3451
3DHS / Re: Reid: Immigration reform a top priority
« on: November 29, 2006, 07:26:37 PM »
Sure. Whatever.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
3452
3DHS / Re: Reid: Immigration reform a top priority
« on: November 29, 2006, 05:05:51 PM »
What would the egregious ramifications be?
3453
3DHS / Re: Blair Enacts Brass-like Plan for Parental Training
« on: November 28, 2006, 08:04:30 PM »Yes, JS, I know the plan has good intentions to help struggling parents. I do not fault the intentions at all. Having good intentions about helping society is not sufficient justification for a government program.
Then we should disband the army and pay for our own private police and fire services. That'd be a GREAT idea! A way for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. Yay capitalism!
Hold on there, Einstein. I didn't say a word about eliminating anything. I didn't even say that using government as a tool to help society was inherently wrong. What I did say is that having good intentions about helping society is not sufficient justification for a government program. The folks who want a government program to teach abstinence-only sex ed have good intentions about helping society. The folks who want to ban homosexual marriage have good intentions about helping society. I doubt very much that you're going to rally behind those folks or even "just sit in the backseat and try not to f it up" for those folks. Or are you telling me you're okay with those people trying to use government as a tool to help society? You're not going to object to what they want to do because they're trying to use government as a tool to help society? No, think you will protest. I think you'll say they're not going to help society that way. So what I want to know is, who the f--- are you to tell me I'm just suppose to "sit in the backseat" and shut up about you wanting to do something that I don't believe is going to help society. Your attitude is the same attitude the abstinence-only folks have: to object to your plan is to advocate the downfall of society. Well, you're both wrong.
And since we're talking about society, I happen to believe that society is made better and stronger through voluntary cooperation rather than coerced compliance. Yeah, that is right, I do think there is a better way to help society, it's just not the way you advocate. But it is interesting to watch people like you who rail and wail about Bush and conspiracies and the unfair rule by the wealthy and all that nonsense then turn and complain about people voluntarily working together. You bitch and moan that oil companies or corporation or Republicans or someone is trampling all over the poor people, the middle class, the working Americans, and yet you despise the very idea of allowing the poor, the middle class, the working Americans to decide for themselves how their lives should be spent. You want to take their money, you want to punish people who begin to achieve financial success and stability, who get ahead in trying to provide a better future for their families (yay socialism). And I'm not supposed to f--- it up for you? You're one of the folks trying to f--- it all up for the rest of us. You're damn right I'm going to object.
Your limited thinking apparently cannot comprehend a plan to improve society that does not involve using government to enforce compliance by society to make it be and do the things you want, hence your childish "yay capitalism" sarcasm, but that does not mean people who object to your preferences do not want to help society or to see society improve. It just means they don't agree with you on how to accomplish the betterment of society. This is a simple and uncomplicated concept that I think even you should be able to grasp. That you apparently do not indicates an unwillingness to consider other points of view that, quite honestly, only gives me further reason not to go along with your way of thinking.
3454
3DHS / Re: Blair Enacts Brass-like Plan for Parental Training
« on: November 28, 2006, 07:07:28 PM »
So, a country that leans socially should never ever have any problems of any kind every again in order to be considering working pretty well?
No, that isn't what I said. You listed those countries as examples of countries that use the government as a tool to help all of society. And you said it seems "to be working pretty good for them for the most part." Seems to me that if it were working pretty well in Britain, they wouldn't need to propose government super-nannies and to lay "the ground for the publication of proposals to force more fathers and mothers to attend parenting classes". That just doesn't sound like they're doing well. I'm not saying they have to be perfect or that they should never have any problems. I'm just saying that the problem supposedly addressed by Prime Minister Blair's plans indicates to me that it isn't going nearly so well as you proclaim.
I never said those countries were perfect just that they seem to be going along pretty well. Better if not at least equivalent to America.
And I never said they had to be perfect. Amazing how that works out, i'n'it? As for better than America, that probably depends on how you want to measure 'better'.
3455
3DHS / Re: Blair Enacts Brass-like Plan for Parental Training
« on: November 28, 2006, 05:34:24 PM »
Yes, JS, I know the plan has good intentions to help struggling parents. I do not fault the intentions at all. Having good intentions about helping society is not sufficient justification for a government program.
3456
3DHS / Re: Blair Enacts Brass-like Plan for Parental Training
« on: November 28, 2006, 05:26:30 PM »
The British, the Netherlands, the Swiss, the Costa Ricans, the Canadians and so forth also use government as a tool to help all of society. Seems to be working pretty good for them for the most part. Don't remember them killing a bunch of Jews or forcing religion on anyone. Canadians like their strips clubs and social medicine.
Not religion, just their dogmatic politics. Which amounts to the same thing. As for working pretty well, I think you're largely mistaken. For example, if it is working so well in Britain, why the need for squads of government super-nannies and mandatory classes?
3457
3DHS / Re: Not learning from our mistakes
« on: November 28, 2006, 05:09:24 PM »So killing them all first is going to solve the problem? No one is going to object to this? There are no bad outcomes with this plan? We just kill them all, and we're home free?
Yes...probably the terrorists that such killing is targeted towards...not really...yep
Wow. That is really naive.
Then stick with a specific connotation of what "fixing Iraq" is supposed to be. Is it specific to WMD & removing Saddam from power or not??
No. It encompasses the entirety of American actions in Iraq.
That's because you're purposely misusing WMD, in this debate. How I was using it was how it was relevent. Take a couple of excedrin and stop trying to twist how I'm using WMD, is my suggestion
How you were using it was relevant. Oh, I get it, if I say going into Iraq for the WMD was going in to fix Iraq, that's irrelevant, but when you say we went into Iraq for the WMD that is relevant. I'm misusing it because I don't agree with you. Okay. I need to write that down... agreeing with Sirs=relevant... disagreeing with Sirs=irrelevant...
Except for the fact that you made specific reference to WMD & fixing Iraq.
So? if I said "using Drano" was "fixing the clog in the sink" would you think I meant using Drano and only using Drano was fixing the clog in the sink?
Look Prince, if you inadvertantly put yourself in a corner, & now you're trying to act as if you never limited your statement, fine.
No, you're just trying to pin me down to something I didn't say.
It would have been nice foryou to make that concession and clarification early on. Instead you keep going around and around with the already fraudulant claim how fixing Iraq is = to ..... whatever it is you think it's equal to.
Let me write that down too... disagreeing with Sirs=fraudulent...
1st it was with everything we're apparently doing in Iraq, then it became taking out WMD & Saddam, now we're back to square 1.
Never left square 1. I only had to speak specifically of WMD and the Iraqi government because you insisted, in capital letters, that part was not about fixing Iraq. No reason why, just that it's not.
I've already conceded that we're currently "fixing Iraq", but that was NOT the reason nor intentions of our going in.
And I never disagreed with that. Never, as in it didn't happen, as in not even once, as in not ever.
You seemed to be convinced otherwise, yet your changing parameters for "fixing Iraq" have me to the point, that no matter what's said, your position will be unbendingly flexible....nor completely understood either.
Unbendingly flexible? That makes no sense. My parameters never changed. As for you not understanding what I say, I suppose that could be my fault, but I don't know how to say what I said any more plainly than I already have. I don't know how to say it in such a way that you cannot read something into it that isn't there. I wish I could.
3458
3DHS / Re: Not learning from our mistakes
« on: November 28, 2006, 04:33:44 PM »
That's gotta be the most surrealistic debate I've witnessed in quite a long time.
It's the most something anyway.
Let me straighten you guys out.
You went into Iraq for the same reason the same people who pushed you in are now pushing you into Iran: for OIL.
I didn't believe that then, and I don't believe it now. If it was for oil, Haliburton and/or some major oil company would have been in there pumping it out by now. Not happening.
Secondary objective: to permanently emasculate an important regional enemy of Israel. (Mission accomplished.)
That is a possiblity.
You could not possibly have gone in because of WMD because
1. There is no conceivable way that Iraq, a country of 23 million people, even with nuclear weapons, could pose any kind of threat to the U.S.A.
How many people live there would have zero relation to the effectiveness of any nuclear weapons they might have produced. And as North Korea has shown, even small countries can have ambitions of making ICBMs. So while I agree that we should have known the true state of Iraq's weapons program, the first point in your list is just stupid.
2. The WMD allegations relied in part on obviously forged evidence
3. The WMD allegations all came from the same source (Iraqi National Congress, an exile group.)
I agree, the nature of the intelligence should have been a giant red flag. I am left wondering if it was, and no one paid any attention to it.
4. Saddam had never risked his army in any confrontation with the U.S., sought an American green light before invading Kuwait, pulled his army out of Kuwait without engaging the U.S. and was, years later, much weaker militarily than he was when he first had the chance to engage the U.S. militarily.
What has that to do with the possibility of WMD?
5. The U.S. was unable to convince the biggest European powers or Canada of the "threat."
Yet, as I recall, all those countries agreed that Iraq had WMD. The difference of opinion was about whether to attack or to let the U.N. inspectors continue.
6. The "President's" advisors had for years advocated the invasion of Iraq in writing, lamenting only that they lacked the pretext for doing so.
7. The rapidly expanding Chinese, Indian and other economies clearly indicated that a future demand-supply crunch is coming in oil and some kind of pre-emptive action would clearly be desirable.
Only a total moron could believe in the face of this evidence that the U.S. had found convincing evidence of a "WMD threat" or that its motivation to invade Iraq was anything other than oil. That so many of the "Invade Iraq" gang were Jews and ardent Zionists, and that the results of this buffoonery were so clearly of benefit to Israel, indicate at least some influence from the Likud party and/or the Mossad in pushing these plans along.
You have not given me one good reason why oil was the goal. You said it was, but you haven't actually supported that, other than to say so. Anyway, I agree that the supposed evidence of the supposed Iraqi WMD programs was questionable. I had questions back when we invaded, but I confess I was still not skeptical enough. And despite everything, I still do believe that the intentions for going into Iraq were good intentions. Wrong headed intentions perhaps, based on faulty evidence and faulty thinking, but good intentions nonetheless.
In view of the above, that some people are still debating causes and/or motive to stay in terms of WMD, "war on terror," "bringing democracy to the region," "fixing Iraq," etc. is just ludicrous.
I realize you want to ascribe nefarious plans to Bush et al, as if they were some sort of Saturday morning cartoon villains praying to evil to give them power. But I don't believe the world works that way. Yes, some people do want power and more power, but I think what we have here is a Citizen Kane situation where the idea is that they seek power because they think they're going to protect the people by controlling the people. Whether you think the cause of going into Iraq was taking out Saddam Hussein or protecting Israel, it's all about fixing Iraq. And my initial point remains the same. Apparently America still thinks we can fix the world if we just use enough military force, never realizing that the desire to fix the world is where we are going wrong in the first place.
3459
3DHS / Re: Not learning from our mistakes
« on: November 28, 2006, 03:43:53 AM »I credit the war in Iraq as being an attempt to tackle terrorism at its root causes.
Of course it was. That does not, however, mean remaining there is the best course of action.
What is the best course of action. Float a proposal.
Stop acting and talking as if some concurrence of troop numbers and time is going to make Iraq work out the way we want, and then bring all the troops home.
3460
3DHS / Re: Not learning from our mistakes
« on: November 28, 2006, 03:33:34 AM »
Let's qualify the sentence to make it more applicable to where my statement came from...To threaten them (terrorists who wouldn't blink twice in killing you, me, your family, my family) their lives and not hesitate to kill them (those Islamic militants that have pledged to kill those who do not convert or be subjugated to their version of Islam). Adding the detail to your query provides the answer you're seeking. At least it should point you in the right direction
So killing them all first is going to solve the problem? No one is going to object to this? There are no bad outcomes with this plan? We just kill them all, and we're home free?
Yet, THAT's the point I've been making, that it was our intentions in dealing with the WMD threat, NOT to "fix Iraq". But apparently you've qualified your "fix" now, as I quote you "I said that the war to get the WMD and topple the Iraq government was "fixing" Iraq."
Following you is getting more difficult as this goes along. You seem to be complaining about something, but I'm not sure what, except that it has something to do with something I never said. And yet, you quoted me as if I said something you think I said in that quote. I'm thinking that you're inferring more than what I'm actually saying. And I wish you would stop.
B'huh? That the WMD were supposedly in Iraq is not relevant? To a discussion about why America went to war against Iraq? Are you serious?
This Merry-go-sematic-around is getting quite fatiguing. It's irrelevent in how you're trying to pose the scenario. I gather you're trying to again connect WMD <--> Iraqi Government <--> Fix Iraq. No? It's a nearly non-existant connection, since we didn't intend to go into Iraq to "fix it". WMD in Iraq is relevent in THAT's why we went in.
Uh, yeah. Okay, but I said that going into Iraq for the WMD was going in to fix Iraq. So I'm still confused has to how the WMD supposedly being in Iraq is irrelevant to that. It seems exactly relevant, because that is why we sent the troops into Iraq. Which seems like what you just said, but it must not be because you said the WMD supposedly being in Iraq is irrelevant. And yet, you just said "WMD in Iraq is relevent in THAT's why we went in." It's relevant and irrelevant at the same time for the same reason. I think my head is going to explode.
Wha? Limit it? Who said I wanted to limit it? Where are you getting this stuff?
From you; "I said that the war to get the WMD and topple the Iraq government was "fixing" Iraq.". I don't see anything that resembles Democratizing, Nation building, Troop re-training, Infrastructure reconstruction, etc. Was their code in your statement that required my need for a decoder ring?
No, no code. But if you look over that statement again, there was also not a word about limiting anything. And at no point in this conversation, as in not even once, did I say that the current action in Iraq was not an attempt at fixing Iraq. So this whole limit thing is something from you, not from me. Apparently you're finding code where there is none to find. As I've said before, I'm rather straightforward and not a terribly subtle guy. Stick to what I say being what I mean, rather than trying to discern some other underlying meaning that probably isn't there. Please. For both our sakes.
This Merry-go-sematic-around is getting quite fatiguing.
So quit pushing it.
3461
3DHS / Re: Not learning from our mistakes
« on: November 27, 2006, 11:21:03 PM »
And so your solution is to threaten their lives, insist they convert to Western thinking or be subjugated by it or die, and to not think twice about killing them in order to accomplish that criteria. Hm?
No, my solution has been the same since the get go as well. Kill those who want to kill us, 1st.
To threaten their lives and not hesitate to kill them. Okay. And this will solve the problem how?
I can't help if you don't like the answers your given. The fact that our intentions from the beginning were always & publically centered around WMD, and not about "fixing" the welfare of Iraq, and that apparently you can't accept such and have deemed them analogus is not my problem to fix
Are you reading some other thread with some other person and responding here? I never said the intentions in Iraq were not publically centered around the WMD. I never said they were centered around the welfare of Iraq. You should maybe try not being so quick to misunderstand me. You seem to think I've said something I did not in fact say at all.
WMD in Iraq, developed by the government of Iraq.
Which is an irrelevent comment, especially when you hear many of the rabid left folks claiming the WMD were American, and not the product of "the Government of Iraq"
B'huh? That the WMD were supposedly in Iraq is not relevant? To a discussion about why America went to war against Iraq? Are you serious?
Then we obviously have different concepts of "fixing Iraq". I see "fixing Iraq" as this nebulous need to impart Democracy, reconstruct the infrastructure, train Iraqi troops, etc. If you want to limit it to just the taking out the WMD threat, then OK, I can go along with that. Glad we're finally on the same page.
Wha? Limit it? Who said I wanted to limit it? Where are you getting this stuff? I'd say we're not on the same page or perhaps even the same book.
3462
3DHS / Re: Rich Not Paying Fair Share No Matter How You Split It
« on: November 27, 2006, 08:17:40 PM »
Put simply, the rich pay a lot of taxes as a total percentage of taxes collected, but they don’t pay a lot of taxes as a percentage of what they can afford to pay, or as a percentage of what the government needs to close the deficit gap.
What they can afford to pay? This is just sad. If we were talking about, say, a doctor's office that adjusts its pricing according to how much people can afford to pay, that would be okay. But we're talking about taxes, money taken away from people.
“How can this be fair?†he asked of how little he pays relative to his employees. “How can this be right?â€
Indeed. Clearly the taxes paid by his employees should be reduced.
Even though I agreed with him, I warned that whenever someone tried to raise the issue, he or she was accused of fomenting class warfare.
“There’s class warfare, all right,†Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.â€
How, exactly, is the "rich class" making war? For that matter, what, exactly, is the "rich class"?
The third argument that kind, well-meaning people made in response to the idea of rolling back the tax cuts was this: “Don’t raise taxes. Cut spending.â€
The sad fact is that spending rises every year, no matter what people want or say they want. Every president and every member of Congress promises to cut “needless†spending. But spending has risen every year since 1940 except for a few years after World War II and a brief period after the Korean War.
Oh, well then obviously we should stop arguing that cutting spending makes more sense. Raising taxes is the solution, just like the answer to more people going into debt is not to tell people to spend wisely or to save money but rather to tell them to earn more money. Yeah, that'll solve everything. (That was entirely sarcastic, of course.)
3463
3DHS / Re: Blair Enacts Brass-like Plan for Parental Training
« on: November 27, 2006, 07:43:53 PM »
Well, then just sit in the backseat and try not to f it up for those of us who want to help and think that using the government as a tool to help all of society is a good thing.
Ok?
Um, no. As in, no fu--ing way. You know, the Nazis thought using government as a tool to help all of society was a good thing. The folks who want Christian fundamentalists to take "back" the government and/or who want government ban abortion and pornography and the like, they all think using the government as a tool to help all of society is a good thing. So that you think using government as tool to help all of society is a good thing does not make me want to sit by and do nothing to stop you. It just makes you harder to distinguish politically from those other folks.
3464
3DHS / Re: Not learning from our mistakes
« on: November 27, 2006, 07:29:44 PM »
I mean an enemy that poses a threat to the life of Americans. an enemy that has pledged that one either convert to Islam (their mutated version of it, at least), be subjugated to it, or die. And eneny that won't blink twice in killing themselves in order to accomplish the above 3 criteria in bring it about. An enemy that has demonstrated not just the will, but the effectiveness in targeting & killing scores of innocent me, women, and children, that don't fit their critiera mentioned above. That's what I mean by "pose a threat"
And so your solution is to threaten their lives, insist they convert to Western thinking or be subjugated by it or die, and to not think twice about killing them in order to accomplish that criteria. Hm? Oh yeah, I know, I'm twisting your words, but actually, that's just my honest summation of the situation. That is pretty much what we're doing, and you're supporting it.
Ok, basically what you just said their, is I'm not blurring "fixing Iraq" & taking out the WMD, they're essentially the same thing....in other words, blurring them to appear as essentially the same thing, whey they're NOT
Uh, no. Because they are the same. When you can do better than saying 'not' in capital letters as an explanation as to why they are different, then maybe I'll reconsider.
The problem was specific to WMD.
WMD in Iraq, developed by the government of Iraq.
THAT was the intention from the get go, Prince. Always has been. That didn't requiring 'fixing" that required surgical removal. That was accomplished, and we could have left it at that. You have said so yourself, that war was won. Then you apparently contradict yourself and claim that that war is all part of one big "Iraq fix", which supposedly was our intention in the 1st place.
No, I said that the war to get the WMD and topple the Iraq government was "fixing" Iraq. You're the one who said that Iraqis able to handle security themselves was the winning objective from the beginning.
I defy you to show me where Bush claimed our intentions were to rebuild Iraq as we see fit... screw the WMD problem, Iraq needs fixing. I doubt you'll be able to
Why the frak would I do that? That would have nothing to do with what I've said. I will, however point to where my question of when will we have won the war in Iraq was answered by you saying:
But to answer your query, it's been the same answer, since the the inception of the taking out of Saddam.....when the Iraqis are able to handle their own security |
3465
3DHS / Re: Not learning from our mistakes
« on: November 27, 2006, 07:01:01 PM »
Would we be better off to just destroy enemys and let the remnants care for them selves and build from the rubble without so much assistance?
We would be better off keeping our government out of rebuilding.