizens should have the right to disagree on what actually constitutes social welfare. You want to "help"? Go to it. But please allow those of us with more elevated conceptions of life to define, and act on those definitions, in ways that we support.
Ya I guess it was a cheap slippery slope shot but I still don't see alot of compassion. And furthermore, how could it be determined what would be considered superior DNA? Would it be simply the DNA of those who successfully propagate?
And Ivan, I don't see how being scared or angry have anything to do with DNA. |
|
|
|
Erebus
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1834 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2003 : 12:14:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by ivandivel
Some serious misconceptions about Darwin here [snip] But please, don't try to wrap this into pseudo-evolutionary thinking. One can NOT use evolutionary theory as an argument in moral discussions (ok, obviously, you can, but only when it is not properly understood).
I suggest that when you label an argument in terms such as "misconceptions" and "pseudo-", you might also want to include logical support for the labels. And, for the record, morality is a product of evolution. |
|
|
|
Carolynanna
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Canada
6556 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2003 : 12:20:10
|
| Are you saying that morality is a product of evolution due to the sociological ramifications of evolution or something else? |
|
|
|
ivandivel
= Cult of Ray =
394 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2003 : 12:31:53
|
i was refering to erebus' use of darwin. emotions are wired into the brain and work "in the middle" between enviroment and your actions. Thus, they are on the one side dependent on the dna, on the other shaped by the environment. they, to a large extent, decide/influence your actions. they are, in other words, very adaptive (unless you're too neurotic). dna in itself means nothing in evolution. it is how each single organism adapt to its environment which is of importance. dna can not interact with the environment- genes only produce proteins which increase or decrease the probabiliy of certain actions, a probability that change in accordance with the responses of the environment. Thus, if you want to talk about evolution, you must talk about how one adapts to the environment. In this process, emotions are crucial. In fact, Darwin wrote a whole book on the topic of emotions.
From an evolutionary perspective, some fear is good cause it keeps you alive. If you get crippled by it, your options to act gets reduced - your dna die. Simple as that. |
|
|
|
Carolynanna
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Canada
6556 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2003 : 12:39:50
|
Ah I get it.
But how would we know if emotions "work in the middle" exactly? There are so many variables. Isn't that the whole nature/nurture debate? I'd like to read that Darwin book on emotions, sounds tres interesting. |
|
|
|
ivandivel
= Cult of Ray =
394 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2003 : 12:43:00
|
Ok Erebus - there is no "purpose" in evolution. This should be well known. There is no way of knowing which "method" is most suitable to propel the best DNA into the future because there is no way of knowing how the future will be. The whole point about evolutionary theory is that organisms adapt to the environment. Unless you know for sure how the environment is gonna be like, one can not make decissions based on such theory. In fact, one can not make useful predictions based on evolutionary theory because there is no way of predicting what will benefit from future environments. This is a comment Popper made a long time ago. You say ; "The "purpose" of children is propel parental DNA forward into the future". No, it is not. There is no purpose. That is the point in evolutionary theory. There is no purpose. Things happen. Finito.
Maybe I was being harsh, but there were serious flaws in your argument. Thus i called i pseudo - asuming you had some misconceptions about evolutionary theory. I might have been wrong, but i believe that one) making moral decissions based on evolutionary theory shows that one does not properly understand it and 2) talking about a "purpose" in evolution is definitely wrong. |
|
|
|
ivandivel
= Cult of Ray =
394 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2003 : 12:48:40
|
We don't know that emotions work in the middle - but it is very likely given what one knows about the brain, how people act, how children develop, how psychiatric disorders develop etc. Fuck with the emotions, and you'll get into trouble very soon. Damasio has written some good, readable books that explains such relationships (and he adds some speculations, which are - speculative). The feeling of what happens, and Descartes Error they are called. |
|
|
|
evilheat
- FB Fan -
12 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2003 : 12:54:25
|
good day, I'm new here, and I'm kindof confused by mr. erebus' gross generalization with these folks known as 'the left'. Now being someone who has been labeled as part of 'the left', I not sure I agree with what erebus' 'left' is all about.
That business of convincing the underclass of their dependece, well you see some of the recent hero's of the day for the left are folks like luciano 'lula' de silva and the workers party in brazil, and well their whole point is to decentralize everything, put power in peoples hands, direct democracy on the local level. The goal is to educate and empower people on the local level so they can properly make use of government, this is done by giving away much of the power. Sao Paolo has had a participatory budgeting system where people vote on the budget, so the government directly responds to the desires of the people. This bridges the gap between the benefits of collective action (economics of scale), while maintaining a large degree of freedom of choice. It also acts to remind people that they are responsible for their wellbeing, not just vote once every 4 years and hope for the best.
This is the big hope for lefty's the world over, Jack Layton (Canada's NDP leader (yes, the socialist party)) got elected largely on his emphasis of decentralized power.
This also leads into a reference on health care. You see canada's public health care costs less per citizen then the U.S.'s private. 25% of health costs in U.S. hospitals go to lawyers and insurance, costs drastically reduced by keeping it public. Now you could say, but I don't want to pay for others health care etcetc, but if this is done on a sufficiently small scale, then it can reflect much more closely the individuals choice (ie. through direct democracy/participatory decision making) and it would save massive amounts of money, while getting people to be more educated and more invovled in their future (and not just relying on their job, but make proper use of government). In this case, it would be very hard to have even the harshest economic analysis show that no gov't health care is worthwhile, leaving only the staunchest anarchist/libertairan types complaining about loss of freedom.
Being on the topic of health care, erebus you mention some interesting arguements in regard to lefty health care perpetuating weak traits in humans, that's not necessarily a bad arguement, and in some cases I do very much appreciate it (ie. pumping crazy drugs into people to perpetuate a miserable life, just cause we have to prolong every life as long as possible).....but I won't get into that. What about me having crazy student loans and no health insurance with my new entry level job, and I get sick with something that if treated soon will mean I'm back working right away........but I've got my loans and my apartment etc, so I can't really afford it, so I don't get treated and get really sick and can't work etc.......I'm not ruining the gene pool but having using public health care to keep me healthy and minimize unproductive days, but without it I may just become destitute. Their's a significant difference between using (cheaper) public health care to maintain a healthy population (cause we all get sick) and using public health care to maintain weak dna....in fact the rich who can afford to live attached to machines, pumped full of drugs are the one's more than lickely to do this. (I'm not sure if I'm much of a fan of that)
more later, got to get back to work.
|
|
|
|
St. Francis
= Cult of Ray =
Canada
548 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2003 : 14:38:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
Just wanted to thank you speedy m for the involved reply. I've been kicking around just how to respond without again getting into a nasty debate, not with you but with folks in general. I do have two brief comments. I am concerned that taking away the guns would eventually involve a loss of freedom. Government is something to be feared and a population disarmed would soon be abused by a government retaining force sufficient to abuse. The people need to be able to resist government, though I must admit it's possibly too late for most peoples, including those of the USA. Secondly, while I'd like to think I am sensitive to socio-economic factors behind violent crime, we have gone too far with concern for the causes and not far enough in addressing the effects. We are too late for the causes. Can't help despairing over where all this will end up. Historical human horrors will most likely pale in comparison with what this century will bring. Simply too much momentum. Sorry to be such a downer. I genuinely try to let most of the socio-political talk just pass, but I had to rise to the bait regarding Michael Moore. It's grating to think that so many Americans and, especially, non-Americans take Moore at face value. Fine if people agree with his conclusions, but for me his methods completely discredit him, to the point of calling even his premises into question. If his ends are sound he needn't deceive to achieve them. And yes, that applies to Bush as well. Thanks again.
Do you work for the Government?... just kidding... sort of....
Interesting to see this topic is up again... any two time posters? Anyone's oppinion change from seeing it in the theatres to picking up the DVD?
|
Edited by - St. Francis on 07/10/2003 14:38:53 |
|
|
|
Brackish Girl
~ Soul Eater ~
Ireland
1750 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2003 : 15:52:52
|
i don't have the patience to read all this, but have got the impression Bush has some supporters here.
no evidence of weapons of mass destruction have been found.
not even plans for the construction of them! i mean,come on, they haven't disappeared into thin air. as for iraqis cheering them in the street, yeah sure, the ones that aren't in hospitals or looking after people in hospitals, or burying their families.
as for the 15 billion for african aid, this hasn't been cleared with congress, and probably won't be able to be cashed for a long time.
and did anyone notice he gave aid to the countries that are nearest iraq?
as mogwai would say(and i'm sorry for being vulgar)'Bush is another word for cunt'.
bored of the little comments. i guess i'll just have an actual signature. much shorter.
-Jessie |
|
|
|
thalassocrat
- FB Fan -
United Kingdom
46 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2003 : 17:42:00
|
This topic dispelled my illusion that FB fans were in general above average intelligence.
WESTERN CIVILISATION: DECENT, CIVIL, JUST, FREE.
Given the above axiom it is conlcuded that US is not a western civilisation.
Short story: A friend was offered a corporate job in US. He and his wife travelled to Boston and NY to see about it. They came back in a hurry. Quote: "It was like entering hell"
It is extremely liberating to see how given that the average american is very well travelled, read and has considerable knowledge of foreign places and customs other than those found in some miserable town south of the Mexican border, he is in the privileged position to give the informed judgement on how his practices, however seemingly pathetic to some 6 billion souls, are not just the only one on option but they are positively the best. |
|
|
|
Stuart
- The Clopser -
China
2291 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2003 : 18:06:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dallas
Stuart, you have no facts to back up your screeching, just louder and more obnoxious name calling. Meanwhile, back on Earth, the Middle East moves closer to peace, Saddam Hussein is deposed, Al Qaeda is close to irrelevent, Afghanistan is liberated, Africa is rec'ving $15 billion in Aids relief, Iranian students are pressuring their gov't for more freedom, Liberians are cheering US soldiers in the streets, the US passed an Education bill that Ted Kennedy called 'wonderful'...EVIL PURE EVIL, LOL
So the US are once again the world saviours.... fuck, what planet do you live on??? I don't need to go into the long list of facts about the US as pretty much everyone outside of the US knows them (practically the majority of the world) and they have been mentionned time and time again on this forum.
And as for Bush being a kind and caring individual.... whatever you say mate.
War....... Its not fantastic |
Edited by - Stuart on 07/10/2003 18:13:31 |
|
|
|
vegan
- FB Fan -
USA
64 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2003 : 20:55:39
|
| Afghanistan is not, in fact, liberated. It has largely been abandoned by the PeaceKeepers and the Taliban is making a resurgence. And Afghani women are no better off than they were pre-US led war. Meanwhile, more American soldiers (and British) die daily in "liberated" Iraq. It's very tenuous to say that the Middle East moves closer to peace. Furthermore, are there any US soldiers in the streets of Liberia? |
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11687 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2003 : 20:59:54
|
| The point is that the US has a propoganda machine that is unlike any other in the world, which starts from well before the children enter school and goes right through their lives. The US is the best, why go elsewhere? Why see the world? Why look beyond what we tell you is the best in our Amerinan-centric textbooks. In Canada, because of the over abundance of US culture, we see it as clear as day. The news continues to feed it, and the government, and all the monuments to US success. No, this does not say that all Americans (or even the majority) have never looked outside their borders and thought that maybe the universe does not revolve around 13 stripes and 50 stars, but there are far, FAR too many, who are content to accept what's force fed them from every direction. I just find it difficult to accept that on a board where ALL of us have had to look past mainstream music that is force fed to us, that there are people who so blindingly and willingly accept what is force fed to us by mainstream media and popular culture. |
|
|
|
vegan
- FB Fan -
USA
64 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2003 : 21:13:15
|
| Michael Moore may not present the full truth; but look at the Rupert Murdoch (ultra conservative) global media empire and their half-truths/distorted truths ad infinitum and Michael Moore looks rather saintly. |
|
|
|
BLT
> Teenager of the Year <
South Sandwich Islands
4204 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2003 : 22:13:49
|
Many of you in Canada and the UK may be surprised to know there are plenty of American gun owners who were against the war in Iraq. We're not all right-wing freaks.
I do, however, remain strongly in favor of shooting dead any threatening person who enters my house. No amount of naive idealism is going to change that. |
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11687 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2003 : 23:35:11
|
| Never meant to imply that there weren't. For sure not all Americans (or Brits or Canadians) are the same, nor are we or you necessary anything like the person that leads, but there are of course those who are. |
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2003 : 00:27:24
|
Wow..this 'survival of the fittest' chatter sure sends a shiver down my spine.
28 Days Later kinda touches on this..might makes right.
Equally sad and scary is the utter lack of trust..or even the desire to give it.
Sad. |
|
|
|
Scarla O
= Cult of Ray =
United Kingdom
947 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2003 : 01:08:46
|
Al Qaida close to irrelevant...Afghanistan liberated and the Middle East closer to peace? What planet are you living on Dallas? |
|
|
|
Brackish Girl
~ Soul Eater ~
Ireland
1750 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2003 : 05:26:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
Wow..this 'survival of the fittest' chatter sure sends a shiver down my spine.
28 Days Later kinda touches on this..might makes right.
Equally sad and scary is the utter lack of trust..or even the desire to give it.
Sad.
are you asking people to trust georgie bush? i'm afraid if i did that i might be dead, among the 'trusting' soldiers of america and britain who haven't been lucky enouhg to survive in this 'just' war.
bored of the little comments. i guess i'll just have an actual signature. much shorter.
-Jessie |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
