For The Love of All That Is Good...Don't Vote For Hillary!

[Athena]

...and this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qggO5yY7RAo) is why!

Politics aside, I haven't seen snake-tonguedness to this extent in quite some time. I swear, if this woman actually gets elected, it will be only moments afterward that her tenticles pop out and she starts blasting journalists with laser beams from her eyes.

...Okay, so perhaps that's a bit much. But seriously, folks - Is it too much to ask for a politician to give it to us straight? With Hillary, we can't even be sure what "it" is!

Kudos to the John Edwards camp for what is commonly being described as a "devastating" blow. No dirty politics here, either...She did it to herself. :p

[AnalBreeze]

I'll do my part, I won't be voting for Hillary!

[swivel]

I don't see any other way to get Republicans back on top other than voting for Hillary.

Bush Jr. has destroyed the Republican party, and vaulted the Democrats into power. We need someone on the Democratic side to do the same thing.

A vote for Hillary = A vote for old-fashioned conservatism (or really-old-fashioned-Liberalism)

[McVain]

I don't see any other way to get Republicans back on top other than voting for Hillary.

Bush Jr. has destroyed the Republican party, and vaulted the Democrats into power. We need someone on the Democratic side to do the same thing.

A vote for Hillary = A vote for old-fashioned conservatism (or really-old-fashioned-Liberalism)

I loled at this post, but sadly, it's true.

If I had to label myself a democrat or republican, I'd go with democrat. However, since I'm fairly sure that Hillary is going to when the democratic race, it looks like I might be voting republican next year.

[Athena]

Ron Paul is the only individual running who is worth a shit. Unfortunately, you have to be "in" with "The Establishment" to get any air time. Major news sources never give him any play. He had a brilliant performance on Leno the other night...nothing. But Obama is on SNL and it's front page news everywhere?

It's SOOOOOO frustrating. :mad:

The good news is, however, Ron Paul raised over $3.8 million in one day, yesterday. That's impressive and did get him a spot of publicity. There's hope yet...even if it's slight.

[Mr_Vindictive]

I'm still on the fence about Ron Paul. There are reports around that the man is a racist and I have no patience for someone like that. I like a few of his ideas but I guess it probably doesn't matter. It'll come down to Guliani and Hiliary.

[Athena]

I'm still on the fence about Ron Paul. There are reports around that the man is a racist and I have no patience for someone like that. I like a few of his ideas but I guess it probably doesn't matter. It'll come down to Guliani and Hiliary.

A racist?

*Sigh*...There's quite the campaign against Ron Paul because he's not part of the in crowd.

There's no evidence of racism on Ron Paul's part. Sure, there are a lot of blogs that claim that he said one thing or another, but they don't source any of Ron Paul's writings or any substantial news sources.

Some bloggers don't seem to realise that simply saying something doesn't make it true. Unfortunately, their readers tend not to realise this either, which is dangerous.

These same bloggers cite Paul's distaste for the heavy financial aid we give Israel as anti-semitism. What they don't seem to gather is that a distaste for the Israeli government does not equal a distaste for Jews.

Israel is the 12 wealthiest nation in the world. I don't agree that they should get financial aid from us, either. Does that make me racist, or economically prudent?

[swivel]

There's a kid here in Boone that spends every weekend standing on our busiest corner with a Ron Paul placard. I always honk at him and yell "RON PAULLLL!!!" out the window. He gives me a smile and a thumbs-up. I like to think it keeps him going.

Ron is by far my favorite candidate. I wish he were anti-gun and anti-drugs, but you have to live with the two major failings of Libertarians to get the rest of the goodies. I saw him on Real Time with Maher, and he was brilliant. He made Maher look like the ass that he is (A dickhead who can't be honest about being a Democrat and only PRETENDS to be a Libertarian because he smokes pot. Fucking moron.) When Ron started talking about privatizing the USPS I leaped out of my chair quicker than Tom Cruise on anti-depressants.

*Sigh*, but to no avail. If only we could get him in some debates that people would actually watch. If only MTV would sponsor him.

[Athena]

There's a kid here in Boone that spends every weekend standing on our busiest corner with a Ron Paul placard. I always honk at him and yell "RON PAULLLL!!!" out the window. He gives me a smile and a thumbs-up. I like to think it keeps him going.

Good for you and good for that kid. :D Personally, as much as I love standing on street corners for hours on end, donating money and going to meet-up events are my preferred volunteer efforts.

Ron is by far my favorite candidate. I wish he were anti-gun and anti-drugs, but you have to live with the two major failings of Libertarians to get the rest of the goodies.

You are such a strange cookie. One day, if you're feeling up to it, we'll have to discuss how it is you can be fond of Libertarian ideals but think that the government should regulate drug and gun use. I'm legitimately interested in the logic behind it. I mean, I'd gladly just sit and listen (read), even.

I saw him on Real Time with Maher, and he was brilliant. He made Maher look like the ass that he is (A dickhead who can't be honest about being a Democrat and only PRETENDS to be a Libertarian because he smokes pot. Fucking moron.) When Ron started talking about privatizing the USPS I leaped out of my chair quicker than Tom Cruise on anti-depressants.

LMAO...No kidding, huh? Our federal government should be a shell of what it's grown to be. It should be the exoskeleton that protects us from exterior threat, not the ventrical system that supplies us with every little thing. Central planning is dangerous and brought us the likes of Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot.

Okay, so, maybe I'm getting a little ahead of myself. Still, I use private mail carriers anyway. The last two things shipped to be via USPS disappeared and they could offer me no answers. Fucking communists. :p

*Sigh*, but to no avail. If only we could get him in some debates that people would actually watch. If only MTV would sponsor him.


Well, his latest fundraising triumph has gotten him some very limited time in the spotlight. It's not near enough, but it's something.

It really is sad when you consider just how influential the media is in choosing candidates for us. Hopefully, the money Paul just gathered is enough to buy him some substantial ad campaigns in New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada, Iowa...You know, the earlier primary states. The major networks aren't going to do him any favors, so a healthy ad campaign is really his only hope. :(

[Mr_Vindictive]

So Paul is not anti-drug? What exactly is his stance on pot and such? I'm highly interested now.

[swivel]

So Paul is not anti-drug? What exactly is his stance on pot and such? I'm highly interested now.

I think he is personally anti-drug (doesn't use), but thinks that the gov. wastes too much money and manpower on regulating a victimless crime.

But hey, that could be last year's position. Around pres. election time, everyone's platforms change quicker than a 60's whore.

[Mr_Vindictive]

I've always wondered what it would be like to live in a country without drug regulation. I don't smoke now but I did previously. I would a few times a week before but am currently moving and switching jobs so I've quit for good now.

I have a feeling that even if the government did allow marijuana or other drugs, the employers would still do drug tests and eliminate employees who partake. Guess at that point the legalization would be pointless.

[kakihara]

This one is just for you babe.;)

A Japanese doctor says, "Medicine in my country is so advanced that we can take a kidney out of one man, put it in another, and have him out looking for work in six weeks." A German doctor says, "That is nothing. We can take a lung out of one person, put it in another, and have him out looking for work in four weeks." A British doctor says, "In my country medicine is so advanced we can take half a heart out of one person, put it in another, and have both of them out looking for work in two weeks." The American doctor, not to be outdone, interjected, "You guys are way behind. We are about to take a woman with no brains and half a heart, and send her to Washington where she will become President, and then half the country will be out looking for work in one week."

[Athena]

But hey, that could be last year's position. Around pres. election time, everyone's platforms change quicker than a 60's whore.

Not Ron Paul. That's what makes him so fantastic. His values and positions are well anchored. :D

[CPL CHUD]

Don't worry, I'm not voting for Hilary.

[Barbara]

I will not be voting for the crusty pantsuit

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e155/gupto/hillary01.jpg

[kakihara]

Beer and the Wheel

The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:

1. Liberals

2. Conservatives.

Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery.

That's how villages were formed.

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to B-B-Q at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement.

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly B-B-Q's and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.

Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as girlie-men or wussies. Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.

Over the years Conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth: the elephant.

Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.

A few modern liberals like Mexican light beer (with lime added), but most prefer a chilled glass of Sauvignon Blanc, with passion fruit and kiwi aromas which are marked by grassy notes, then rounded out on the midpalate by peach flavors crisp and refreshing, with a hint of chalky minerality on the finish; or Perrier bottled water. They eat raw fish but dislike beef. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare.

Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, Ivy League professors, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated-hitter rule because it wasn't fair to make the pitcher also bat.

Conservatives drink Sam Adams, Harpoon IPA or Yuengling Lager. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, athletes, Marines, and generally anyone who works productively.

Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.

Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.

Here ends today's lesson in world history: It should be noted that a Liberal may have a momentary urge to angrily respond to the above before passing it along.

A Conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that it will be passed along immediately to other true believers and to more liberals just to piss them off.

[SirStoneyOfBow]

Can I ask all the Americans... who's your presidential candidate for 2008?
It looks so complex from here(London).

[swivel]

Can I ask all the Americans... who's your presidential candidate for 2008?
It looks so complex from here(London).

We haven't chosen them yet. Yes, it is "them" or "they", not the singular that you suggest.

See, what we do is come up with multiple candidateS. They put them on these ballots, and then we choose which one we want. We do that almost a year from now.

What Iowa and New Hampshire are doing right now is choosing for the other 48 states which names we will see on those ballots. So, unless any of our members are from one of those two (very small) states, the rest of us don't know shit.

Our government is basically chosen by roughly 20% of the registered voters in two small states. And hey, perhaps that is the secret to our success? You guys don't even get to vote for your PM, do you? That's pretty cool.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

God, its such a fucking mess. WHo knows right now? Huckabee takes Iowa though? Holy shit. The man is a complete fucking moron.

[SirStoneyOfBow]

We haven't chosen them yet. Yes, it is "them" or "they", not the singular that you suggest.

See, what we do is come up with multiple candidateS. They put them on these ballots, and then we choose which one we want. We do that almost a year from now.

What Iowa and New Hampshire are doing right now is choosing for the other 48 states which names we will see on those ballots. So, unless any of our members are from one of those two (very small) states, the rest of us don't know shit.

Our government is basically chosen by roughly 20% of the registered voters in two small states. And hey, perhaps that is the secret to our success? You guys don't even get to vote for your PM, do you? That's pretty cool.

It's more or less chosen who'll go for the PM's position within the party themselves who they want to lead the party. Then you vote party rather than PM themselves.
I saw a clip of that show of Democrats all discussing the Iowa result and I loved how Hillary got out of her pram and attacked Obama's change in policies.
It made for good drama. We never see that shit here in then UK.
The Huckabee row was also entertaining.

[ZombieBabe]

God, its such a fucking mess. WHo knows right now? Huckabee takes Iowa though? Holy shit. The man is a complete fucking moron.Here here! His ass-baggery is compounded by the fact that Chuck Norris the hypocrite is backing him.

Ref: http://messageboard.tuckermax.com/showthread.php?t=19124

(*disclaimer* Politics bores me to tears, but it is hard to miss such glaring and unapologetic social ignorance. Plus, his kids look like some deranged love child of Augustus Gloop and an oompa-loompa. Even though G.W. looks like a cock with ears, the Bushes all looked human at least.)

Behold!

http://www.dlisted.com/files/caption0104.jpg

[SirStoneyOfBow]

So, why is Huckabee so disliked?
And I noticed Chuck in the background during his speech. I wonder if all the internet lurking 20-somethings will vote for him because he's got Chuck! :lol:

[SirStoneyOfBow]

Here here! His ass-baggery is compounded by the fact that Chuck Norris the hypocrite is backing him.

Ref: http://messageboard.tuckermax.com/showthread.php?t=19124

(*disclaimer* Politics bores me to tears, but it is hard to miss such glaring and unapologetic social ignorance. Plus, his kids look like some deranged love child of Augustus Gloop and an oompa-loompa. Even though G.W. looks like a cock with ears, the Bushes all looked human at least.)

Behold!

http://www.dlisted.com/files/caption0104.jpg

My god, that could be the ugliest presidential family of all time. At least Bush's twins were easy on the eye.
That's fucking eye-cabbage to the maximum.

[ZombieBabe]

So, why is Huckabee so disliked?I got this from Wikipedia, so you know it's not the most fair appraisal, but every time the man opens his mouth, some ignorant tidbit comes falling out of it.
In a 1992 statement, Huckabee advocated isolating AIDS patients from the general population. In 2007, Huckabee no longer advocates such an isolation, but he stands by his earlier view, saying that in 1992 "there was still a great deal of, I think, uncertainty about just how widespread AIDS was, how it could be transmitted. So we know more now than we did in 1992, all of us do -- hopefully." However, by 1992 it was well known that HIV/AIDS could not be spread by casual contact. In the same statement, Huckabee also opposed increasing federal funding for HIV/AIDS research and suggested that Hollywood celebrities should provide additional funds instead. Huckabee now supports additional funding for HIV/AIDS research.
In December 2007, Huckabee became the target of ridicule after his comments subsequent to the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. In this comments, he used the death of the prime minister as an opportunity to lecture on his illegal immigration policy proclaiming that Pakistan has more illegal immigrants to the United States than any country but Mexico. However, INS data indicates that Pakistan is nowhere near the top of the list. Moreover, some have been puzzled at the connection between the death of the late prime minister and immigration policy.
Over the years, Huckabee has made a number of public statements that have drawn criticism, including comparing his weight loss to the experience of a concentration camp, for which the National Jewish Democratic Council chastised Huckabee; his use of suicide as a joke about fundraising efforts by himself and his opponents in the Republican primaries, for which he was criticized by various suicide awareness groups; and his asking "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?" when discussing Mitt Romney's religion. In all three cases, Huckabee and his campaign publicly apologized. Commenting on another incident comparing Arkansas journalists critical of his policies with disgraced reporters Jayson Blair and Janet Cooke, Huckabee said "You'll see it—one of the things that gets me in trouble is my love of metaphors. I use hyperbole in the course of trying to paint a word picture. I pay a dear price for it." Huckabee stirred controversy again in October 2007, likening abortion to a "holocaust". The non-partisan Anti-Defamation League called on Huckabee and all candidates to resist using such "disturbing and offensive language."

[swivel]

Anyone have the link of Hillary going after Obama subsequent to the Iowa results?

[Athena]

I'd say I get too worked up over this...But I think my level of concern is warranted.

On that note - I think I'm gonna be sick. Huckabee should NOT be garnering this much favor. :(

[SirStoneyOfBow]

I'd say I get too worked up over this...But I think my level of concern is warranted.

On that note - I think I'm gonna be sick. Huckabee should NOT be garnering this much favor. :(

I have to agree, as I read up on him and also noted that clipping where ZB noted a few "minor" things.
This guy could be worse for America than even Bush.

[ZombieBabe]

It just keeps getting worse:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/78241

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

So, why is Huckabee so disliked?
And I noticed Chuck in the background during his speech. I wonder if all the internet lurking 20-somethings will vote for him because he's got Chuck! :lol:

Lol, probably so. The biggest thing he has going for him though, is the Christian right. I dont think even the GOP wants this douchebag around. Romneys a fucking Mormon (not moron, morMON), so he loses the religious fundamentalists right there, RG is viewed as too liberal, and his views on abortion are scoffed at by most republicans, and McCain wavered on his own party, and is viewed as too weak. Thompson just came in way too late, so...that leaves who? Ron Paul? Theres not a chance in hell he'll even sniff getting close.

[Athena]

Lol, probably so. The biggest thing he has going for him though, is the Christian right. I dont think even the GOP wants this douchebag around. Romneys a fucking Mormon (not moron, morMON), so he loses the religious fundamentalists right there, RG is viewed as too liberal, and his views on abortion are scoffed at by most republicans, and McCain wavered on his own party, and is viewed as too weak. Thompson just came in way too late, so...that leaves who? Ron Paul? Theres not a chance in hell he'll even sniff getting close.

I'm hoping that, when Paul fails to get the nomination, he still runs 3rd party. With any luck, things will be so fractured within the GOP that a good portion of the voters will turn to Paul.

I don't know what I'll do otherwise. :(

[CPL CHUD]

I don't know what I'll do otherwise. :(
It's not looking too good Athena. I still don't know who the hell I'm going to vote for.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

I'm hoping that, when Paul fails to get the nomination, he still runs 3rd party. With any luck, things will be so fractured within the GOP that a good portion of the voters will turn to Paul.

I don't know what I'll do otherwise. :(




I like Ron Paul, he comes off intelligent, thoughtful, he has a lot to say, is quick witted, and savvy. It was be wonderful if one day in the future, we can have a three party race. And really, Ron Paul does't get the same kind of floor as the others do in these debates. There are times he should be more forceful, and talk more about him really becoming the persident.

But he really doesn't have a hope in hell now, and I imagine he'll be dropping out fairly soon here, but I could be wrong.

All that being said...I like him decent enough. He did well in the SC GOP debates....

[SirStoneyOfBow]

It just keeps getting worse:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/78241

Er.. is the just me or is he wearing the same shirt in the family picture?

[swivel]

I really want to cast my vote for Ron Paul, but I think a better use of my vote would be to use it on Obama, to help defeat any chance that Hillary has.

I just want to see her cry again after loosing another primary (or caucus).

[Athena]

I really want to cast my vote for Ron Paul, but I think a better use of my vote would be to use it on Obama, to help defeat any chance that Hillary has.

I just want to see her cry again after loosing another primary (or caucus).

Ultimately, I doubt Obama has a snowball's chance in hell.

You know, the Obama-Paul relationship is an interesting one, considering they represent such wildly different positions. Still, I often hear of Paul supporters saying they will opt for Obama if Paul drops out and Obama supporters stating that they intend to vote for Paul in the event Hillary wins the nomination.

It must come down to the simple fact that both candidates "represent" change. What's kind of crappy about that is that it suggests most people in this catagory just want change...they don't care about the brand. That's scary to me.

*Note: I want to clarify that my last statement does not apply to those using their vote in a strategic sense.

[swivel]

Well, Obama is the only candidate who isn't pushing for MANDATORY health insurance.

All of my political, moral, and social philosophies are guided by the pure form of Liberalism. Meaning the maximum amount of freedom for the maximum number of people. Collectivism, socialism, communism, progressivism... they have as their goals the exact opposite ideal. They value equality above all else. Since they can not get the disadvantaged to the heights of the ultra-motivated, their goal is to tear everyone down who makes the mistake of succeeding. Cripple and tax them until we are all equally destitute and miserable.

The communists were a bit more transparent with this goal, purging and starving people by the hundreds of millions. Progressives are more subtle, giving as much advantage as they can to those who contribute the least to society, and pressuring everyone to guilt the people that do well. Libertarians understand that not all people are equal, but they should all be given the same rights under the law, and the same protection of those rights. They just don't pretend that we should all be able to afford the same level of health care, or drive the same car.

This core ideal is what makes Ron the best candidate, and Obama the closest thing on the Left. What both of those guys have wrong, unfortunately, is that the war in Iraq is a moral cause. A fight for the freedom of millions (especially the women). And the cost in money and lives is not too great to see that mission carried out to fruition. This is an issue that "progressives" should be on the side of... but political fanatics care more about who STARTS a war than whether or not it is morally justified. It is more important for them to strengthen their group than it is to save or better the lives of "foreigners".

[TXChris]

What both of those guys have wrong, unfortunately, is that the war in Iraq is a moral cause. A fight for the freedom of millions (especially the women). And the cost in money and lives is not too great to see that mission carried out to fruition. This is an issue that "progressives" should be on the side of... but political fanatics care more about who STARTS a war than whether or not it is morally justified. It is more important for them to strengthen their group than it is to save or better the lives of "foreigners".

You state that the war is a "moral cause." Moral by what standard? Would that be the standard of forcing our own people to die for something they do not believe in? Or would that be moral in the sense that more than 100,000 Iraqis, who did not ask to be in the middle of a war in the first place, have died at this point? Why is it too much to expect another country to get to the point where they have had enough and rise up against their own government? As a young country, 200+ years ago, we did that exact thing. Why must we, America, expend countless lives and money in support of someone else who isn't even rising on their own? This "moral cause" explanation used to validate the war is as flawed as it is when used to validate "universal health care."

[swivel]

You state that the war is a "moral cause." Moral by what standard? Would that be the standard of forcing our own people to die for something they do not believe in? Or would that be moral in the sense that more than 100,000 Iraqis, who did not ask to be in the middle of a war in the first place, have died at this point? Why is it too much to expect another country to get to the point where they have had enough and rise up against their own government? As a young country, 200+ years ago, we did that exact thing. Why must we, America, expend countless lives and money in support of someone else who isn't even rising on their own? This "moral cause" explanation used to validate the war is as flawed as it is when used to validate "universal health care."

The troops overwhelmingly support the war. My step-brother has been over there three times. I hang out with him "on-base", and I assure you, your opinion does not reflect those of the men and women that serve overseas. They don't just sign up for the cheap college credits.

More than 100,000 have died in Iraq before the war. We keep turning up mass-graves, and the gassing of the Kurds is no secret. Neither is the war with Iran or the war with Kuwait. People were being starved as Food-For-Oil money was diverted to build more palaces and soccer arenas.

200+ years ago we couldn't do shit against the British. We were out-manned and out-classed. We didn't even have majority support in our own land, where most people still considered themselves British subjects and adored their king. What we did was only possible with the supplies and assistance of the French. (And Washington being a tactical genius who understood that he only needed to keep an army INTACT, and never win a single battle in order to win the war). The Iraqis can not do this alone, and frankly, if the rest of the world would grow a backbone, and do the moral thing, by proclaiming the justness of our cause, the weight of the international community united would be too much for the resistance. The French, German, and Russian tactic is to let two enemies weaken each other, and profit by trading with both sides (Exactly what the French were after in OUR revolutionary war).

This is not about George Bush. Al Gore would have had to deal with the Muslim problem as well. It is nice to have a scape-goat, but that is delusional. The majority of Americans were FOR the invasion of Iraq before it took place. Congress kept voting for it overwhelmingly. The UN wanted action (but was hampered by an idiotic one-vote-veto plan from the French, which forced our hand instead of delaying it). The world was all for this war because we had just seen what a few fanatics can do, the evidence for WMD's was staggeringly FOR, and waiting around has never worked in the past.

We should either stay there and help those people, or we should pull out and drop bombs until the sand turns to glass. I think the formers is far more humane. Leaving the place alone is suicidal. These people have a religion that urges the death of all non-believers. That was something we could ignore before 9/11. It isn't anymore.

And when our troops leave, it should NOT be to come back here. Next stop-Africa. Where more Muslims are killing innocent people. Where men are spreading AIDS by raping women and being ignorantly superstitious (with an assist from religious leaders spreading nonsense). Where women are mutilated by other women. Where we feed people rice, instead of helping them build infrastructure.

We are a rich country. Instead of worrying about getting cheap viagra to every spoiled bastard in THIS country, we should be roaming the world trying to help the people that WANT to be helped but can't get the boots off of their necks.

[TXChris]

The troops overwhelmingly support the war. My step-brother has been over there three times. I hang out with him "on-base", and I assure you, your opinion does not reflect those of the men and women that serve overseas. They don't just sign up for the cheap college credits.

More than 100,000 have died in Iraq before the war. We keep turning up mass-graves, and the gassing of the Kurds is no secret. Neither is the war with Iran or the war with Kuwait. People were being starved as Food-For-Oil money was diverted to build more palaces and soccer arenas.

200+ years ago we couldn't do shit against the British. We were out-manned and out-classed. We didn't even have majority support in our own land, where most people still considered themselves British subjects and adored their king. What we did was only possible with the supplies and assistance of the French. (And Washington being a tactical genius who understood that he only needed to keep an army INTACT, and never win a single battle in order to win the war). The Iraqis can not do this alone, and frankly, if the rest of the world would grow a backbone, and do the moral thing, by proclaiming the justness of our cause, the weight of the international community united would be too much for the resistance. The French, German, and Russian tactic is to let two enemies weaken each other, and profit by trading with both sides (Exactly what the French were after in OUR revolutionary war).

This is not about George Bush. Al Gore would have had to deal with the Muslim problem as well. It is nice to have a scape-goat, but that is delusional. The majority of Americans were FOR the invasion of Iraq before it took place. Congress kept voting for it overwhelmingly. The UN wanted action (but was hampered by an idiotic one-vote-veto plan from the French, which forced our hand instead of delaying it). The world was all for this war because we had just seen what a few fanatics can do, the evidence for WMD's was staggeringly FOR, and waiting around has never worked in the past.

We should either stay there and help those people, or we should pull out and drop bombs until the sand turns to glass. I think the formers is far more humane. Leaving the place alone is suicidal. These people have a religion that urges the death of all non-believers. That was something we could ignore before 9/11. It isn't anymore.

And when our troops leave, it should NOT be to come back here. Next stop-Africa. Where more Muslims are killing innocent people. Where men are spreading AIDS by raping women and being ignorantly superstitious (with an assist from religious leaders spreading nonsense). Where women are mutilated by other women. Where we feed people rice, instead of helping them build infrastructure.

We are a rich country. Instead of worrying about getting cheap viagra to every spoiled bastard in THIS country, we should be roaming the world trying to help the people that WANT to be helped but can't get the boots off of their necks.

Seeing as how you came off a bit angry, I'm going to preface this with just a bit about me, so you don't find yourself assuming anything at any point. I was raised the child of a career Navy man and a mother who was also in the Navy, and joined the Marine Corps right out of high school myself. To this day, many of my closest friends are still in the military, including my best friend who just got back from Iraq himself (he serves as a calvary scout, which is about as battle-forward as one can get). Now that you are aware that I am speaking from a position of knowledge we can get on with this.

There are MANY men and women currently serving who hold my exact view on the war. Granted, there are those, less-inclined to think for themselves, who believe any-and-everything they are told by their superiors and STILL think the war is about WMDs. And, yes, there are even those who feel that regardless of the reason we went over there, the fact that Saddam is out of power is worth all OUR loss. But, just because people died there prior does NOT gives us a right to invade them. As for your Food For Oil comment, the only reason they had to deal with that in the first place is because we were cutting them off.

Moving on to your contention about how pitiful we were in the Colonial days, yes, SOME people were still loyal to the crown. Most were not, however. We may have been "out-manned" and "out-classed" as you suggest, but what we had more than anything else was the DESIRE to be FREE. We rose up against the tyranny that was British rule and did not wait for someone else to do it for us. Our own people fought for OUR own freedom.

I'm not exactly sure why you insinuated this was a Bush, or would've been a Gore, blame game, but your suggestion that Muslims, as a group, are a problem shows your xenophobia. There are many extremists, in all religions AND politics, who are extremely dangerous. Hell, there are obviously those (such as yourself) who think that an entire group should pay for the misdeeds of a few. I, for one, am glad that not everyone overseas groups the entire American population with you and your hate-mongering.

Yes, the majority of America seemed to be all for it at the beginning, when they were told it was the fault of Iraq that we were attacked. Unfortunately, most of the American people are too busy to do any thinking for themselves, hence they are easily led and provoked. Those who were able to think for themselves and use that God-given gift of reason saw right through the lies being sold to the public.

Commerce with all, entangling alliances with none.

[swivel]

I'm not suggesting that "many" servicemen and women don't have a problem with the war. My point is that "most" agree with it. "Many" could be 15 people. So, yes, you have a point. It just isn't a very good one.

I'm not xenophobic. I obviously care more about those people than the idiots that want to pull out and abandon them. I am deiphobic. People that believe in gods scare the shit out of me. I was standing at the base of the WTC when a passenger jet flew over my head and disappeared into the South Tower. I could feel the heat of the fireball from the ground, was dodging debris, and watched people swan-dive out of windows. At the time, I couldn't make sense of what was going on, until I found out that religion was involved. It's the only thing that could have led to that act. The only thing that makes GOOD people do BAD things. That's why I call them Muslims, and not Arabs. I love Arabs. I'm fucking scared of Muslims.

Americans were never told that it was the fault of Iraq that we were attacked. They thought that the next attack could possibly come from Iraq.

Reason is not a gift that any god looks favorably upon. It is reason that leads one to understand that there isn't a god, that the gods would be evil if they did exist, and that the people who believe in them are immoral and unintelligent.

Those weren't lies. The people in charge really believed what they were saying. They came to the conclusions that they came to because they WANTED to believe those things. All scientists have a very difficult time battling the urge to manufacture results unwittingly. Bias is a very powerful and invisible force. Bush and his people thought they were doing the right thing, believed every bit of data that they presented to the world, and were shocked to find out that they were wrong. To call them liars is ignorant or unjust or both.

I wish I could say that I respect your opinions, but they are wrong. I do enjoy the banter though, wish to welcome you to the forums, and hope you become a regular here.

[TXChris]

I'm not suggesting that "many" servicemen and women don't have a problem with the war. My point is that "most" agree with it. "Many" could be 15 people. So, yes, you have a point. It just isn't a very good one.

I'm not xenophobic. I obviously care more about those people than the idiots that want to pull out and abandon them. I am deiphobic. People that believe in gods scare the shit out of me. I was standing at the base of the WTC when a passenger jet flew over my head and disappeared into the South Tower. I could feel the heat of the fireball from the ground, was dodging debris, and watched people swan-dive out of windows. At the time, I couldn't make sense of what was going on, until I found out that religion was involved. It's the only thing that could have led to that act. The only thing that makes GOOD people do BAD things. That's why I call them Muslims, and not Arabs. I love Arabs. I'm fucking scared of Muslims.

Americans were never told that it was the fault of Iraq that we were attacked. They thought that the next attack could possibly come from Iraq.

Reason is not a gift that any god looks favorably upon. It is reason that leads one to understand that there isn't a god, that the gods would be evil if they did exist, and that the people who believe in them are immoral and unintelligent.

Those weren't lies. The people in charge really believed what they were saying. They came to the conclusions that they came to because they WANTED to believe those things. All scientists have a very difficult time battling the urge to manufacture results unwittingly. Bias is a very powerful and invisible force. Bush and his people thought they were doing the right thing, believed every bit of data that they presented to the world, and were shocked to find out that they were wrong. To call them liars is ignorant or unjust or both.

I wish I could say that I respect your opinions, but they are wrong. I do enjoy the banter though, wish to welcome you to the forums, and hope you become a regular here.

Okay, then how about I contend that "most" of our servicemen and women do not believe in what we are doing there? The problem is that neither you nor I can prove it either way. Other than those we talk to, we personally have no definitive answer. What I DO know is that more service people have donated to Ron Paul's campaign than another other candidate, and he happens to be against the war in Iraq. Another thing I happen to know is that the military enlists a lot of people who are very good at following orders; after all it is required for a military to be successful. The problem becomes apparent when a military is used to impose its government's will upon a sovereign country without provocation (read: "pre-emptive attack").

I do not feel it is so much that you care about "those people," as you put it, as it is that you would destroy an entire group of people, because of a few misguided extremists and fanatics, in their name. I say again, I am glad that not everyone overseas believes that all Americans are as you project yourself. Yes, 9/11 was a TERRIBLE thing, and the man who orchestrated it should be brought to justice. But, the reality check here is, if we had not been intervening in the Middle East for the past 50+ years, they would have no reason to attack us. As far as Muslims go, if one must fear then they should fear the extremists/fanatics rather than the general population.

I honestly do not believe that a country, with the most sophisticated intelligence gathering community in the world, could have made that big of a mistake involving WMDs in Iraq. That being said, I contend that it is ignorant to continue believing that there was no ulterior motive in invading Iraq. To blindly follow one simply because of their position is asking to be called a "sheep." I'm not talking conspiracies, or anything else of the sort. What I am saying is one HAS to use common sense and reasoning when told anything by their government. To believe a democratic government has its people's best interests at heart, is even more ignorant than the belief that we invaded Iraq because of WMDs.

[ells9824]

I have to agree with you on this one TXChris, I have lost a close family member in Iraq, have friends currently there, and have another family member that just started at the Citadel after doing Jrotc forever.

In the smaller squads you may discuss things, but you do not question orders. My nephew puts it best: The Army (military in this case) is a 24/7 job where you can't go to happy hour and bitch about your boss to co-workers. You don't disrespect the Commander-n-Chief. You know that going in, and if you can't handle it then don't make the choice to sign the dotted line.

At this point, it is a choice. I think there would be a lot more protesting if it were a draft sending these kids all over the middle east.

[swivel]

It wasn't a pre-emptive attack. Iraq invaded Kuwait. We repelled them. Instead of crushing the country, we subjected them to rules and regulations to ensure that they never got out-of-hand again. They stopped complying with those rules. The U.N. was passing one resolution after the other, to no avail. They passed a resolution permitting military action, and that is what happened.

The invasion of Kuwait and the non-compliance were both provocations. I swear, it is no wonder you people have the opinions you do when you don't even remember the facts correctly. I would be upset as well if I thought that our country deliberately lied to us to pre-emptively invade a sovereign and peaceful nation in order to seal their oil. Only with such twisted facts can I understand the hostility people have to what we are attempting to do in the Middle East.

Fanatics get their power from the Moderates. Their inaction is a very powerful stimulus. Just as slavery was only possible with the numb compliance of the people who were nominally "against" it. Or the way that the holocaust was "only" the action of a few fanatics, when it was generations of Europeans that beat-down Jews to the point that they were unable to stand up for themselves.

I'm sorry, friend, but what you see in the Muslim religion is not the work of a few fanatics. It may be physically carried out by the most extreme, but at the societal bequest of every other Muslim. Where is the outrage when more heathens are killed? What were the moderates doing on 9/11? Why do they collect money in the mosques, hide their weapons there, train their children there, plan their missions there?

Just as evil Moderate Christians inwardly rejoice when an abortion doctor is murdered, so too do the Moderate Muslims celebrate with each explosion. Not understanding this is the great intellectual failing of our time. The major tactical error in our war against the Muslim faith. Political-Correctness prevents us from seeing the situation clearly, and having an honest discourse about it.

Sorry, but you are with the conspiracy theory nuts on this one. We invaded Iraq because our government feared they had WMD's. The evidence was cherry-picked due to an innate bias, and the culture of paranoia that existed post-9/11. The idea was to err on the side of caution. This was a country that was known to have WMD's, had used them on two separate occasions, had invaded two other countries, and was belligerent with its foreign policy up to the day of invasion. The SHEEP are you nut-jobs that look at this pile of circumstantial evidence and side with the anti-Bush loonies who think that we invaded for oil, or to stick up for daddy. That is "Second-Shooter" nonsense. Absolutely ignorant thinking only made possible because of the loudness of the crazies, and the swelling ranks of your herd.

[TXChris]

It wasn't a pre-emptive attack. Iraq invaded Kuwait. We repelled them. Instead of crushing the country, we subjected them to rules and regulations to ensure that they never got out-of-hand again. They stopped complying with those rules. The U.N. was passing one resolution after the other, to no avail. They passed a resolution permitting military action, and that is what happened.

The invasion of Kuwait and the non-compliance were both provocations. I swear, it is no wonder you people have the opinions you do when you don't even remember the facts correctly. I would be upset as well if I thought that our country deliberately lied to us to pre-emptively invade a sovereign and peaceful nation in order to seal their oil. Only with such twisted facts can I understand the hostility people have to what we are attempting to do in the Middle East.

Fanatics get their power from the Moderates. Their inaction is a very powerful stimulus. Just as slavery was only possible with the numb compliance of the people who were nominally "against" it. Or the way that the holocaust was "only" the action of a few fanatics, when it was generations of Europeans that beat-down Jews to the point that they were unable to stand up for themselves.

I'm sorry, friend, but what you see in the Muslim religion is not the work of a few fanatics. It may be physically carried out by the most extreme, but at the societal bequest of every other Muslim. Where is the outrage when more heathens are killed? What were the moderates doing on 9/11? Why do they collect money in the mosques, hide their weapons there, train their children there, plan their missions there?

Just as evil Moderate Christians inwardly rejoice when an abortion doctor is murdered, so too do the Moderate Muslims celebrate with each explosion. Not understanding this is the great intellectual failing of our time. The major tactical error in our war against the Muslim faith. Political-Correctness prevents us from seeing the situation clearly, and having an honest discourse about it.

Sorry, but you are with the conspiracy theory nuts on this one. We invaded Iraq because our government feared they had WMD's. The evidence was cherry-picked due to an innate bias, and the culture of paranoia that existed post-9/11. The idea was to err on the side of caution. This was a country that was known to have WMD's, had used them on two separate occasions, had invaded two other countries, and was belligerent with its foreign policy up to the day of invasion. The SHEEP are you nut-jobs that look at this pile of circumstantial evidence and side with the anti-Bush loonies who think that we invaded for oil, or to stick up for daddy. That is "Second-Shooter" nonsense. Absolutely ignorant thinking only made possible because of the loudness of the crazies, and the swelling ranks of your herd.

One needs to understand this is not about Bush, or Gore, or anyone else who might be President in the future. This is about intelligent foreign policy. Now that I have cleared up that little misnomer, the definition of a <a href"http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=pre-emptive%20strike">pre-emptive strike</a> is a surprise attack that is launched in order to prevent the enemy from doing it to you. Since Iraq DID NOT attack us at any point our attack on them AT BEST would be considered a pre-emptive strike. Yes, the phrase "pre-emptive strike" was used on multiple occasions by Bush and Cheney in their drumming up of support for our invasion of Iraq. As far as the U.N. goes, that organization is the biggest bunch of thieves that I have ever witnessed. But that is a discussion for another time. On that note, the U.N. never did pass a resolution authorizing our invasion of Iraq. What Bush did was mince words with a combination of resolutions, including Resolution 678, which was leftover from Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. As a matter of fact, the U.N. was against our invasion.

Moving right along, you stated that you "would be upset as well if I thought that our country deliberately lied to us to pre-emptively invade a sovereign and peaceful nation in order to seal their oil." So, based on what you stated, as long as that nation were not peaceful, though they had not attacked us, you would have no problem invading them under the guise of a pre-emptive attack to steal their oil? That only makes sense to those who feel that military might makes right. The problem with that is, as everyone knows, eventually the bully runs into someone bigger than them. I repeat, commerce with all, entangling alliances with none.

Your argument about fanatics getting their power from the moderates can be used to explain how Bush got away with invading Iraq as he did. Based on your reasoning, the American people (the moderates) allowed President Bush and his entourage (the fanatics) to invade a country which had not directly attacked us. So, I can see where you are coming from that perspective, but then again one has to also take into consideration fear. If one is to fear the fanatics, then allowing them to use mosques as you suggested, is entirely understandable. After all, a person's nature is to survive.

Honestly, the only great intellectual failing I have come across is your extreme aversion to religious groups. You have basically, in just a few short words, grouped them together as dangerous terrorists. I am not sure how people can take what you say seriously, as it is so obviously biased against entire groups of people.

And finally, in response to your conspiracy theory angle and belief in all that our government does is good I will leave you with a few warnings from those before us:

The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. – H.L. Mencken

It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong. – Voltaire

Men rise from one ambition to another – first they seek to secure themselves from attack, and then they attack others. – Machiavelli

War is not an independent phenomenon, but the continuation of politics by different means. – Carl von Clausewitz

[swivel]

I take from your collection of quotes that you are a pacifist? There are few social philosophies more evil than pacifism, which explains your stance quite well.

The funny thing about conspiracy theories is that the best way to debunk them is to pretend that they are correct. They then fall to the fallacy of ad absurdium.

Bushies: Let's invade Iraq.
USAF: Why?
Bushies: For the oil.
USAF: How will we get permission.
Bushies: Let's lie to the American people, the UN, and our allies and say that there are WMD's in Iraq.
USAF: Good plan.

USAF: Wait. If we know there aren't any WMD's in Iraq, what happens after we get there and can't find them.
Bushies: Hmmm. We'll worry about that later.
LAPD: We could plant some evidence for you.
Bushies: Too risky. Let's just lie to everyone.
GOP: But your approval rating could hit the 30's.
Bushies: That's OK, congress keeps their rating in the 20's.
GOP: You will destroy the Republican party. There will be no hiding the fact that we lied about the WMD's.
Bushies: Yeah, but CHEAP OIL.
Economist: Actually, with demand in China and India, you can kiss cheap oil goodbye forever.
Bushies: Nobody asked you. My mind is made up. Here's what we are going to do - lie to the American people about WMD's. Invade Iraq. Spend trillions of dollars and kill hundreds of thousands of people. And then leave the oil in the hands of the Iraqis, and not even ask them to repay us for rebuilding their infrastructure.
GOP: Wha? I thought we were going to take their oil!
Bushies: But then it will be obvious that we just did this for the oil.
GOP: But isn't that why we are making up the bullshit about the WMD's?

USAF: Sorry to interrupt, but what are we going to do with the plane-load of passengers that we substituted for the missile that we sent into the Pentagon?


All conspiracy theories crumble this way. They are just like religion. All you have to do to disprove them is to assume that they are correct, and see all the silly places the assumptions lead you.

And yes, I hate organized religion. I don't mind individual spirituality, but religions are a fucking menace. They warp moral judgment, allowing good people to do bad shit. Christianity went though the exact same phase that the Muslim religion is currently in, it just wasn't in an age sufficiently technological to threaten the entire human race. Not for lack of trying, though. The Crusades, the witch burnings, the Inquisition, missionaries destroying entire cultures, killing scientists. These are just the horrors that were performed for MORAL reasons. The rape, plunder, molestation, murder, lying, robbing etc... are what the immoral were able to do under the guise of morality.

The world won't be safe until it becomes more secular than it currently is. Most religions have become more tepid over time, we need to do everything in our power to force Muslims to moderate as well.

[TXChris]

I take from your collection of quotes that you are a pacifist? There are few social philosophies more evil than pacifism, which explains your stance quite well.

The funny thing about conspiracy theories is that the best way to debunk them is to pretend that they are correct. They then fall to the fallacy of ad absurdium.

Bushies: Let's invade Iraq.
USAF: Why?
Bushies: For the oil.
USAF: How will we get permission.
Bushies: Let's lie to the American people, the UN, and our allies and say that there are WMD's in Iraq.
USAF: Good plan.

USAF: Wait. If we know there aren't any WMD's in Iraq, what happens after we get there and can't find them.
Bushies: Hmmm. We'll worry about that later.
LAPD: We could plant some evidence for you.
Bushies: Too risky. Let's just lie to everyone.
GOP: But your approval rating could hit the 30's.
Bushies: That's OK, congress keeps their rating in the 20's.
GOP: You will destroy the Republican party. There will be no hiding the fact that we lied about the WMD's.
Bushies: Yeah, but CHEAP OIL.
Economist: Actually, with demand in China and India, you can kiss cheap oil goodbye forever.
Bushies: Nobody asked you. My mind is made up. Here's what we are going to do - lie to the American people about WMD's. Invade Iraq. Spend trillions of dollars and kill hundreds of thousands of people. And then leave the oil in the hands of the Iraqis, and not even ask them to repay us for rebuilding their infrastructure.
GOP: Wha? I thought we were going to take their oil!
Bushies: But then it will be obvious that we just did this for the oil.
GOP: But isn't that why we are making up the bullshit about the WMD's?

USAF: Sorry to interrupt, but what are we going to do with the plane-load of passengers that we substituted for the missile that we sent into the Pentagon?


All conspiracy theories crumble this way. They are just like religion. All you have to do to disprove them is to assume that they are correct, and see all the silly places the assumptions lead you.

And yes, I hate organized religion. I don't mind individual spirituality, but religions are a fucking menace. They warp moral judgment, allowing good people to do bad shit. Christianity went though the exact same phase that the Muslim religion is currently in, it just wasn't in an age sufficiently technological to threaten the entire human race. Not for lack of trying, though. The Crusades, the witch burnings, the Inquisition, missionaries destroying entire cultures, killing scientists. These are just the horrors that were performed for MORAL reasons. The rape, plunder, molestation, murder, lying, robbing etc... are what the immoral were able to do under the guise of morality.

The world won't be safe until it becomes more secular than it currently is. Most religions have become more tepid over time, we need to do everything in our power to force Muslims to moderate as well.

Pacifist? Me? No, not at all. I definitely think a country should militarily protect itself when attacked. Invading a sovereign country when they have not attacked us first is wrong. Period. Because WE attacked first we do not know if they would have attacked us at any point in time, much less right around the time we attacked them, which is what was alluded to by our government. There are just no two ways about it. I believe that also throws out your assumption that I am operating by some conspiracy theory. The fact is, our government used the attacks of 9/11, and the fear and sudden nationalism felt by many, to gather support for an invasion of Iraq.

BTW, your assertion that secularism is the best way to go is pretty bad as quite a bit of people actually NEED the structure of a religion to make it through their days. For whatever reason, most people need to feel that there is something more to them than what is happening here on Earth. Whatever. To each their own. But, I refuse to ever show hate toward an entire group of people for the misgivings of a select few.

All that being said, you then go on to espouse how bad doing something under the belief that it is the "moral" way to go is. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but did you not say that we have a "moral obligation" to invade Iraq and afterward Africa? So, does that not mean that we, too, should follow a non-interventionist foreign policy? I do believe that is what you are stating, based upon your latest statement.

[swivel]

You are morally misguided. By your brand of quasi-pacifism, if I see a lady being raped in an ally, I am morally obligated to walk right on by. After all, the rapist isn't attacking ME! Right?

Only a racist, who can dehumanize the suffering of people of other ethnicities can stomach sitting idly by while women are butchered overseas according to scripture. Can worry about spending tax money on improving roads, rather than freeing oppressed peoples elsewhere.

I prefer Ghandi's brand of evil pacifism more than yours. At least he was consistent, and not obviously racist.


I have never found evidence that religion tames people or makes them more moral. The highest density of parochialism you will find is in the prisons of our world. If religion was even slightly good at making people behave, we would see a statistically significant difference in the behaviors within cultures of varying religiosity. We see the opposite. The more theocratic, the more base and evil the populace. Look at what is going on in Africa right now, and the Middle East. Look at what the religions of Hitler and Stalin were able to do. Look at the behavior of every cult ever devised. Sorry, but reason is what makes us tolerable creatures, and the further we stray from reason, the more animalistic and evil we become. History is not on your side and neither are the facts.

Your logic is flawed. How does my stating that the war in Iraq is morally correct mean that we should be non-interventionist? I believe the exact opposite, as a casual reading of this thread should indicate. I do not want to walk past the alleys, where defenseless people are being mugged and raped, and sigh, "Not my problem". You have some serious thinking to do regarding your moral philosophy. Stop letting your little clique of political fanatics make all your decisions for you.


Synopsis of my beliefs so you can keep my philosophy straight: (European Liberal, capitalist, pro-choice, anti Roe v. Wade, anti gun, pro war, anti drug, anti alcohol, atheist, fiscal conservative, anti personal debt, gold standard, pro democracy, scientist)

[swivel]

1) TXChris and I are having a discussion about pacifism, non-interventionist foreign policy, morality, and racism.

2) Chris goes pedantic on me by trying to use silly quotes to prove his point. (ad verecundiam, anyone? {intentional irony})

3) I notice the quote by Einstein that Morbid has made the unofficial motto of our crime blog.

4) Sweet tea shoots out of my nostrils.

[Morbid]

I notice the quote by Einstein that Morbid has made the unofficial motto of our crime blog.

One of the smartest things the guy ever said, IMO, and the only thing he ever said that I remembered. :P

[swivel]

One of the smartest things the guy ever said, IMO, and the only thing he ever said that I remembered. :P

He also said Eee equals em cee squared. And you remember that, don't you? (obviously before reading this little reminder)


Dude... I have a friend in Charleston who worships Ghandi. Read a book about the guy, and never questioned that one viewpoint. Anyway, I was around him while he was reading the book, and he is one of those "topical geniuses", the person who is an expert on whatever they are just learning about for the first time. So he keeps telling me how great Ghandi is, and I kept telling him how fucking evil Ghandi's philosophy is. How, a single person with a knife could rule a planet of pacifists. How the "moral" obligation is to TALK to the rapist, not to physically restrain him/her. Or to protest the rape by going without food (because self-torture is somehow pacifistic) or organizing a sit-in.

Pacifists scare the shit out of me. Not because of what they will do, but because of what they will allow. Look at what the peaceniks would have us do right now... take our troops out of Iraq and stand by while they slaughter each other. Same thing we are doing as we ignore the disaster in Darfur. These idiots with their "EndTHIS War" bumperstickers are naive to the point of being outright evil. Ignorant fucks think that we brought all of this on ourselves, and if the US would behave, the rest of the world would sing Kumbaya and live harmoniously.

Wishful thinking killed over 100 MILLION people last century under the guise of "central planning". The legacy of those dolts somehow survived the massacre.

[TXChris]

You are morally misguided. By your brand of quasi-pacifism, if I see a lady being raped in an ally, I am morally obligated to walk right on by. After all, the rapist isn't attacking ME! Right?

Only a racist, who can dehumanize the suffering of people of other ethnicities can stomach sitting idly by while women are butchered overseas according to scripture. Can worry about spending tax money on improving roads, rather than freeing oppressed peoples elsewhere.

I prefer Ghandi's brand of evil pacifism more than yours. At least he was consistent, and not obviously racist.


I have never found evidence that religion tames people or makes them more moral. The highest density of parochialism you will find is in the prisons of our world. If religion was even slightly good at making people behave, we would see a statistically significant difference in the behaviors within cultures of varying religiosity. We see the opposite. The more theocratic, the more base and evil the populace. Look at what is going on in Africa right now, and the Middle East. Look at what the religions of Hitler and Stalin were able to do. Look at the behavior of every cult ever devised. Sorry, but reason is what makes us tolerable creatures, and the further we stray from reason, the more animalistic and evil we become. History is not on your side and neither are the facts.

Your logic is flawed. How does my stating that the war in Iraq is morally correct mean that we should be non-interventionist? I believe the exact opposite, as a casual reading of this thread should indicate. I do not want to walk past the alleys, where defenseless people are being mugged and raped, and sigh, "Not my problem". You have some serious thinking to do regarding your moral philosophy. Stop letting your little clique of political fanatics make all your decisions for you.


Synopsis of my beliefs so you can keep my philosophy straight: (European Liberal, capitalist, pro-choice, anti Roe v. Wade, anti gun, pro war, anti drug, anti alcohol, atheist, fiscal conservative, anti personal debt, gold standard, pro democracy, scientist)

But, see, that is where you misunderstand and try to compare apples and oranges. I, myself, would not hesitate a second to help a woman in the described scenario. Then again, I have every right in the world to choose whether or not I do it. One does not have that same right with another person's life. In other words, though I would run to the aid of the woman, I have no moral right to make another do the same. It is their moral obligation to choose what they are going to do. As far as being racist goes, it's easy to label somebody racist when they simply choose a non-interventionist foreign policy based upon an individual's moral rights.

You seem to be hiding behind a CONSTANT demonizing of anybody who follows an organized religion. THAT scares the hell out of me, in all honesty. Granted, bad things have happened in history, both through religion AND through government, but hate is hate, and it makes no difference who is shouting the words. Those who follow hate are mere pawns in a larger game.

You have used "morally obligated" as justification for our invasion of Iraq, and then Africa. In your next post you then proceed to infer that the atrocities in religious history were based upon "moral reasoning." What I was attempting to show you is that you are suggesting YOUR morals are better than the morals of the person next to you. That, however, does not make you correct, it just makes you wrong.

And, as you were so kind, here is a synopsis of my beliefs so you, too, can keep my philosophy straight: (Classic Liberal, Capitalist, Strict Constructionist, Non-Interventionist Foreign Policy, Atheist, Fiscal Conservative, Anti Personal Debt, Commodity Based Monetary Standard, Pro Republic, Austrian Theory of Economics Economist)

[swivel]

If I seem rabid, that's because it promotes the interests of this website to the greatest degree.

Do I hate a lot of things? Of course. Everyone does. Complete apathy is impossible, and hatred is the nexus of disgust and anger, two emotions that are never kept apart for long.

Hell, I would hate you if you weren't a Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek fan. :)

Road to Serfdom is one of my favorite reads, and I agree with Mises' critique of economic interventionism, but I don't get my morals from economists. Nobody should.

I get my morals ex-nihilo, and they are objective truths, not subjective whims. Which means that I get to hold other people to my moral standards. I get to call the person who does not stop the rape Evil. And so does any other person with a basic understanding of the Moral Sphere.

Subjectivism does not work. It is internally inconsistent. I'll try to explain in brief: The subjectivist is inherently making a claim that subjectivism is an objective truth. You claim that it is right for people to not expect others to do what is right. Which means that you expect nothing from no one. You expect me to claim that you are wrong, and grant me equal status in your moral philosophy. And this is how subjectivism always crumbles down on its own shaky foundations.

The only way to truth is to hold SOME truth as temporarily correct. A place-holder until a "more correct" truth comes along. This is how science progresses, never claiming to be 100% right, and with the mechanisms of change built-in. Moral philosophies work the same way. The change over time does not denote subjectivism, but an alteration of the Objective Truth.

If you think it is OK for any person to witness a rape, and not be bound by objective moral truth to act in some way to halt the rape, you and I will forever disagree about all things related to right and wrong. You will always belong to the latter.

[TXChris]

If I seem rabid, that's because it promotes the interests of this website to the greatest degree.

Do I hate a lot of things? Of course. Everyone does. Complete apathy is impossible, and hatred is the nexus of disgust and anger, two emotions that are never kept apart for long.

Hell, I would hate you if you weren't a Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek fan. :)

Road to Serfdom is one of my favorite reads, and I agree with Mises' critique of economic interventionism, but I don't get my morals from economists. Nobody should.

I get my morals ex-nihilo, and they are objective truths, not subjective whims. Which means that I get to hold other people to my moral standards. I get to call the person who does not stop the rape Evil. And so does any other person with a basic understanding of the Moral Sphere.

Subjectivism does not work. It is internally inconsistent. I'll try to explain in brief: The subjectivist is inherently making a claim that subjectivism is an objective truth. You claim that it is right for people to not expect others to do what is right. Which means that you expect nothing from no one. You expect me to claim that you are wrong, and grant me equal status in your moral philosophy. And this is how subjectivism always crumbles down on its own shaky foundations.

The only way to truth is to hold SOME truth as temporarily correct. A place-holder until a "more correct" truth comes along. This is how science progresses, never claiming to be 100% right, and with the mechanisms of change built-in. Moral philosophies work the same way. The change over time does not denote subjectivism, but an alteration of the Objective Truth.

If you think it is OK for any person to witness a rape, and not be bound by objective moral truth to act in some way to halt the rape, you and I will forever disagree about all things related to right and wrong. You will always belong to the latter.

I'm glad that you too hold Mises and Hayek in such high regard. :)

I understand where you are coming from in your morals, but once again, I have to disagree to some extent with what you say. Yes, you have all the right in the world to call that person evil for not coming to the woman's aid. My agreement with that is firmly rooted in the belief of an individual's basic rights. Where we disagree is in the government sending our men and women to die for someone else. The justification I am sensing from you, for our invasion of Iraq, is in getting rid of a bad person. If you choose to go and fight, then so be it. If I also choose to go and fight, then that is alright also. However, to force another individual to do it is not right. Our military's reason for being is solely the protection of the United States of America and it's people.

As far as what I expect goes, it is not that I expect people to sit by as something happens. Rather, I expect people to do what they are going to do according to their own morals. If it is to help, then so be it. If it is to walk by, then so be it. It is not MY right to make everyone follow the same moral beliefs that I do. The ONLY thing I have a right to decide is what I am going to do. Therefore, it is not at all about whether I feel it is OK or not, instead it is about whether I think it is OK to force someone to do what I feel is right. And in that case, it is not OK. That is my argument.

[swivel]

We aren't forcing people in the military to go and fight. They enter the military with explicit agreement to follow orders. They are not responsible for knowing when those orders are right or wrong. Our military leaders are responsible for them. Our government is responsible for those military leaders. And we are responsible for our government.

If you, as a citizen, protest this war... then you are actively engaging in this chain of command. The fact that you are wrong is no matter. We are a Democracy, which is free to do wrong things. I know of no political system which can prevent this. What we rely on is the "wisdom of the crowd", which, despite the reputation of the the "mob", is far smarter (reliably smarter, I should say) than the smartest individual in the crowd.

So, exercise your freedom to direct our government in an immoral fashion, and I will exercise mine to combat you. All I can hope is that the side of justice (mine, naturally) prevails.


Again, soldiers are not being forced to do anything. That would be like saying that the soccer player who is not allowed to pick up the ball and run down the field with it is being "forced" to play with just their feet. When you engage in an activity with rules, you willingly give up some freedoms to ensure the freedom of the group. Imagine a choral singer who gets unmeasured joy out of singing off-key in her choir. This is the thing that she loves above all else. However, when she attempts to do this, she is ruining the wishes of the rest of the group, which is to harmonize, and sing on-key, for the auditory pleasure of themselves and others.

Who is wrong? The off-key singer, of course. She is attempting to belong to a group, and then do opposite of the very thing that DEFINES that group. Which is to say, she is putting her lone desires (and freedoms) above those of others. She is raping them in an alley (ad absurdium).

The soldiers that become part of the military, and then complain about the duties expected of them, are the off-key singers in our analogy.



I did not see "anarchist" in your philosophical summation, so I have to assume you haven't thought your moral foundations through all the way. If we are not allowed to tell the bystander that they have a moral (and hence, legal) obligation to stop the rapist, or put a seatbelt on an infant, or put a fence around their pool, then where does the line start? Are we to be lawless, so that everyone's freedoms are seen as subjectively "equal"? Or do we have an obligation to put the Moral Sphere back together every time it is broken?

If the latter is the case (which it must be in non-anarchic societies), what group do we apply this to? If just our own, are we not racist? I could understand the limitation being one of manpower, or cost, or ability... but decided by pretend borders? Hopefully you can begin to glimpse why I consider your stance to be one of pure evil.

[TXChris]

We aren't forcing people in the military to go and fight. They enter the military with explicit agreement to follow orders. They are not responsible for knowing when those orders are right or wrong. Our military leaders are responsible for them. Our government is responsible for those military leaders. And we are responsible for our government.

If you, as a citizen, protest this war... then you are actively engaging in this chain of command. The fact that you are wrong is no matter. We are a Democracy, which is free to do wrong things. I know of no political system which can prevent this. What we rely on is the "wisdom of the crowd", which, despite the reputation of the the "mob", is far smarter (reliably smarter, I should say) than the smartest individual in the crowd.

So, exercise your freedom to direct our government in an immoral fashion, and I will exercise mine to combat you. All I can hope is that the side of justice (mine, naturally) prevails.


Again, soldiers are not being forced to do anything. That would be like saying that the soccer player who is not allowed to pick up the ball and run down the field with it is being "forced" to play with just their feet. When you engage in an activity with rules, you willingly give up some freedoms to ensure the freedom of the group. Imagine a choral singer who gets unmeasured joy out of singing off-key in her choir. This is the thing that she loves above all else. However, when she attempts to do this, she is ruining the wishes of the rest of the group, which is to harmonize, and sing on-key, for the auditory pleasure of themselves and others.

Who is wrong? The off-key singer, of course. She is attempting to belong to a group, and then do opposite of the very thing that DEFINES that group. Which is to say, she is putting her lone desires (and freedoms) above those of others. She is raping them in an alley (ad absurdium).

The soldiers that become part of the military, and then complain about the duties expected of them, are the off-key singers in our analogy.



I did not see "anarchist" in your philosophical summation, so I have to assume you haven't thought your moral foundations through all the way. If we are not allowed to tell the bystander that they have a moral (and hence, legal) obligation to stop the rapist, or put a seatbelt on an infant, or put a fence around their pool, then where does the line start? Are we to be lawless, so that everyone's freedoms are seen as subjectively "equal"? Or do we have an obligation to put the Moral Sphere back together every time it is broken?

If the latter is the case (which it must be in non-anarchic societies), what group do we apply this to? If just our own, are we not racist? I could understand the limitation being one of manpower, or cost, or ability... but decided by pretend borders? Hopefully you can begin to glimpse why I consider your stance to be one of pure evil.

Unfortunately, you have oversimplified our current political environment here in America. This military/industrial/nanny state complex which we operate under gives more power to the military than should be. There is a reason we, as a young country, were warned against a standing army. We are ultimately responsible for our government, true, but the problem herein lies with the inability of the American people to care enough to pay attention and learn enough to interact with the political process intelligently. As a nation the American people have become sheep. The people have learned to become content with sound bytes thereby allowing the quick return to their consumerism.

This great political form of government you seem to enjoy, Democracy, is just a simpler form of Socialism which leads to Communism. People learn, in a Democracy, that they can get the government to do for them, and then they do. But, the government is going to expect something in return, which is individual liberty. The only true form of government that protects an individual's liberty is the Republic, and that is precisely why we were founded as such. So, in response to your immoral comment, Democracy is immoral as it allows the "majority" to rule over the "minority," of which the smallest is the single individual. Just because the majority thinks that people should not be allowed freedom of speech does not make them morally correct. As a matter of fact, it makes them incredibly immoral as they are denying individuals their most basic right.

As far as our soldiers go, I again submit to you that our military's sole reason for being is the protection of America and the American people. A soldier can be reasonably expected to follow order which protect his country and its people. The problem I have is in expecting a soldier to give up his or her life for another country. Just because our current political environment expects our soldiers to die for another country does not make it right. That, my friend, is immoral. Remember, this is coming from someone with years of personal military experience. I will say again, I believe in a military as used to protect America and the American people, but hold steadfast against a military that invades another country without being attacked first.

Just so you are completely aware, nowhere have I stated laws were not needed. What I do believe in, as a Classical Liberal and Strict Constructionist, is the least amount of government to protect the most basic rights of the individual. This happens to be a Republic. When government begins regulating what the people of that country do it is hard for government to stop. And, in the case of this Democracy the government is at the whim of the majority. Not the majority of the people, rather the majority that choose to involve themselves in the process. Even worse is that a great percentage of the people are so concerned with their own everyday lives that they are relegated to sound bytes and easily led. So, who really controls the direction of a Democracy? Those who tell the people what they think they want to hear.

As Benjamin Franklin said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

[swivel]

Man. It's too bad you used "military industrial complex" so early in the post. My brain turns off when people channel Ike.

That saying had to do with how large a percentage of our GDP was directly tied to the military. It wasn't even true by the time Eisenhower uttered those words. It was leftover drivel from WWII. Now it is just a pat-phrase that I hear from every conspiracy theorist.

Sigh. Let me see if I can skip that unfortunate sentence and read your post again...

Haha. "Consumerism". More conspiracy-speak. Friend, consumerism is a genetic urge to hoard resources. Humans have always been consumed with consumerism (sorry for the horrible alliteration). Stop pretending that we are sliding into a societal abyss. Life keeps getting better and better for more and more people. We are more forward, not backwards. Save the Jeremiad for someone whose idea of history is the 1960's.



Of course a Democracy allows immoral cultural mores. Since every individual has different wishes and desires, it is impossible to satisfy all of them. The best we can aim for is my Objective Moral Truth, but we probably have to resign ourselves to approximating it. I take the long view of history and see that we are on a moral curve, approaching that perfect asymptote more and more.

I don't understand your distinction between Democracy and Republic. Both are broad terms which overlap quite a bit. There is nothing inherent to either that makes one necessarily better than the other. Republics have embraced slavery and misogyny. Democracy's have done the same. You would have to elaborate here to make a point.

As for the duty of a soldier, you are correct. Now you need to prove to me that the war in Iraq ISN'T protecting the United States. (we don't protect "America", the Canadians and Peruvians have their own role to play there) There are good points to be made on both sides, but I happen to agree with the Truman Doctrine and the Carter Doctrine. We often best protect ourselves by protecting others. By spreading Democracy (which we have been VERY successful at doing). By aiding in those who fight for similar causes. By recognizing that a global economy requires global protection. I don't think you have presented a case that shows that our actions outside of our own borders can't qualify for your own definition of our troop's duties.

Then you go back to using the almost interchangeable terms "republic" and "democracy" as if those are well-defined concepts. You might want to realize that Iran and Pakistan are considered Republics. They are ruled by sharia law, and evil motherfucking shit-holes. And Plato was an evil fuck (by my standards), who saw slavery as an integral part of his Republic. I call bullshit on your love-affair with such an ephemeral word. It just sounds like nonsense to someone who knows a little bit of history.

I agree with part of your last paragraph. The smallest government can often be the best. Most things done by the Fed can be done better and cheaper by private enterprise. You could get rid of Social Security right now and people would take care of the elderly without having to be forced into it. So, there are hypothetical ideals which are better than what we currently have. And this knowledge fuels the Jeremiad, the pessimist, the activist, the revolutionary, the progressive. What they don't realize is another fun fact: The current system is also the best one that has ever existed. Ever. In history. People don't starve here. People hardly want for anything. It is yesterday's utopia. So... you can look at our system for its flaws (which will be ironed out over time), or for its perfection (through the lens of history). How you decide determines your political affiliation. Angry fanatic, or staunch conservative.

Finally, you give too little credit to the populace. Never before has such a large group of people been so literate and intelligent. Political ennui is a sign of contentment, not apathy or ignorance. Low voter turn-out is a positive sign for any culture. The people that complain are the politicians, pollsters, progressives, and talking heads when few people vote. These are the people that profit from societal disasters. What is ironic is that you have the wrong view here, and you have gotten it from the very process that you chastise!

Oh, and thanks for the debate. It has been too long since I've had one of these discussions. Even though it is a well-worn trail, it feels nostalgic to walk it again.

[CPL CHUD]

It has definitely been a while since we saw a good debate and even though it feels so 2 years ago I'm definitely digging it.

[Athena]

Nevermind. :o

[swivel]

Nevermind. :o

Cocktease.

[Killroy]

Cocktease.

No shit. The girl disappears into the sunset with her boyfriend, and this is what we get when she posts? Nevermind? :)

[Athena]

Geez, guys!

Swivel, I was going to berate you for using ridiculous logic on page 5, but posted before bothering to read page 6, where Chris had already addressed it. But, this is what I get when I introduce people who I happen to think like to this forum. Suddenly, I'm no longer needed...*sniffle, sniffle*

Morbid, no boyfriend. Yeah, don't ask. Me being single is best for everyone who cares to be involved at this point. You want to know where I've been?

MySpace. :o But, hey, at least I've been recruiting!

But, yeah. Shame on you, swivel, for trying to apply logic that works at the individual level to the foreign policy of entire nations. Shame, shame, shame. *waggles index finger* ;)

[swivel]

But, yeah. Shame on you, swivel, for trying to apply logic that works at the individual level to the foreign policy of entire nations. Shame, shame, shame. *waggles index finger* ;)

Bullshit. If one person is raping another, we are obligated to stop them. If two people are raping two women, our obligation is the same (if not double).

You don't have a case here. All you have is evil and racism. Not sure if I would be proud of that.

[TXChris]

Man. It's too bad you used "military industrial complex" so early in the post. My brain turns off when people channel Ike.

That saying had to do with how large a percentage of our GDP was directly tied to the military. It wasn't even true by the time Eisenhower uttered those words. It was leftover drivel from WWII. Now it is just a pat-phrase that I hear from every conspiracy theorist.

Sigh. Let me see if I can skip that unfortunate sentence and read your post again...

Haha. "Consumerism". More conspiracy-speak. Friend, consumerism is a genetic urge to hoard resources. Humans have always been consumed with consumerism (sorry for the horrible alliteration). Stop pretending that we are sliding into a societal abyss. Life keeps getting better and better for more and more people. We are more forward, not backwards. Save the Jeremiad for someone whose idea of history is the 1960's.



Of course a Democracy allows immoral cultural mores. Since every individual has different wishes and desires, it is impossible to satisfy all of them. The best we can aim for is my Objective Moral Truth, but we probably have to resign ourselves to approximating it. I take the long view of history and see that we are on a moral curve, approaching that perfect asymptote more and more.

I don't understand your distinction between Democracy and Republic. Both are broad terms which overlap quite a bit. There is nothing inherent to either that makes one necessarily better than the other. Republics have embraced slavery and misogyny. Democracy's have done the same. You would have to elaborate here to make a point.

As for the duty of a soldier, you are correct. Now you need to prove to me that the war in Iraq ISN'T protecting the United States. (we don't protect "America", the Canadians and Peruvians have their own role to play there) There are good points to be made on both sides, but I happen to agree with the Truman Doctrine and the Carter Doctrine. We often best protect ourselves by protecting others. By spreading Democracy (which we have been VERY successful at doing). By aiding in those who fight for similar causes. By recognizing that a global economy requires global protection. I don't think you have presented a case that shows that our actions outside of our own borders can't qualify for your own definition of our troop's duties.

Then you go back to using the almost interchangeable terms "republic" and "democracy" as if those are well-defined concepts. You might want to realize that Iran and Pakistan are considered Republics. They are ruled by sharia law, and evil motherfucking shit-holes. And Plato was an evil fuck (by my standards), who saw slavery as an integral part of his Republic. I call bullshit on your love-affair with such an ephemeral word. It just sounds like nonsense to someone who knows a little bit of history.

I agree with part of your last paragraph. The smallest government can often be the best. Most things done by the Fed can be done better and cheaper by private enterprise. You could get rid of Social Security right now and people would take care of the elderly without having to be forced into it. So, there are hypothetical ideals which are better than what we currently have. And this knowledge fuels the Jeremiad, the pessimist, the activist, the revolutionary, the progressive. What they don't realize is another fun fact: The current system is also the best one that has ever existed. Ever. In history. People don't starve here. People hardly want for anything. It is yesterday's utopia. So... you can look at our system for its flaws (which will be ironed out over time), or for its perfection (through the lens of history). How you decide determines your political affiliation. Angry fanatic, or staunch conservative.

Finally, you give too little credit to the populace. Never before has such a large group of people been so literate and intelligent. Political ennui is a sign of contentment, not apathy or ignorance. Low voter turn-out is a positive sign for any culture. The people that complain are the politicians, pollsters, progressives, and talking heads when few people vote. These are the people that profit from societal disasters. What is ironic is that you have the wrong view here, and you have gotten it from the very process that you chastise!

Oh, and thanks for the debate. It has been too long since I've had one of these discussions. Even though it is a well-worn trail, it feels nostalgic to walk it again.

No worries. I happen to enjoy a good discussion also, so your responses are rather enjoyed. Now...

Military/Industrial/Nanny State complex is actually the term I used :) , and I beg to differ with what you said. It is a pretty accurate description of our current environment. Empire-building is not simply defined by the flying of a country's flag over another country. The control over another country's economic situation is becoming a bigger and bigger part of it as we become more globally-interconnected. By setting up puppet governments we do not have to fly our flag, we merely have to pull the strings.

True, there is not much difference between a Democracy and a Republic, but the difference they do have is SIGNIFICANT. What I tried to explain in my last post is the most basic tenant difference between the two. A Republic guarantees the most basic rights of the individual and promotes the protection of it against all, including the government and the majority. The Democracy allows mob rule which, at a whim, can take from the individual those most basic rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is precisely why we have the usurpation of power by the various branches of our government that we have consistently had. http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm is one of the best resources I have found to compare the two. When one realizes that no law is worth the loss of a single individual's most basic rights, then we become a more moral society. If one is to allow the erosion of those rights of others then where is it going to stop? For one to believe it will stop before it reaches the rights they care about is foolhardy. If anything, history has shown that governments only desire more power and control. The Republic is the only form of government designed to effectively protect against this. Remember, a Republic does not run with the belief that slavery should be legal, rather it attempts to protect the rights of the individual. If society feels that slavery is a bad thing, then it will die out, as it has done peacefully in every other point in history (except the War of Northern Aggression, which was a bunch of crap, but we won't go there right now).

Plato was a very intelligent man, and where you err is in trying to demonize a historical society's beliefs based upon the belief system of today's society. Societies are created, and continue to change, over time. As the majority base of the society begins to hold other truths to be evident they change the way they think about the world. That's how it works, so to completely forgo such an intelligent man's thinking because of something you find immoral TODAY is short-sighted.

As far as your "moral curve" theory goes, I see it quite a bit differently. Go figure, right? :) I see that we, as the people of the world, are becoming more uniform and losing our individual identities. Orwell's '1984' anybody? How is the loss of diversity such a good thing? Life can be seen as getting "better" only if one is OK with their loss of liberty to the government, which really means loss of liberty to the mega-corporations who control those in charge. We are being told how to raise our children, what to teach them, what to think, what to do...unfortunately, I just cannot see the good in that.

You ask that I prove to you that the war in Iraq is not protecting America, but I could ask you to prove to me that it is. The problem with protecting others is that as regimes change so do their goals and ambitions. Many times in history have shown the United States ousting one regime only to install one that is worse. Then there are the puppet leaders we install who decide they do not want to be puppets of the U.S. government anymore, at which point we then label them as bad. The problem is when one gets involved they have to be willing to pay the price of retaliation; case in point 9/11.

Everything else aside, I am glad we can agree that a smaller government is a better government. The less-intrusive on the people the better for everyone, by all means. Where I must, once again, disagree with you is about our government being the best ever. Where it was at one time, it is no more. The continual grabbing of rights from the individual by the government can in no way ever be seen as a good thing. You say that people aren't starving, and though they are, I get the gist of what you are inferring. However, people are not starving because the government is doing for them; they are not doing for themselves. No personal responsibility. It is a simple redistribution of wealth. Definitely not good. You state that people do not "want" for anything. Once again, I understand what you are trying to say, which is that they have a higher standard of living...in general. Unfortunately, they now truly want and it has increased many times over as people have become accustomed to living beyond their means; essentially they are trading their children's future for their perceived happiness today. That is a very bad thing.

And finally, I have yet to see how low voter turn out can be considered anything but heading in the wrong direction. Why is apathy considered good when we are talking about a populace having a say in what happens to them? To simply sit idol as one's future is determined by others is just not acceptable. Therefore, voter apathy has to be seen as a bad thing. As I asked earlier, Orwell's '1984' anyone?

[swivel]

A Republic guarantees the most basic rights of the individual and promotes the protection of it against all, including the government and the majority.

Pakistan and Iran are Republics. So this clearly isn't the case. The USSR was a Republic as well. The word is pretty useless, in my opinion. You can't just drop it in a sentence and convey an idea. You need to tell me something about your ideal system of government. Be specific.

And any form of government will be made of people. Who are motivated by genetic impulses that do not serve the interests of others (even themselves, often). No group of policies can negate this, only mitigate it to varying degrees. So far, a representative Democracy with separation of powers and checks and balances has done the best job.

Plato wasn't even close to being the smartest man of his generation. We just happen to have a lot of his writings (well, students' writings). Mainly because he was a superstitious dolt whose ideas weren't seen as a threat to the church, so weren't burned. Aristotle was far and away a better thinker than either of his predecessors. "The Republic" is a shit book. A philosopher arguing that philosophers should rule the universe. Shocking.

Mega-Corporations? Are you high? We live in the age of small-business owners! Go back 100 years and almost everyone was in agriculture, with the rest of the economy made up of just a few large corporations. The disappearance of the middle-class is just bad math. It has to do with the relative growth of disparate numbers. 4 - 2 = 2; double them and 8 - 4 = 4. So, if everyone gets richer (doubly so), the richest have the highest rate of expansion, which means that the DIFFERENCE expands even as the RATIO remains the same. And the media (and you Jeremiads) concentrate on the difference rather than the ratio. Not very astute.

9/11 isn't a very good "case in point". It happened during a time of almost no overseas military involvement. Just like Pearl Harbor and the USS Cole. During this entire war, there has not been another attack here, when every expert was expecting many follow-ups after 9/11. I understand that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but we have stopped several planned attacks since 9/11. Something is working. I certainly have more evidence here than you could provide. Besides, your racist foreign policy isn't moral, even if you could prove that it is correct.

Voter apathy is good because politicians are only needed when shit is broken. They operate the same way the drug companies do: first they have to convince us that we (or the country) are sick, and that THEY have the cure. People go to the polls like they go to the doctor. Low voter turn-out MUST mean that people aren't itching for change. Which means they are satisfied with their lives. I suppose you think that revolutions, Molotov cocktails, and bomb-throwers in general are a sign of societal health? Because these people are "politically active"? Why do you think the euphemism for a fanatic is "activist". Again, this is something not many people take a few minutes to think about, so they just accept what the pollsters, politicians, and talking heads say. The very people who are trying to tell us that we are sick, and we NEED them.


I close with an argument for Athena to consider regarding morality and inaction: Imagine that I can place a red button in front of you that, when pressed, will cure AIDS in Africa forever. Are you morally obligated to press this button? The answer has to be yes. The benefits gained - effort expended = overwhelmingly positive moral output. (I am not a Utilitarian by any stretch, however similar that formula might seem).

Now, let us suppose that the red button is not placed before you, but is in a location in Zaire, that ONLY YOU KNOW ABOUT. What is your moral obligation here? My contention is that you are morally OBLIGATED to make your way to Zaire and press that button. Or draw a map and find a volunteer who will do it for you. Or make a phone call and walk someone on the other side through the process. Here, as in the other example, INACTION == EVIL.

Next example: The button is guarded and the pro-AIDS guards are going to put up some resistance. What is your obligation here? Do you put together a small squad to press the button via force? We are talking about saving millions and millions of lives. What if you know that several of the button-pressers are going to be killed in the attempt, do you still invade Zaire and do whatever it takes to press that button?

I think only the most detached, or racist, or immoral, or unthinking, or unimaginative amongst us can contend that inaction in these cases can be considered anything other than pure evil. So. Your contention (both of you) that overseas activities go against the moral code is untenable. What you have left to argue is where you draw the line. What are your cost/benefit analyses? Is it wrong for 100,000 to die to save millions if they do it willingly? Was World War II an unjust war? Should we have given Hitler Europe and the Pacific to Japan? Was the Civil War justified to end slavery?

I think you guys are living an unexamined life.

[TXChris]

Pakistan and Iran are Republics. So this clearly isn't the case. The USSR was a Republic as well. The word is pretty useless, in my opinion. You can't just drop it in a sentence and convey an idea. You need to tell me something about your ideal system of government. Be specific.

And any form of government will be made of people. Who are motivated by genetic impulses that do not serve the interests of others (even themselves, often). No group of policies can negate this, only mitigate it to varying degrees. So far, a representative Democracy with separation of powers and checks and balances has done the best job.

Plato wasn't even close to being the smartest man of his generation. We just happen to have a lot of his writings (well, students' writings). Mainly because he was a superstitious dolt whose ideas weren't seen as a threat to the church, so weren't burned. Aristotle was far and away a better thinker than either of his predecessors. "The Republic" is a shit book. A philosopher arguing that philosophers should rule the universe. Shocking.

Mega-Corporations? Are you high? We live in the age of small-business owners! Go back 100 years and almost everyone was in agriculture, with the rest of the economy made up of just a few large corporations. The disappearance of the middle-class is just bad math. It has to do with the relative growth of disparate numbers. 4 - 2 = 2; double them and 8 - 4 = 4. So, if everyone gets richer (doubly so), the richest have the highest rate of expansion, which means that the DIFFERENCE expands even as the RATIO remains the same. And the media (and you Jeremiads) concentrate on the difference rather than the ratio. Not very astute.

9/11 isn't a very good "case in point". It happened during a time of almost no overseas military involvement. Just like Pearl Harbor and the USS Cole. During this entire war, there has not been another attack here, when every expert was expecting many follow-ups after 9/11. I understand that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but we have stopped several planned attacks since 9/11. Something is working. I certainly have more evidence here than you could provide. Besides, your racist foreign policy isn't moral, even if you could prove that it is correct.

Voter apathy is good because politicians are only needed when shit is broken. They operate the same way the drug companies do: first they have to convince us that we (or the country) are sick, and that THEY have the cure. People go to the polls like they go to the doctor. Low voter turn-out MUST mean that people aren't itching for change. Which means they are satisfied with their lives. I suppose you think that revolutions, Molotov cocktails, and bomb-throwers in general are a sign of societal health? Because these people are "politically active"? Why do you think the euphemism for a fanatic is "activist". Again, this is something not many people take a few minutes to think about, so they just accept what the pollsters, politicians, and talking heads say. The very people who are trying to tell us that we are sick, and we NEED them.


I close with an argument for Athena to consider regarding morality and inaction: Imagine that I can place a red button in front of you that, when pressed, will cure AIDS in Africa forever. Are you morally obligated to press this button? The answer has to be yes. The benefits gained - effort expended = overwhelmingly positive moral output. (I am not a Utilitarian by any stretch, however similar that formula might seem).

Now, let us suppose that the red button is not placed before you, but is in a location in Zaire, that ONLY YOU KNOW ABOUT. What is your moral obligation here? My contention is that you are morally OBLIGATED to make your way to Zaire and press that button. Or draw a map and find a volunteer who will do it for you. Or make a phone call and walk someone on the other side through the process. Here, as in the other example, INACTION == EVIL.

Next example: The button is guarded and the pro-AIDS guards are going to put up some resistance. What is your obligation here? Do you put together a small squad to press the button via force? We are talking about saving millions and millions of lives. What if you know that several of the button-pressers are going to be killed in the attempt, do you still invade Zaire and do whatever it takes to press that button?

I think only the most detached, or racist, or immoral, or unthinking, or unimaginative amongst us can contend that inaction in these cases can be considered anything other than pure evil. So. Your contention (both of you) that overseas activities go against the moral code is untenable. What you have left to argue is where you draw the line. What are your cost/benefit analyses? Is it wrong for 100,000 to die to save millions if they do it willingly? Was World War II an unjust war? Should we have given Hitler Europe and the Pacific to Japan? Was the Civil War justified to end slavery?

I think you guys are living an unexamined life.

The link I added, in the previous post, explains the philosophy of the Republic. I knew this was going to get long so I figured adding the link, and expecting you to read it, would be a better use of the limited space. That being said, I would not at all be opposed to Capitalism either. Not this crap that people claim the United States works under right now. To understand exactly what a Capitalism philosophy is one can read http://www.capitalism.org. What both seek to do is protect, from EVERYONE, every individual's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is about as easy as it can be summed up. So long as an individual is not infringing upon another individual's rights, he should be left alone. Everything else flows naturally from that basic caveat. In a Republic the majority CANNOT, by pure definition of the Republic, infringe upon the basic rights of the individual, thereby limiting how much control the government has over the people. But, so long as we supposedly continue to live under our Constitution, then I will live my life as a Strict Constitutionalist. Of course that means that someone, somewhere, has to get our federal government back in check and make them follow the Constitution instead of bending it to meet their wants whenever they get a chance.

Agreed about Plato not being the smartest man of his generation, but he was exceedingly intelligent. His thought process was there. Because of that his students were able to make their mark upon the world also.

What gets me is as well as you present yourself you cannot see the simple truths in front of your eyes. It is NOT the people which elect the government in this country so much as it is the special interests, hired by the mega-corporations (Exxon, Wal-Mart, large banks), that influence the people to elect those in office.

In response to your voter apathy argument, I assert that it is because the average person does not feel like their vote will change anything. One only has to look at this year's election to see what I am talking about. There have been record turnouts for the primaries and caucuses already. Why? Because all of the candidates are saying they are going to "change" the current government. It gives people hope, and for that they turn out.

As far as 9/11 goes, how is it that you can not see that we have played a large part in that retaliation? It has been our involvement in the affairs of the Middle East for 50+ years that brought upon us that devastating day. Installing corrupt governments that kept their people in such a depressive state HAD to come back and bite us in the butt at some point. The American people may not want to hear it, but then again who wants to hear that they caused their own pain? For every action there is an equal, and opposite, reaction.

The fallacy in your moral argument is that once again you are insinuating that it is OK to force one to accept your morality. That way they fight through the guards, in the process dying, so that button gets pushed. But, I again ask you, who are you to insist that your way is the ONLY moral way and that EVERYONE should accept it as the way to be? After all, is that not what the religions that you are so scared of attempt to do? 'Be like us and you too can join the club,' they say. I agree, if YOU feel the moral obligation to push that button then you should do it. However, one should not expect to force ANYONE ELSE to do it also. You see, I am not arguing YOUR morals. I am arguing that you have NO RIGHT to force someone else to accept your morals as truth and disregard their own. After all, what you see as moral today might be seen as immoral by future societies, just as you look back on history and claim the immorality of things done past.

In short, my cost/benefit analysis is that ANY law which limits an individual's right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness is too much of a cost. Once government is given the green light to run roughshod over the rights of the people, whom they are supposed to be working for, there is nothing stopping from them usurping