Gothic.net News Horror Gothic Lifestyle Fiction Movies Books and Literature Dark TV VIP Horror Professionals Professional Writing Tips Links Gothic Forum




Go Back   Gothic.net Community > Boards > Politics

Politics "Under democracy, one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule -and both commonly succeed, and are right." -H.L. Menken

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-28-2005, 04:09 PM   #26
edible_eye
 
edible_eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,795
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Whereas I think America is taking a step backwards, and the fault lies with Bush and Co. and their being responsible - through the politics of fear and arrogance - for the reduction of civil liberties of my American friends (especially the erosion of the 4th amendment). They may even be some things I strongly dislike about the US (hate is too strong a word for what I feel), however, overall, I'm rather fond of the US.
that's funny cuz i tend to think america is finally moving forward again, small steps to reverse the bullshit forced unto the country by minority special interest groups. finally, there's some push back and surprise, surprise - those who freak out at with the concept of personal responsibility are pissed off.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter
You know there's even some things I think are badly phrased and even wrong about your constitution, but overall, it's pretty cool.
heh. you live in england, correct? we left your country and solidified it in writing. 'nuff said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter
On what you were saying about the governement, the government is a small part of what America is, heck, hating your governement doesn't mean you hate America, it means you hate a part of it. Afterall, the Declaration of Independance says "We the people", no "We the elected representatives of the people" even though you're a Republic.
true - hating the government is only hating a small part of america. i don't hate the government and even if you do, honestly - what does that matter? that's like me saying i dislike tony blair, even though i don't. the bottom line is - who cares?

i don't live in england. you don't live in america. no disrespect intended, pete since i don't know you but your opinion about my country's government essentially amounts to a fart in the wind.
edible_eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2005, 12:12 AM   #27
Fenris
 
Fenris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Madison, IN
Posts: 34
The most basic purpose of government is to provide protection to it's people. People give small amounts of loyalty and money and the government returns protection, both from internal and external threats. While there are certainly more intricacies, the most important thing is that the government protects it's people, therefore serving it's purpose. If terrorists want to come at me hand to hand, one on one, i'll take them on, but that's not going to happen. If i'm going to be killed by a terrorist it will be with an explosive or other sort of weapon I can't deal with. The American government can deal with such threats though, and if that means reducing or eliminating some rights, even constitutional rights, then it is not only justified to do so, but obligated to do so. There is no question that the patriot act and other such legislation starts to step on certain rights, and it may go too far. However, I'd prefer to have my government go too far than not far enough when my life and the lives of others are at stake. The patriot act and such legislation is just "martial law lite", it's an evil, but a necessary evil for our own protection. We still have rights here, and we're still considerably more free than any other nation, we just have to start making some small sacrifices like every one else to protect ourselves and our nation.
Fenris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2005, 01:28 AM   #28
Peter
 
Peter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK, Middlesbrough
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by edible_eye
that's funny cuz i tend to think america is finally moving forward again, small steps to reverse the bullshit forced unto the country by minority special interest groups. finally, there's some push back and surprise, surprise - those who freak out at with the concept of personal responsibility are pissed off.
Well, the people who like a strong economy are freaking out too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by edible_eye
true - hating the government is only hating a small part of america. i don't hate the government and even if you do, honestly - what does that matter? that's like me saying i dislike tony blair, even though i don't. the bottom line is - who cares?
Um .. well .. you did. Obviously, you're allowed to change your mind. I still don't hate your government though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by edible_eye
i don't live in england. you don't live in america. no disrespect intended, pete since i don't know you but your opinion about my country's government essentially amounts to a fart in the wind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by edible_eye
heh. you live in england, correct? we left your country and solidified it in writing. 'nuff said.
No disrespect intended at all, was there?
Peter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2005, 01:58 AM   #29
Peter
 
Peter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK, Middlesbrough
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenris
The most basic purpose of government is to provide protection to it's people. People give small amounts of loyalty and money and the government returns protection, both from internal and external threats. While there are certainly more intricacies, the most important thing is that the government protects it's people, therefore serving it's purpose. If terrorists want to come at me hand to hand, one on one, i'll take them on, but that's not going to happen. If i'm going to be killed by a terrorist it will be with an explosive or other sort of weapon I can't deal with. The American government can deal with such threats though, and if that means reducing or eliminating some rights, even constitutional rights, then it is not only justified to do so, but obligated to do so. There is no question that the patriot act and other such legislation starts to step on certain rights, and it may go too far. However, I'd prefer to have my government go too far than not far enough when my life and the lives of others are at stake. The patriot act and such legislation is just "martial law lite", it's an evil, but a necessary evil for our own protection. We still have rights here, and we're still considerably more free than any other nation, we just have to start making some small sacrifices like every one else to protect ourselves and our nation.
Hmm, where to start, well, the government's job isn't to protect the people. perhaps in a roundabout way, but certainly not directly, that would be the armed forces most likely. Although police forces do this too. May not always be the case, there are those who wish to privatise the armed forces, loyalty to your government isn't required, they're basically the country's employees. The American government isn't required to protect you at the expense of liberty, in fact, it was specifically said by a Benjamin Franklin "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety".

Even the aforementioned Declaration Of Independance says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... "

On the other hand of course, it could be argued that the consititution is out of date and unequipped to deal with terrorism, and updating it is prefectly in line with what the creators of it thought should happen. Living document and all that.

I think it's amazing that you're so accepting of this though, and things like The Patriot Act, I mean, how much of that do you think actually helps against terrorism? Or forgetting the Patriot Act for a second, does random bag searches on the New York subway system actually help?

If your government went too far I'm comforted that you'd change, but a little too far isn't enough for that to happen, or at least that's what I'm guessing, there would be a line they could cross that would make you want to change the government (and if you hadn't lost the vote by this point!).

I'd strongly disagree that The Patriot Act is a "necessary evil", and for that matter that the US is considerably more free than any other nation. There's parts of Scandinavia which seem to have greater freedom.
Peter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2005, 12:40 PM   #30
edible_eye
 
edible_eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,795
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Well, the people who like a strong economy are freaking out too.
the people who like a strong economy - translated as the liberal-saturated media who are looking for any scrap of bad news about the administration to print even if it's false - are busy scratching their heads because tax revenues recently collected - get this - FROM BUSINESSES AND WORKING INDIVIDUALS were so far above expectations, it boggled their collective, hate-filled, tiny, little brains.

beside - is there anyone who DOESN'T like a strong economy? i've yet to meet anyone who tells me they wish the economy would take a nose dive so they'd be cast into poverty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter
Um .. well .. you did. Obviously, you're allowed to change your mind. I still don't hate your government though.
i've never said i hated my government. i don't trust politicians but that's not the same as hate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter
No disrespect intended at all, was there?
no, peter - there really was no disrespect intended. let's say america and england are analogous to apples and oranges, respectively. if an orange leans over and says, "hey, apple - i think you should do blah and blah and blah in order to live your life" - the apple most likely would laugh and perhaps tell it to mind its own business. after all, the orange has its own tree to care for.

it's not disrespect, peter. it's perspective.
edible_eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2005, 01:01 PM   #31
Peter
 
Peter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK, Middlesbrough
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by edible_eye
the people who like a strong economy - translated as the liberal-saturated media who are looking for any scrap of bad news about the administration to print even if it's false - are busy scratching their heads because tax revenues recently collected - get this - FROM BUSINESSES AND WORKING INDIVIDUALS were so far above expectations, it boggled their collective, hate-filled, tiny, little brains.

beside - is there anyone who DOESN'T like a strong economy? i've yet to meet anyone who tells me they wish the economy would take a nose dive so they'd be cast into poverty.
I've yet to meet anyone that wants to give their sovereignty to the UN. Funny, huh?

And Liberal media?, erm ... no. Just no. Seriously. No.

Quote:
Originally Posted by edible_eye
i've never said i hated my government. i don't trust politicians but that's not the same as hate.
No, you said hating your government is the same as hating your country, then you changed your mind, which is fair enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by edible_eye
no, peter - there really was no disrespect intended. let's say america and england are analogous to apples and oranges, respectively. if an orange leans over and says, "hey, apple - i think you should do blah and blah and blah in order to live your life" - the apple most likely would laugh and perhaps tell it to mind its own business. after all, the orange has its own tree to care for.

it's not disrespect, peter. it's perspective.
Erm, no, it's disrespect, I'm not giving your country advice or tell you how you should live, you just don't like the fact that I don't agree with you and since you can't go the "You hate America" route you're trying something else.
Peter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2005, 01:05 PM   #32
Fenris
 
Fenris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Madison, IN
Posts: 34
The inaliable rights which are supposed to be given to every American citizen are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Life is pretty much all or nothing, if you can reduce liberties slightly to protect life it's certainly a worthy trade-off. Franklin stated that essential liberties should not be given up to protect life. He was talking about oppression and grossly unfair taxation, not exposing personal items in airports, there is a major difference.

In times of war, some of our liberties are temporarily reduced to protect American lives. The so called "war on terror" is the closest thing we've had to a homeland war since we slaughtered the Native Americans and took over the west. It only makes sense that some (ususally minor) liberties be put on hold until the threat to those on our homeland is decreased.

As for the patriot act being a necessary evil, I still maintain that it, or something like it, is necessary to keep us from protecting terrorists with our own beaurocracy.

As for America being more free, i meant to say most other nations, that was my mistake. I know Sweden has social liberties that most Americans would bat their eyes in disbelief at. If I have my facts strait, the netherlands and south korea, as well as a handful of other counties have more laid-back laws as well. That statement was an oversight on my part, and I apologize.

And if I may ask a noobish question, how do I post quotes?
Fenris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2005, 01:41 PM   #33
Peter
 
Peter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK, Middlesbrough
Posts: 155
You have no reason at all to be sorry, and to quote someone you just follow these instructions http://www.gothic.net/boards/misc.php?do=bbcode#quote

And dude, World War 2 with the Japanese was way more like a homeland war than the "War On Terror".
Peter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2005, 01:55 PM   #34
edible_eye
 
edible_eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,795
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
I've yet to meet anyone that wants to give their sovereignty to the UN. Funny, huh?
you remember kerry, don't you? ever heard of someone named clinton? hillary, to be specific. the name ted kennedy ring a bell? howard dean? it's all right if you don't recognize them - they're american politicians, not british. the point is - they be happy as bloated pigs in a vat of shit if the u.n. was the major sounding board from which their political decions could be filtered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter
And Liberal media?, erm ... no. Just no. Seriously. No.
you're either naieve, a liberal, or someone who can't bear the thought of major news sources carrying a slant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter
No, you said hating your government is the same as hating your country, then you changed your mind, which is fair enough.
not specifically. what i said was - "heh. the government is part of the country. you attack the government, you attack the country by default". there it is - copy and pasted. the government is part of the country and the country is shaped to some degree by the government. the government, for the most part, is elected by the people and in that, the will of the people are reflected within the government. it's not a black-and-white issue of government vs. country. instead, on various levels, it's a cross-stitch of various facets.

that being said - i also made my feelings clear about foreigners and their opinions of how the country is run versus american citizens voicing their opinions, be they positive or negative. one carries little-to-no weight, in my opinion and one carries the weight of every word. see if you can figure out which is which.

not to worry, though - if a democrat makes her or his way into the white house in '08, your opinion may carry just as much weight as that of an american. not to me necessarily, but to the supposed enlightened left - and please don't view that as a personal attack. i'm speaking solely about foreigners' opinions when it comes to america and the frustration they express because my country doesn't conform to what they believe america should be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter
Erm, no, it's disrespect, I'm not giving your country advice or tell you how you should live, you just don't like the fact that I don't agree with you and since you can't go the "You hate America" route you're trying something else.
no, it's perspective. i could show you disrespect, if you'd like. i'd rather not for two reasons - 1.) alkilyu was happy the other day when he saw you signed in here and i respect him quite a bit, which leads me to # 2.) i really don't know you. just because we start off our hello's in a political thread, that means essentially nothing in the grand scheme of interaction. politica tends to inspire passion and i have no interest in descending to a level of disrespect over it.

you're right about not giving the country advice - these are just words on a message board - however, your words about america moving forward or backward mean nothing when they are spoken from the uk. that's my point. as for the "route" i'm "trying" to take - there's no route. there's only what i believe. that's what you'll read here when i get an urge to drop words.


oh, and good link you posted above. that'll be a help for some. where'd you find it?
edible_eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2005, 02:12 PM   #35
edible_eye
 
edible_eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,795
goodness - please excuse my typos.

for shame, edible. for shame.

is there a way for the 'edit' function to stay open longer than 5 mins.?
edible_eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2005, 02:38 PM   #36
Peter
 
Peter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK, Middlesbrough
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by edible_eye
you remember kerry, don't you? ever heard of someone named clinton? hillary, to be specific. the name ted kennedy ring a bell? howard dean? it's all right if you don't recognize them - they're american politicians, not british. the point is - they be happy as bloated pigs in a vat of shit if the u.n. was the major sounding board from which their political decions could be filtered.
Yes, I know who all those people are thank you, and not one of them has ever, ever stated that US sovreignty should be handed to the UN.

Quote:
you're either naieve, a liberal, or someone who can't bear the thought of major news sources carrying a slant.
Do I get to call you a fascist now?, grow up.

Quote:
that being said - i also made my feelings clear about foreigners and their opinions of how the country is run versus american citizens voicing their opinions, be they positive or negative. one carries little-to-no weight, in my opinion and one carries the weight of every word. see if you can figure out which is which.

not to worry, though - if a democrat makes her or his way into the white house in '08, your opinion may carry just as much weight as that of an american. not to me necessarily, but to the supposed enlightened left - and please don't view that as a personal attack. i'm speaking solely about foreigners' opinions when it comes to america and the frustration they express because my country doesn't conform to what they believe america should be.
None of which I've done, you think your opinion of America matters either?, all that matters is your vote. However, some of us enjoy the free exchange of ideas even when they disagree, although I'm having trouble understanding why you resolve to childish crap like saying a democrat in the white house means foreign opinion has any effect on American policy more than when the republicans are in office.

Maybe you should discuss the issues instead of being so left-obsessed.

Quote:
no, it's perspective. i could show you disrespect, if you'd like. i'd rather not for two reasons - 1.) alkilyu was happy the other day when he saw you signed in here and i respect him quite a bit, which leads me to # 2.) i really don't know you. just because we start off our hello's in a political thread, that means essentially nothing in the grand scheme of interaction. politica tends to inspire passion and i have no interest in descending to a level of disrespect over it.
I'm not sure, there's inspired passion on the one hand, and this sort of left-obssesed brow-beating that certainly won't work with me. If you want to be passionate about it, be passionate about Bush's strong points.

Quote:
you're right about not giving the country advice - these are just words on a message board - however, your words about america moving forward or backward mean nothing when they are spoken from the uk. that's my point. as for the "route" i'm "trying" to take - there's no route. there's only what i believe. that's what you'll read here when i get an urge to drop words.
Okay, then pretend I'm speaking them from the US if it'll help. My words mean what they mean regardless of location, they don't have an effect on your country, but I don't care about that, I enjoy civil discourse on the subject of US politics, which I'm absolutely facinated by.

Quote:
oh, and good link you posted above. that'll be a help for some. where'd you find it?
Well, if you look at the bottom of the page when you're posting something there's a box entitled "Posting Rules", some of the options are hyperlinks to FAQ pages explaining what the various rules are, if you follow the one hyperlinked for vB code it'll explain all the various tags you can use.

I do implore you to drop the outside the US and the browbeating stuff though, I can't really have a discussion with you otherwise, merely do the same in return, and I think that would be a shame.
Peter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2005, 05:14 PM   #37
edible_eye
 
edible_eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,795
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Yes, I know who all those people are thank you, and not one of them has ever, ever stated that US sovreignty should be handed to the UN.
nor will you ever hear them state such inclinations as plainly as you just did. remember john kerry's statement regarding "global tests"? that wasn't empty rhetoric - rather an indication of his party's view.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter
Do I get to call you a fascist now?, grow up.
of course. call me whatever you'd like. and as far as the growing up thing - parts of my psyche have, parts of it never will.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter
None of which I've done, you think your opinion of America matters either?, all that matters is your vote. However, some of us enjoy the free exchange of ideas even when they disagree, although I'm having trouble understanding why you resolve to childish crap like saying a democrat in the white house means foreign opinion has any effect on American policy more than when the republicans are in office.
democrats seek to have the area behind their ears scratched by the leaders of other nations. they need to be coddled and praised in order to make decisions. and a democrat in the white house WILL mean more foreign influence on american policy. once again - refer to kerry's "global tests" statement. or, even more recently, shall we turn to the democratic judges in the supreme court who turned to foreign law while debating what is and is not appropriate concerning juveniles and the death penalty? it's not childish - it's their platform, unless of course you're implying that the democratic party is childish for their beliefs?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter
Maybe you should discuss the issues instead of being so left-obsessed.
i thought we were. you know - your opinion, my opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter
I'm not sure, there's inspired passion on the one hand, and this sort of left-obssesed brow-beating that certainly won't work with me. If you want to be passionate about it, be passionate about Bush's strong points.
obsessed? perhaps we're quibbling semantically, but i'd call it disgust. and to be sure, i WISH there were poignant strong points i could bring up on bush's behalf. in truth, he has let me down time and again. however, given the chance to do it all over again - bush vs. kerry - i'd still vote for him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter
Okay, then pretend I'm speaking them from the US if it'll help. My words mean what they mean regardless of location, they don't have an effect on your country, but I don't care about that, I enjoy civil discourse on the subject of US politics, which I'm absolutely facinated by.
ok, that's fair. i always enjoy a discussion - maybe i just needed to get that piece from you to figure out where your words were coming from.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter
I do implore you to drop the outside the US and the browbeating stuff though, I can't really have a discussion with you otherwise, merely do the same in return, and I think that would be a shame.
i like this line mainly because you used the word "implore". that's a cool word used fairly often in britain-speak, i think. as for the rest of it - if you can forgive certain elements of my often abrasive personality (when i chat politics) then perhaps we'll trade ideas as time goes on. if not, well...
edible_eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2005, 05:22 PM   #38
Soul_Immortal
 
Soul_Immortal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 554
This is just my opinion, but:

Americans know better about American politics.

((Sternn, if you are out there, this is not a shot at you)) ;D
__________________
*Insert witty quote about something goth here*
Soul_Immortal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2005, 05:24 PM   #39
Soul_Immortal
 
Soul_Immortal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 554
Peter: You joined in 2004 with only 21 posts?!

START POST WHORING DAMNIT!! >_<

Eye: You know, you look good in tights!! Love the avatar.
__________________
*Insert witty quote about something goth here*
Soul_Immortal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2005, 05:39 PM   #40
edible_eye
 
edible_eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,795
thanx, darlin'. be careful or i might web your hot-ass up and... do things to you, spider-style.
edible_eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2005, 09:06 PM   #41
Panther
 
Panther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The middle of nowhere, on the outskirts of the boonies.
Posts: 506
spider style? I would ask if I dare even ask, but I know I do.

So, what, pray tell, is spider style?
__________________
Will we walk all night through solitary streets?
The trees add shade to shade, lights out in the houses,
we'll both be lonely.
Will we stroll dreaming of the lost America of love
past blue automobiles in driveways, home to our silent
cottage?
-Allen Ginsberg, A Supermarket in California
Panther is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2005, 09:28 PM   #42
edible_eye
 
edible_eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,795
it involves immobilization, penetration and sucking.

lots of sucking.
edible_eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2005, 10:11 PM   #43
Binkie
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Beautiful U.S. of A.
Posts: 1,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Or forgetting the Patriot Act for a second, does random bag searches on the New York subway system actually help?
Let's put it this way, how many people have tried the shoe-bomb idea since TSA started doing random shoe checks at the airport? If nothing else, it puts people at ease knowing that there are at least SOME measures, however trivial you may view them as, at preventing an attack of that nature. I'd say random bag checks are more helpful than the ol' thumb up the ass. Don't like airport security? Take the train. Don't like train security? Take the bus. Most people would agreeably like to see security measures stepped up after an attack on the transit system as opposed to the government standing with their arms crossed, respecting your liberties and the liberties of all those who were killed when a bomb on a subway train blew up.

Quote:
If your government went too far I'm comforted that you'd change, but a little too far isn't enough for that to happen, or at least that's what I'm guessing, there would be a line they could cross that would make you want to change the government (and if you hadn't lost the vote by this point!).
I still like the story one reporter tells about a muslim summit that happened in New York shortly before the first World Trade Center attack. He was sitting in on it to do a story on what went on there when he realized that group members from such great organizations like HAMAS and the Islamic Jihad were there, attending and actively fund raising. When he called the FBI immediately, they essentially replied, "We don't know what you're talking about, or what you've been smoking."

The FBI really had no idea that these groups were here in the US. That changed after the first World Trade attack, but obviously enough wasn't being done. They changed that again after 9/11, so we'll see if that does the trick this time around. If it doesn't, the hell with the Patriot Act, but thus far there have been more terror cells broken up in major cities in the last 4 years than there were in a decade or two prior. By god, if my library record confidentiality agreement has to be comprimised for that, so be it.
__________________
"[Brian Blair] was a punk. I can break his fucking back - break his back and make him humble and then fuck his ass ... Suplex him, put him in a camel clutch, break his back, and fuck his ass - make him humble. Teach him to respect the Iron Sheik. And I didn't do it, because for the God and Jesus, and Mr. McMahon." -Khosrow Vaziri (The Iron Sheik)
Binkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2005, 01:45 AM   #44
edible_eye
 
edible_eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,795
hey, binks. good to see you again.

edible_eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2005, 02:35 AM   #45
Peter
 
Peter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK, Middlesbrough
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by edible_eye
nor will you ever hear them state such inclinations as plainly as you just did. remember john kerry's statement regarding "global tests"? that wasn't empty rhetoric - rather an indication of his party's view.No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded -- and nor would I -- the right to preempt in any way necessary, to protect the United States of America
It's easy to quote someone out of context. If America was right to "pre-emptively defend" then they can prove it, pass the global test and get multilateral support, right?

I know it's easier to just quote a bit of what someone says out of context, but ... Kerry said the reverse that he wouldn't ever hand the decision to the UN.

Quote:
Originally Posted by edible_eye
democrats seek to have the area behind their ears scratched by the leaders of other nations. they need to be coddled and praised in order to make decisions. and a democrat in the white house WILL mean more foreign influence on american policy. once again - refer to kerry's "global tests" statement. or, even more recently, shall we turn to the democratic judges in the supreme court who turned to foreign law while debating what is and is not appropriate concerning juveniles and the death penalty? it's not childish - it's their platform, unless of course you're implying that the democratic party is childish for their beliefs?
Democrats believe that multi-lateral action works better than unilateral, actually, for the most part the conservatives seem to agree (based on what's happening elsewhere in the world with American foreign policy). I see nothing wrong with looking to other countries to see how they do things and pinching their ideas, other countries do this with the US and the US do this with other countries, to suggest otherwise is silly. Now that the full Kerry quote is out, I expect you to stop saying Kerry wants to hand sovreignty to the UN, and start saying that you think it's disgusting that Kerry wants the US to have to prove, to answer to the rest of the world, I don't care what spin you put on it, but to say that the democrats and Kerry have stated they want to hand over US sovereignty to the US is a fat lie and I don't discuss lies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by edible_eye
i thought we were. you know - your opinion, my opinion.
Yes, but there's that respect thing again.


Quote:
Originally Posted by edible_eye
obsessed? perhaps we're quibbling semantically, but i'd call it disgust. and to be sure, i WISH there were poignant strong points i could bring up on bush's behalf. in truth, he has let me down time and again. however, given the chance to do it all over again - bush vs. kerry - i'd still vote for him.
I get the feeling that half the reasons you're so against what you believe is the left is probably due to name-calling and negative politics, and this happens on both sides of the saddening polerisation of US politics. (Hey, this can be what the British guy is useful for).

I have noticed that conservatives aren't actually that fond of Bush but go along with the Neocons because they still think Bush warts and all is better than the alternative. I'll be interested to see if someone more conservative and small government is put forward for the next election now that Bush can't run anymore.

Quote:
Originally Posted by edible_eye
i like this line mainly because you used the word "implore". that's a cool word used fairly often in britain-speak, i think. as for the rest of it - if you can forgive certain elements of my often abrasive personality (when i chat politics) then perhaps we'll trade ideas as time goes on. if not, well...
Well, I don't mind the odd abrasiveness, I just think that when you're browbeating other posters, it'll just mean only one voice gets heard or wants to talk and where's the fun in that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soul_Immortal
This is just my opinion, but:

Americans know better about American politics.
Hey, you'd be entitled to that opinion, but c'mon, you know that isn't true, most people regardless of nationality don't care about talking politics. Only Americans who are interested in American politics know more about American politics. Since your media is available globally, them dirty foreigners who are interested in American politics are going to know more it about the average American who, of course, isn't interested in the subject.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Binkie
Let's put it this way, how many people have tried the shoe-bomb idea since TSA started doing random shoe checks at the airport? If nothing else, it puts people at ease knowing that there are at least SOME measures, however trivial you may view them as, at preventing an attack of that nature. I'd say random bag checks are more helpful than the ol' thumb up the ass. Don't like airport security? Take the train. Don't like train security? Take the bus. Most people would agreeably like to see security measures stepped up after an attack on the transit system as opposed to the government standing with their arms crossed, respecting your liberties and the liberties of all those who were killed when a bomb on a subway train blew up.
That's spurious reasoning, would you like to buy this rock?, it stops tigers attacking. Well, you don't see any tigers attacking do you? Show me the captured or killed terrorists resulting from the TSA illegally gathering data on US citizens, show me the terrorists captured or killed where part of the investigation was the library information of a terrorist or terrorist sympathiser. Or the number of bomb-laden shoes.

Now I bet some of the increased security works and can't be proven except over a period of time and you can't take that risk, but random searches simply do not work, they don't even work as a deterrant since the chances are so low and you can get by it by simply using a different bomb container, or bombing the place they moved the security guys in from.

How far do you go?, do you go until any form of mass transit is unusable to people who like the forth amendment? Are you about to say, "Enjoy the constitution, get out of America"?, where is the line?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Binkie
I still like the story one reporter tells about a muslim summit that happened in New York shortly before the first World Trade Center attack. He was sitting in on it to do a story on what went on there when he realized that group members from such great organizations like HAMAS and the Islamic Jihad were there, attending and actively fund raising. When he called the FBI immediately, they essentially replied, "We don't know what you're talking about, or what you've been smoking."

The FBI really had no idea that these groups were here in the US. That changed after the first World Trade attack, but obviously enough wasn't being done. They changed that again after 9/11, so we'll see if that does the trick this time around. If it doesn't, the hell with the Patriot Act, but thus far there have been more terror cells broken up in major cities in the last 4 years than there were in a decade or two prior. By god, if my library record confidentiality agreement has to be comprimised for that, so be it.
How the heck will that help?, the terrorists use false names and have already got books, removing the privacy of an American citizen in a library does not stop a terrorist from blowing up an American building.
Peter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2005, 08:11 AM   #46
Binkie
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Beautiful U.S. of A.
Posts: 1,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Now I bet some of the increased security works and can't be proven except over a period of time and you can't take that risk, but random searches simply do not work, they don't even work as a deterrant since the chances are so low and you can get by it by simply using a different bomb container, or bombing the place they moved the security guys in from.

How far do you go?, do you go until any form of mass transit is unusable to people who like the forth amendment? Are you about to say, "Enjoy the constitution, get out of America"?, where is the line?
I'm not saying it can be proven, otherwise I would have submitted something in the form of, rather than citing my own speculation.

But I do disagree that they don't work as a deterrant, at least for formally trained al-Qaeda operatives or those associated with the group and groups like it. Hightened attention and stepped up security measures compromise their ability to carry out their operations against specific targets. Like Cold-War spies, these operatives purposely avoid the stereotypes that governments and the public are most suspicious/aware of. With that in mind, how likely do you think it's going to be that a man of Middle Eastern ethnicity is going to be stopped and searched if he carries a large backpack into the subway nowadays? It'd be very risky and sloppy to attempt another attack on the subway. Obviously the copy-cat bombers in London were a fine example of that. Advanced terror groups with the ability to carry out major attacks do not operate that way.

When targets become compromised by security measures and public awareness, they're generally aborted/ditched - at least by those with the ability to carry out well coordinated and devistating attacks.

Quote:
How the heck will that help?, the terrorists use false names and have already got books, removing the privacy of an American citizen in a library does not stop a terrorist from blowing up an American building.
Here's another funny story; back when the ACLU first caught wind that the Feds had the power to seize info on your library records, they demanded to know everything about it from the Justice Department. When they didn't get the answers they wanted, they brought up a law suit. Shortly after the Feds came out and stated just how many times they had used this power to gather information, which was never.

Despite that, I'll still disagree with you, just because not all terrorists are foreign and not all terrorists are exactly brilliant minds or well trained in covert intelligence operations against a government/nation. Should the government need to use this ability, I'm assuming it would be in connection with more of domestic terrorism involving individuals with no formal training from groups like al-Qaeda who get their info/ideas from such wonderful bedtime stories as "The Anarchist Cookbook" and "The Turner Diaries."
__________________
"[Brian Blair] was a punk. I can break his fucking back - break his back and make him humble and then fuck his ass ... Suplex him, put him in a camel clutch, break his back, and fuck his ass - make him humble. Teach him to respect the Iron Sheik. And I didn't do it, because for the God and Jesus, and Mr. McMahon." -Khosrow Vaziri (The Iron Sheik)
Binkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2005, 08:30 AM   #47
Soul_Immortal
 
Soul_Immortal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 554

Hey, you'd be entitled to that opinion, but c'mon, you know that isn't true, most people regardless of nationality don't care about talking politics. Only Americans who are interested in American politics know more about American politics. Since your media is available globally, them dirty foreigners who are interested in American politics are going to know more it about the average American who, of course, isn't interested in the subject.


Since you did not take a look at that twice before quoting me, heres the gist.

We live through the politics. Seeing as you live in the UK, I wouldn't argue with you over your goverment simply because I felt like hitting up Google.

Is it you Sternn? Come on, really...I haven't seen this much about politics since he was last logged in.

Can I get an IP check from the congregation?!


;D Don't get your knickers in a bunch.
__________________
*Insert witty quote about something goth here*
Soul_Immortal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2005, 08:47 AM   #48
Peter
 
Peter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK, Middlesbrough
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soul_Immortal
Since you did not take a look at that twice before quoting me, heres the gist.

We live through the politics. Seeing as you live in the UK, I wouldn't argue with you over your goverment simply because I felt like hitting up Google.

Is it you Sternn? Come on, really...I haven't seen this much about politics since he was last logged in.

Can I get an IP check from the congregation?!

;D Don't get your knickers in a bunch.
Well you said that Americans know better about American politics. I don't see how you get I didn't pay any attention to what you said, you said Americans (that would be all of them, or Americans generally, I guessed the latter) know better about American politics [than non-Americans] and that simply isn't true, since generally people don't care about politics.

So if I said the UK was an authoritarian dictatorship, you wouldn't argue I was wrong?

And why do I feel like you're trying to insult me with an in-joke?

I assure you, I'm definately Peter and my knickers are in their untwisted state as we speak.
Peter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2005, 08:52 AM   #49
Peter
 
Peter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK, Middlesbrough
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Binkie
Here's another funny story; back when the ACLU first caught wind that the Feds had the power to seize info on your library records, they demanded to know everything about it from the Justice Department. When they didn't get the answers they wanted, they brought up a law suit. Shortly after the Feds came out and stated just how many times they had used this power to gather information, which was never.

Despite that, I'll still disagree with you, just because not all terrorists are foreign and not all terrorists are exactly brilliant minds or well trained in covert intelligence operations against a government/nation. Should the government need to use this ability, I'm assuming it would be in connection with more of domestic terrorism involving individuals with no formal training from groups like al-Qaeda who get their info/ideas from such wonderful bedtime stories as "The Anarchist Cookbook" and "The Turner Diaries."
Hmm, but the Patriot Act powers with regards to libraries have already been (mis)used, so the analogy isn't apt.
Peter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2005, 10:10 AM   #50
MrMaelstrom
 
MrMaelstrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 1,608
Oh, come on Peter, didn't random searches competely win the war on drugs? (Ironic content here, people).
MrMaelstrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Asserting your rights when you’re stopped by the cops Ben Lahnger Politics 7 04-04-2010 04:23 AM
Constitutional militia movement Deadmanwalking_05 Politics 60 09-24-2009 08:21 AM
U.N. rights envoy sees Israeli war crimes in Gaza CptSternn Spooky News 0 03-20-2009 04:40 AM
Rights group: Israel uses incendiary bombs in Gaza CptSternn Spooky News 0 01-11-2009 11:24 PM
Abuse Of Human Rights And Privacy Violations cambriane Politics 7 06-12-2008 12:59 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:54 PM.