The Right to Offend

IDC says "I am with Thorne, I am proud of the American men and women that go over there to do the task for which they have been ordered to do. I do wish however that the entire situation would have been avoided." At least you recognize our solders have a task to do.

We could avoid such a task if we did not get so upset with those bastards for blowing up the WTC. The next President has already admitted that he/she would do the same thing Bush has been doing in Iraq if Al Queda established a stronghold there? In fact Democrats agree with Bush in the war on terror. That's what they do in FACT, but in patriotic action that Bush is taking, they dance in the street to call it insanity.

Yes, there are many solders who have died in Iraq. Before the war is over the number will even be higher. How many more solders will die as the result of the natives dancing in the streets against President Bush? You put value on logic but how logical is it for you not to see that your lack of support for the President strengthens the resolve of the enemy to kill our solders. I don't view this as patriotic or support for the troops. Than again, you think I am a shit head because I see things from a factual social science position.

Let's look at your argument to see if it is factual or full of shit (as you point out).
Illegal wire tapping is happening You failed to cite one example. Until you do, lets admit your full of shit (as you point out); the alledged fact here is more dancing in the street.

"As a result of our "war on terror", more nations, and groups of people have an ill view of America and its policies than ever before. American used to be where others wanted to come for a better life." The people dancing in the street in Iraq/Iran/Joran/Egypt.etc. that Thorne spoke of, all occurred at the fall of the WTC. Our enemies did not hate us only after the War on Terror started but before also; so how can you logically blame only Bush? You called this thinking through shit.

"As a result of our "war on terror", more nations, and groups of people have an ill view of America and its policies than ever before." More dancing in the street. Most nations in the word are ruled by dictators. It has always been that way. Dictators have never appreciated American policies. When dictators say to their people, go dance in the streets, they do it. No, most countries don't like our policies and that's one reason we can't keep their people from crossing the American borders. If you were not so busy dancing in the street, you would see this.


* The ultimate goal of a terrorist is to instill fear in its target. We as an American people are fearful for our freedom, for our liberty. Mission accomplished!
* The goal of Al Qaeda was to hurt the American economy. Mission accomplished!
I think this just about sums up your argument and this time I agree with you on these two points. But from your logic, you do not agree with your own point of view. Its probably all that dancing in the street you do.

Al Qaeda has accomplished many of hits goals. They have damaged our economy;therefore, your dancing in the street logic says we should back out of the war. If we back out, they are going to kill us anyway. None of the Democratic candidates will openly say they would back out of the war on terror, although the one who said the War on Terror is a bumper sticker is gone.

Allow me to respond to your closing statement be rewarding it.
No, I am sorry. I can be proud of Bush. If you were to stop dancing in the street and after you pull your head out of your ass, maybe you will be able to see the truth, and stop perpetuating the ignorance American is living in

The liberal Democratic Congress has a lower approval rating than Bush. Looks like they are doing worse.

That's alright, join the crowd dancing in the street. Don't get out of step and admit to any of the real facts, or you'll lose the election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmrs2

"his political cronies reap obscene profits from the war" there is absolutely no evidence of this statement; if there is, please state it. This is part of the dancing in the street theory wherin you are told so many times that something is true that you finally believe.

---

It has been well documented that both Bush and Cheney were, and are, connected with Haliburton. That corporation has been raking in profits hand over fist since the invasion of Iraq. Now, while technically Bush and Cheney had to sever their financial ties in order to take office, anyone who believes that they are not still connected, and will be even more connected after serving, is about as naive as they come.

Quote:

---

"country into a deep recession or depression while terrorist leaders thumbed their noses at him." It is difficult to speak any facts that have not occurred as yet, unless you speak from the heart(emotions) of what you hope will happen. Here, Americans should be hopeful Bush can turn the economy around. I think you will find that there is a bipartisan
attempt by Congress to do this. That is a patriotic position instead of the hope the economy goes bad so Bush can be bashed.

---

I work in the manufacturing industry at a level which is right near the front of the economic system in this country. When things start going downhill, economically, we tend to feel the pinch first, and when they start turning around we generally feel that first, too. 20 years of experience tells me that by the end of this year things are going to be about as bad as I've ever seen them. And while it would be nice to believe that Bush and the Congress could do something positive about the economy, experience tells me that that isn't likely to happen, either.

Quote:

---

"I am proud of the American soldiers who are fighting an insane war under insane conditions for an insane foreign policy." The insanity is by those that can't see that the natives were dancing in the streets and making war on us before 9/11. That America should not fight back is insanity. If the President doesn't lead us in the fight, whose going t to do it. Nancy Pelosi and Liberal Democrats in Congress?

---

This is the kind of macho mentality that is making our streets unsafe. If anyone says anything bad about someone, that person seems to feel the need to kill the other to "protect his honor." If anybody wants to "lead" this country in war, make it a war which has some meaning to the American people. That attack into Afghanistan was POSSIBLY justified by the fact that binLaden was there, protected by the Taliban government. He's still there, hiding in the mountains, thumbing his nose at the American people and Bush in particular. The invasion of Iraq had almost nothing to do with the war on terrorism, however. Sure, Saddam was probably helping to finance terrorists: 90% of the Islamic governments in the region are doing so. Economic actions would have done far more to stop that than sending American troops into a morass without any idea of what they needed to do to win. A true leader in DC would be a real novelty after this.

Quote:

---

As a student of social science, I can not respect your reasoning which is based on pure emotions and no facts. You and irrational followers of your position are dancing in the street when you say you support the troops when in fact you do not. Your position does in fact provide comfort and aid to the enemy, simply because you lost power in government. That's why your followers keep saying you want to take your country back. You don't want the country back. You want power regardless how many American solders die.

---

And here we come to the crux of the problem in this country today. Anyone who disagrees with your position, who thinks that mistakes have been made, who dares to stand up and say that Bush and company may have been wrong, is giving "comfort and aid to the enemy." This tactic has been used by those in power for millenia. It's nothing new. And believe me, the last thing I want is power. All I want is to KEEP those soldiers from dieing. What they are being forced to do over in Iraq is completely outside those areas which the military trains for and is expected to perform. They would be far more useful here at home, protecting OUR borders. And for the record, no, I don't think the Democrats would do any better. I think the only thing we can hope for at this point is that whoever gets elected in November won't make things a whole lot worse.

I wish to apologize to all the people here for EVER using the phrase "dancing in the streets" in a previous post. wmrs2 has taken that phrase and used it ad nauseum in his diatribes against independent thought.

Sir_Russell, you once suggested that I might be a "dittohead." Well, I give you wmrs2: a died-in-the-wool dittohead if ever there was one.

You'll have to pardon me, now. Gas prices have just gone up at the local station. I need to go dance in the streets to celebrate.

Thorne you know that if it were a fact that Bush and Chaney were connected in some corrupt way with Haliburton that that situation would be no less common than various other Presidents have had with other outside interest and corporations. You use a talking point of the Democratic Party to detract from the truth of the argument that I present. This type of rhetorical response could go on endlessly and probably will. I give you White Water and the death Mr. Foster as topics and you automatically know where the argument is going. It is a good approach when trying to win a debate but really a good approach in trying to discover philosophical truth. Good try! Nice dance! As naive as they come.

And while it would be nice to believe that Bush and the Congress could do something positive about the economy, experience tells me that that isn't likely to happen,
either. Being at the head of the manufacturing economic system, as you say you are, tells me that you had more directly to do with economy system than the average worker. Having all this first hand knowledge tells me that you know that not any one President or any one Congress has total responsibility for the state of th economy. The North American Trade agreement was a bipartisan effort. But when things go wrong, nobody wants to take credit for it. That's right, blame Bush. It was Bush's fault. Al Queda blames Bush for 9/11 because of his foreign policy. The Democrats blame Bush for national disasters, wars, sickness, and all things that effect the economy. You do a nice dance step but your reasoning is off. We don't expect you to have any faith in the America economy or the American spirit.

This is the kind of macho mentality that is making our streets unsafe That is what you say. Big manufacturing leaders like you just can't disconnect the fact that our country is not in war with Iraq but with Al Queda who did bomb the WTC and who do make our streets unsafe. Al Quesda, with support from ideas like you have, have spread and grown to other parts of the world besides Afghanistan. Leave them alone you say. Well, you say that now. But when they blow your plant to hell, you'll beg Bush to protect you. You ask about honor. Where in hell is your honor?

Your last statement is pathetic. You say the last thing you want is not power. The thing you want is to keep our troops from dying. Then stop giving aid and comfort to the enemy. No matter how you cover it up, you just want to take your country back. Well join yourself with a candidate in another country because none of them in this country is going to admit they will surrender to Al Queada.

When the citizens of this country realize that the Liberals are willing to sacrifice our troops to hurt Bush, they'll throw them out. That's what happened in 2004. That could happen in 2008. Think on these things and you might figure out how the GOP keeps winning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

I wish to apologize to all the people here for EVER using the phrase "dancing in the streets" in a previous post. wmrs2 has taken that phrase and used it ad nauseum in his diatribes against independent thought.

Sir_Russell, you once suggested that I might be a "dittohead." Well, I give you wmrs2: a died-in-the-wool dittohead if ever there was one.

You'll have to pardon me, now. Gas prices have just gone up at the local station. I need to go dance in the streets to celebrate.

---

Thorne the truth is that you show no evidence of an independent thought whatsoever. What do you call all this ranting about Bush and Chaney? The Democrats and apparently you too, were so shocked in 2000 and 2004 that the American public rejected your type of dittohead Liberal thinking, that the diatribes have never ended. The ideas you present are not examples of independent thinking. Iknow your going to hate this. Your are still dancing in the streets just like your friends who are killing our solders.:icon176:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmrs2

Thorne the truth is that you show no evidence of an independent thought whatsoever. What do you call all this ranting about Bush and Chaney? The Democrats and apparently you too, were so shocked in 2000 and 2004 that the American public rejected your type of dittohead Liberal thinking, that the diatribes have never ended. The ideas you present are not examples of independent thinking. Iknow your going to hate this. Your are still dancing in the streets just like your friends who are killing our solders.:icon176:

---

President Bush is, he is one who sent our men and women to Iraq and if Bush didn't who did?? Dick Cheney?? no. no The Repbilcan Run Congress allowed the initial funding at the time they controled congress and gave Bush a Rubber Stamo for what ever he want,that's right

I am not dancing the Streets over the War, but I will be in Novmember when the Republicans loose control of the White House

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmrs2

Thorne the truth is that you show no evidence of an independent thought whatsoever. What do you call all this ranting about Bush and Chaney? The Democrats and apparently you too, were so shocked in 2000 and 2004 that the American public rejected your type of dittohead Liberal thinking, that the diatribes have never ended. The ideas you present are not examples of independent thinking. Iknow your going to hate this. Your are still dancing in the streets just like your friends who are killing our solders.

---

Not surprisingly you can't seem to come up with any valid arguments to refute my statements. You therefore resort to name calling. I refuse to fall into this trap and lower myself to your standards.

When you can come up with a reasoned argument which counters mine, let me know. Calling me, and others here, terrorists is not a reasoned argument. It's merely a desperate ploy to justify your own beliefs.

And for the record, I never claimed to be a manufacturing or business leader. I merely stated that the company I work for is near the bottom of the economic ladder. We make parts which are combined with other parts to make components, which are then joined with other components to make, eventually, equipment or consumer products. As are most people here, I suspect, I am a simple employee, working a full time job to make a living. I don't own or manage the business. I'm just a "grunt".

And for most of my life I've been middle of the road, I suppose, in a political sense. There are some conservative values which I admire and some liberal values which I admire. But when I see wrongdoing I don't care which side of the fence it's on: it's still wrong!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mkemse

President Bush is, he is one who sent our men and women to Iraq and if Bush didn't who did?? Dick Cheney?? no. no The Repbilcan Run Congress allowed the initial funding at the time they controled congress and gave Bush a Rubber Stamo for what ever he want,that's right

I am not dancing the Streets over the War, but I will be in Novmember when the Republicans loose control of the White House

---

You keep proving my point. You keep wanting control. Of course Bush sent the troops to Iraq. When the war began it was a bipartisan thing. As with all wars mistakes are made and things go wrong no matter who is President. Almost every Democrat voted for the war because they wanted the country to think they were interested in protecting the USA. However, when it looked like it was going to be more difficult than hoped, the Democrats who saw an opportunity to blame the war on Bush decided to show their true colors and loyalty. Their loyalty was not to the country but rather to the Liberals dancing in the street. Thankfully most Democrats are loyal Americans first and Party members second. That's why the Democrats voted Bush in for a second term in 2004. How does it feel to be rejected by your own party?

Republicans know they must have the silent majority Democrats to win a presidential election. This same silent majority voted in the Blue Dog Democrats in 2006. These Blue Dog Democrats will not be supporting the liberal left of your party. Everybody reports the following fact, both the liberal and conservative media. The presidential candidates in the Democrat Party must run to the crazy left to win the nomination of the Democrat Party. Yet, when the election begins, the Democrat nominee must run from the middle of the road. He can't do this unless he compromises his liberal principles. He must choose. Does he betray the trust the liberals placed in him or lose the election. If he/she betrays the liberal cause to win the middle of the road vote, that's alright because he/she is used to betrayal and besides the main goal of the Democrats like you is to take your country back.

Speaking of getting back to the center of the road at any cost, the Democrats have tried this in the last two presidential elections. But by the time you finish insulting the voters in the middle of the road with your wild accusations and threats, you have all the right wing Republicans fired up and the middle of the road Democrats questioning your character. :wave:

What are you going to do when the Democrats take back their country? Win an argument on the internet? Are you going to turn the country over to the Muslim Nation? Are you going to dance in the street until everybody sees how smart you are?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmrs2

You keep proving my point. You keep wanting control. Of course Bush sent the troops to Iraq. When the war began it was a bipartisan thing. As with all wars mistakes are made and things go wrong no matter who is President. Almost every Democrat voted for the war because they wanted the country to think they were interested in protecting the USA. However, when it looked like it was going to be more difficult than hoped, the Democrats who saw an opportunity to blame the war on Bush decided to show their true colors and loyalty. Their loyalty was not to the country but rather to the Liberals dancing in the street. Thankfully most Democrats are loyal Americans first and Party members second. That's why the Democrats voted Bush in for a second term in 2004. How does it feel to be rejected by your own party?

Republicans know they must have the silent majority Democrats to win a presidential election. This same silent majority voted in the Blue Dog Democrats in 2006. These Blue Dog Democrats will not be supporting the liberal left of your party. Everybody reports the following fact, both the liberal and conservative media. The presidential candidates in the Democrat Party must run to the crazy left to win the nomination of the Democrat Party. Yet, when the election begins, the Democrat nominee must run from the middle of the road. He can't do this unless he compromises his liberal principles. He must choose. Does he betray the trust the liberals placed in him or lose the election. If he/she betrays the liberal cause to win the middle of the road vote, that's alright because he/she is used to betrayal and besides the main goal of the Democrats like you is to take your country back.

Speaking of getting back to the center of the road at any cost, the Democrats have tried this in the last two presidential elections. But by the time you finish insulting the voters in the middle of the road with your wild accusations and threats, you have all the right wing Republicans fired up and the middle of the road Democrats questioning your character. :wave:

What are you going to do when the Democrats take back their country? Win an argument on the internet? Are you going to turn the country over to the Muslim Nation? Are you going to dance in the street until everybody sees how smart you are?

---

Outisde of Hilary clinton please educate nme as to all the Democrats that supoorted the War to start with

I will wager a large chunck of chnge the John McCain loses badly in Novembmer, we have a very unpopular war going on, we have a 3.1 TRILLION dollar deficet which is Bush's doing, Clinton left office with a $157 milion dollar surplus look up the fact yourself on this, our ecomony is a mess, we pay $3.50 a galon for gas because Bush is to beholden to the Oil Companies to do anything and when he ordered or asked for the stimulus package recently passed he wanted to include those who earn over $150,000 as a single person, he initaly did not want to offer any relief to people who are retired or disabled can not work and liv e on fixed income and the only reason they are getting it now is because THE DEMOCRATS INSISTED that those who are retired or unable to work do to being disabled, who need it more then anyone, living on a fixed income in this ecomony is almost impossible, trust me i know
Ifthe economy remain as it is now, if the War wages on, if Gas goes to $3.50-$4.00 a gallon this summer the Republicans will have a very hard time holding on to anything much less the White House, and John McCain can't even convience Christian Conservatives he is conservative enough for them:wave:

Yes control is the issue Control the governemnt and give it back to the people and not large corporations as it is now, interestingly enough the largest US Company with a Presence in Iraq is Haliburton, which just happens to be who Dick Chenney was CEO of before he took office and he still has ties to them
Control of the goernemnt by the peole is what we need not control of the governemnt by big business,it is a know fact and has been for years that Repubilcans are the Party of Big Business Mobil EXon in the last quarter of 2007post a PROFIT of $49.5 BILLION dollars the largest profit in a quaeter of of any S Businessin US History, the emocrats wanted to hit them with a Windfall profit tax, but no, Bush said he would veto it even some Republicans suportedthe plan, but no Bush won't tax a US Corption who in a 3 moth period profits $49 billoin dollars, but he will TRY and unsuccessfully i may add to deny seniors and disbaled peole the right to a $300 1 time rebate as not cost effective, to costly for the goernemnt no money for semiors or the diablled not tax on a $49 billoin dollar profit, and he won't even do anything about $103 a barrel for oil, he could care lesss about anyonewho earns under $75,000 year
Te peole i mentiond abovd seniors, retired and disabled need the money far more then anyone making $150,000 a year, trust me i know, you try living on a fixed income and see how easy it is, 1 check per month, pays for your food, electricity, gaforyour car, insurance, medication rent, ect ect

Those that need the Tax Rebate the most were going to be denied by our Presiednt til the Democrats added it in and they had enough votes in the House and Senate to over ride a Presidentail veto had he vetoed any plan that included those who's incme being single was under $75,000 a year even some Republican sagreed that Seniors, Retiries and the Disabled were entiles the the Tax Refund, so Bush saw the light realized if he vetoed the Bill to include those groups mentioned and signed the bill they all paid int the system when the worked they are entiled to some of it back

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

Not surprisingly you can't seem to come up with any valid arguments to refute my statements. You therefore resort to name calling. I refuse to fall into this trap and lower myself to your standards.

When you can come up with a reasoned argument which counters mine, let me know. Calling me, and others here, terrorists is not a reasoned argument. It's merely a desperate ploy to justify your own beliefs.

And for the record, I never claimed to be a manufacturing or business leader. I merely stated that the company I work for is near the bottom of the economic ladder. We make parts which are combined with other parts to make components, which are then joined with other components to make, eventually, equipment or consumer products. As are most people here, I suspect, I am a simple employee, working a full time job to make a living. I t.
don't own or manage the business. I'm just a "grunt".

And for most of my life I've been middle of the road, I suppose, in a political sense. There are some conservative values which I admire and some liberal values which I admire. But when I see wrongdoing I don't care which side of the fence it's on: it's still wrong!

---

So you are a grunt are you? You sure sounded like a big shot while insulting the President and Vice President with the inference that they were corrupt. While you strip away the dignity of our President with your slurs and contempt, we are suppose to treat you with kindness and respect. I refuted each of your arguments without calling you any names. It was you who referred to me as using moncho logic and being a ditto-head. Of course when you resort to such ploys that's not gutter talk. If any name calling has been started here, you started it. If any refuting of your rationality stated here and made you feel like a terrorist, you initiated it.

Do you think any of the parents and loved ones of our dead soldiers feel they have experienced further ranting from a terrorist when they are told that their child died for a worthless cause? The majority of grieving parents respect the President and the cause for which their children died. They don't want to hear your ranting from the gutter and it is not the American spirit that adds to their grief. I did not call you a terrorist but if the shoe........

You can present arguments against Bush without name calling and you can be polite in a debate. I have not seen too much of that among and your comrades who hate Bush. I have been called a shit-head, told to get may head out of my ass, and now you. Your are just a little better at covering up you nasty language and bitter attitude than some of the others but when you are challenged a little bit, you show your ranker with your superior intellectual facade. :30:

Gentlemen, please calm down. I share your pain. From reading over the threads in this section on politics, it appears that very few participants have stepped forward to challenge your comfortable position at bashing President Bush. You must consider this, that each time you slander the President, you stand the risk of insulting the citizens who have voted for him.

What do you expect from the other side? You obviously don't understand the world situation the same way most Americans do or you would be winning elections more often. If it is of any comfort to you, the Democrats are due to win this coming year the presidency and both houses of Congress. If you continue with this attitude that you are going to take the country back, your stay in power will not be long. You best start working for national unity. That is what the citizens want out of both political parties.

If you don't get off Bush's back, you only stand to damage yourselves. Bush is gone. He can't hurt you any more. The Democrat Party is calling for change with candidates who say they can do better. The majority of Americans view the Democrats as having done nothing for the last two terms of Bush. Remember this, the majority of the voting public disagree with the Democrats. If you keep making them angry, you might blow the 2008 election like you did the 2004 election. The Republicans know this, which is the reason they have remained quite and non-critical.

You have well stated what you want to do for the country and how you will solve inflation, how you will end the war, how you'll usher in universal health care, and how the sky will open up and all will be perfect in the world. It makes me want to vote for the Democrats, which I may do.

I hope you appreciate sharing the opposite point of view to the majority point of view of those who participate in our spirited discussions. I consider you all as friends and brothers/sisters. I want to share with all of your efforts to make things better for you. I am still going to express my point of view. You need it just like I need your point of view. This should make us better citizens and eventually,more participants who share my point of view, will begin to participate more.

If you call them names when they present the opposite point of view, new participants will just stay away and avoid conflict. Whereas name calling does not work with some of us, others just will simply avoid the entire forum. We can take the moral high ground and a just ethical standard if we try. I suggest we start with the President of the USA and work from there.

Not that President Bush is a saint or a perfect man, but he is our President. My third grade teacher said we should respect our leaders even when disagreeing with them. Was she wrong? I will do my best to show respect to the next President when he/she takes his or her country back. (I just could not resist that!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonraker

ThisYouWillDo

Totally agree its off topic, thats why I said so in my post and kept my post brief. It was just the "first to jump in" comment seemed to me not quite true. Regarding aid, I don't know the stats but I think if you go per capita and by GNP the stats may change a little from simply more than any other nation.

Whatever.

---

Good point Moonraker - To expand on that - is Bill Gates (strings attached $1M donation) costing him as much as the granny who buys $20 worth of home baking at a school fete to help the library. In terms of buying power yes - in terms of cost to the benefactor - no - it's actually less out of Gates' pocket than granny's $20...

but that's off topic too.

On topic however, I've seen how American aid is sometimes distributed in the developing world - and it's not always a pretty site. The bureaucrats don't seem to bother finding out if they are trampling local custom or not - or otherwise offending. I watched an entire shipment of grain - which was needed - get dumped by a couple of marines. I don't even know why the marines were distributing the stuff - but they were - they threw the sack of grain off the truck onto the ground - and ruptured every last one of them - the grain was everywhere - of course people picked it up - they were hungry - but it wasn't shared fairly - the strongest got all of it - the weakest picked it up for them in hopes of getting some - and the marines thought it was all a huge joke.

That made me angry, and I didn't need the grain or feel beholden to the US for what it was doing in terms of aid - but there were a lot of angry mutters from the crowd about it - and rather than making friends, the US lost friends in that littlke exercise - and that was just one istance.

In another the US pumped $4Billion into a water distribution scheme - to help the farmers in an area that desperately needed some help. Unfortunately the irrigation system was gravity fed and took water from a dry area already and delivered it to a lake. So the farmers who needed an irrigation system lost some of the little water they had - and a thriving fresh water fishing industry was destroyed because the water that was dumped into the lake was heavy in minerals - and killed the trout - so the fishermen lost their livelihood as well. The signs everywhere - with big American flags made it plain who was responsible - and lost the US a lot of friends - though there must have been serious corruption in the project because the locals got together, closed off the useless system after the engineers had gone home and dug their own system using what had been built - but with modifications - to send the water where it was needed. An engineer friend not associated with the project estimated the project should have cost no more than $4million maximum - and never should have taken 6 years.

Just two instances from personal experience which indicate how even with good intentions, the American Foreign Office can screw up even good intentions.

I also witnessed a Russian food distribution program - it was handled much better - everyone got some of the food, and the people doing the distribution - while Russian spoke the local language and were friendly and courteous.

The difference in attitude was stunning - and until the US Government learns to send people who know what they're doing - I have a feeling a lot of the US aid programs will explode in the faces of the American people. My own government is pretty stupid when it comes to foreign aid as well - we tend to take a more US approach - and that sucks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IDCrewDawg

Ok, so I would like to have a little debate about the right to offend.

The following link goes to a rather offensive (not illegal) photo of bin laden, and what would be a mock representation of our flag. I know it's offensive, cause I was offended.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2095/...6a052c82_b.jpg

However, I recently had a debate on MDS about the San Fransisco last supper advertisement that was done, and someone told me that it was in bad taste, and shouldn't have been done. My response was, well if you feel that way about that representation of the last supper, then you understand about the Muhammad drawing with a bomb for a turban.

I am curious to know what the folks here think of each situation?

---

Offensive art is so last century. Pop-art is dead. It's a really cheap way for an artist to get attention. What was the artist trying to say with that Bin Laden painting? I didn't find it offensive in the least. All I saw was a pop-art collection of strong symbols, (including porn) thrown together. My only thought was "meh, why?" Warhol did it better.

The Mohammed pictures where from an article series on what people find offensive today. The week before they had offensive pictures of Jesus. It's the same there. Why? They sucked. They weren't controversial, they weren't clever, they weren't funny and they weren't pretty. The fact that they stirred up a controversy in the Middle East I'd say is proof that they've had a really slow season for Jihads. There's a victim culture just looking for things to take offence at. But that doesn't mean we should give a rats ass. If they get offended by shit like this, that's purely their problem they'll have to deal with. Fucking backward culture.

The gay one I thought was funny. I thought they where using the symbology of the original painting to their benefit, to make a stronger photo. Anybody taking offence at that, really needs to get a life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmrs2

So you are a grunt are you? You sure sounded like a big shot while insulting the President and Vice President with the inference that they were corrupt. While you strip away the dignity of our President with your slurs and contempt, we are suppose to treat you with kindness and respect. I refuted each of your arguments without calling you any names. It was you who referred to me as using moncho logic and being a ditto-head. Of course when you resort to such ploys that's not gutter talk. If any name calling has been started here, you started it. If any refuting of your rationality stated here and made you feel like a terrorist, you initiated it.

---

I happen to be a well-educated grunt, about as far from a big shot as I can get, and happy to stay there. And I did not state or infer that either the President or Vice President were corrupt, merely that they are historically connected with Haliburton and the oil industry, something which is well known and documented and which they will tell you is true. As required by law they have distanced themselves from any active role in those industries, and in fact are not permitted to even control their investments directly. They do still have emotional ties, as well as financial ties, to those industries, all above board and legal. Those ties do, however tend to influence their decisions, naturally. There's nothing wrong with that. As you pointed out, they join a long list of our political leaders who have done the same thing or worse. But when they put the well being of those industries above the lives of American soldiers, then there is a serious problem.

As for stripping away the dignity of the President and Vice President, I doubt very much that there is anything I can say here which could do that. It seems to me that they have been quite adept at doing that for themselves.

Quote:

---

Do you think any of the parents and loved ones of our dead soldiers feel they have experienced further ranting from a terrorist when they are told that their child died for a worthless cause? The majority of grieving parents respect the President and the cause for which their children died. They don't want to hear your ranting from the gutter and it is not the American spirit that adds to their grief. I did not call you a terrorist but if the shoe........

---

Unless you have lost a child in this war, or any other war, do not presume to tell me how those parents feel! I have not lost anyone close to me, for which I am grateful. I cannot fathom the grief and anguish these parents are having to endure. I try to respect that grief by not denigrating what their children have done. Those soldiers were doing what they were trained to do, following their officers into combat and putting their lives on the line for a cause which they hopefully felt was just. I could never characterize their sacrifice as "worthless."

Quote:

---

I have been called a shit-head, told to get may head out of my ass, and now you. Your are just a little better at covering up you nasty language and bitter attitude than some of the others but when you are challenged a little bit, you show your ranker with your superior intellectual facade.

---

Other than characterizing you as a "dittohead" I have never called you any names, nor have I intentionally implied that you are anything other than a concerned citizen stating his views. It is my understanding that those followers of a certain radio personality who enjoy parroting his highly conservative rhetoric are proud to call themselves "dittoheads." True, I did use the term sarcastically, I admit. But after being compared to terrorist supporters and accused of celebrating the deaths of soldiers I think I was quite restrained.

This thread is a perfect example of why I hate political arguments. I doubt very much that there is any evidence you can present which would convince me that our leaders have placed the best interests of the American people first, ahead of those businesses and even foreign countries which have supported them. And by "leaders" I mean both Republicans and Democrats, from the executive and legislative branches, and yes, even from the judicial branch. I believe that the best thing that could happen to this country would be for all of the incumbents to be voted out of office and be replaced by people who are willing but reluctant to serve, who will put the interests of the American people and the country ahead of their own and ahead of the interests of those who have financed their rise to power.

A nice fantasy, is it not?

And here's me thinking that I'm the pompous arse on these threads!

It seems to me the USA went to war on a lie put forward by its leaders, just like the UK did. We rewarded our deceitful rulers by giving them a further term in office. But if it's admitted that this was true, wouldn't Bush and Blair have to face the War Crimes Tribunal?

Having said that, and thereby denying the validity of the war, I would assert my support for our soldiers because I would rather they returned home safe and sound than feet first in a wooden overcoat. Mind you, I suppose I support the "enemy" too, because I would rather they were not killed. The only way I can reconcile this is by letting myself believe that they are homicidal fanatics who represent a real threat to our safety - that is, by accepting the lies I am fed by my democratically elected leaders. Or, at least, by not thinking about it too much.

Bush called himself a "War President". Let's look at that. He "conquered" Iraq.

Here's what Wikipedia says (not the best source, I know, but do you expect me to research this peoperly? No-one else seems to have.):

Since an invasion in 2003, a multinational coalition of forces, mainly American and British, has occupied Iraq. The invasion has had wide-reaching consequences: increased civil violence, political breakdown, the removal and execution of former authoritarian President Saddam Hussein, and national problems in the development of political balance, economy, infrastructure, and use of the country's huge reserves of oil. According to the 2007 Failed States Index, produced by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace's Foreign Policy magazine and the Fund for Peace, Iraq has recently emerged as the world's second most unstable country, after Sudan. Under the control of the U.S. military, Iraq is developing a parliamentary democracy composed of 18 governorates (known as muhafadhat).

As for us giving Iraq democracy, Ha! The moment US forces leave Bagdad, democracy will fall. I don't believe the Middle Eastern nations will be ready for that kind of government for a very long time to come. So telling them they will have democracy now whether they want it or not is futile.

Besides, isn't democracy simply giving power to the person who is able to pay most to get it? As I look over the Atlantic now and see the profligate squandering by political showmen/women I surely get that impression. Still, it's their money - or the money of the vested interests that support them - and they are free to waste it if they want, I suppose. Seems to me that the person with the most guns behind him is the man to back in places like Bagdad.

There. That should have pi55ed somebody off! I have the right to offend, don't I?

TYWD

I am an American military member.... yep. I am dancing in the streets with the 'natives' (who the fuck is that anyway?) I will continue to defend your right to remain ignorant.

I can clearly see that you wmrs2 will not see clarity when it is provided, and will not waste my time nor intellect on you any further.

MODS: Please close the thread, as it is no longer a structured debate.

I don't think it's the policy of this site to close threads unless they get really out of hand. Otherwise, they let people have their say for as long as they want. It will die of its own accord when people lose interest.

... but I'm no moderator and I could be wrong ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IDCrewDawg

Ok, so I would like to have a little debate about the right to offend.

The following link goes to a rather offensive (not illegal) photo of bin laden, and what would be a mock representation of our flag. I know it's offensive, cause I was offended.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2095/...6a052c82_b.jpg

However, I recently had a debate on MDS about the San Fransisco last supper advertisement that was done, and someone told me that it was in bad taste, and shouldn't have been done. My response was, well if you feel that way about that representation of the last supper, then you understand about the Muhammad drawing with a bomb for a turban.

I am curious to know what the folks here think of each situation?

---

Not knowing where the phot originated, in the United States or a Foreighn Country it is hard to pass judgement,
If it was overseas, it represents what other and how other view the United States, if it is in fact in a house or residence in the United States, as tastelsss as it is, to me anyway, it si still covered by our Constitution of Freedom Of Expression, even the United States suprmem Court rules that Burning the American Flag, as utterly tasteless and insane as that action is is Legal and is covered by the United States Contiution as far as freedom of expression goesI deplore anyone who bruns or other wise dystroys, mutilates ect our Nation Flag, of Unity, Peace as such, but unfortuently when you live in as Freee A Society as we do, where out side of a few thingssaid that are NOT covered under freedom of speach, we have to endure them as our society allows it, it is not a question or being offensive which it is, or tastelss which it is, but it is also an Example of Freedom Of Expression which few if any other Nation on this plant offer their citizens.
I fully respect any and all Service Men/Women who serviced our Country and Defended our Freedom, but Defening our Freedom also includes the right to display tasteless flag as the photo shows, freedom of Expression
So the Defense of the United States does keep us free, but it also allows us the Freedom to openly display images of desention as that photo is, which is legal in this country, it is called Freedom Of Expression Parts of the Freedoms our Military Fights to insure we maintain

I fully believe that this thread should REMAIN open, as some do not care for it, it is still freedom of expression and altho many posts may not agree with what i have said, they still have the right to express their views whether I agree with them or not, closing this thread out, would violate my Freedom to express my views just like it does others, and those who prefer not to add anything more to this thread, have the opion to simply not post any more replies, but why close it out, there is nothing offensive to it, no flaming, no threats just various view points which some agree with and others don't

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IDCrewDawg

I am an American military member.... yep. I am dancing in the streets with the 'natives' (who the fuck is that anyway?) I will continue to defend your right to remain ignorant.

I can clearly see that you wmrs2 will not see clarity when it is provided, and will not waste my time nor intellect on you any further.

MODS: Please close the thread, as it is no longer a structured debate.

---

You have a short memory. A few days ago Thorne used a simple rhetorical trick on you by correcting your spelling and grammar. It hurt your feelings and you shot back with a personal reply which was as good as he gave. Thorne's goal was not to make you appear uneducated and him superior; he wanted to throw you off balance so he could win the debate. When we get that personal, feelings get hurt. After that exchange I thought you both would have learned something about gentleman behavior.

The next day or so, I read on one of your responses telling a person to get their head out of their ass and that what they were saying was shit. Now you come back with that person being ignorant and because you don't get what you want, you want to close the thread.

Recently Thorne tried one of his rhetorical stunts with me. He was very pompous attempting to make me look like a name caller when in fact it was who resorted to that tactic. He could not win the debate with his logic, so he made an attempt to make me appear as unreasonable somewhat the way you do here with the remark that I have the right to remain ignorant. You should learn that everybody is not going to agree with you and you should not pick up your toys and go home. Or, maybe you should, if you can't play right.

Perhaps we should get back on topic....

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2158/...0e59cfbd_b.jpg

The right to offend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo

And here's me thinking that I'm the pompous arse on these threads!

---

Must be nice to know you're not alone. :)

(Now don't everyone get all disturbed by this! I'm only agreeing with the man! Sheesh, can't anyone take a joke anymore?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

Must be nice to know you're not alone. :)

(Now don't everyone get all disturbed by this! I'm only agreeing with the man! Sheesh, can't anyone take a joke anymore?)

---

Gosh! It is only a game. But, it is fun to play with friends.

Let's get on target with this thread, I agree.

Can I ask a question that might need to be answered? I think we mostly agree that we have the right to hurt another's feelings. But, what I ask is whether it is smart, intelligent, wise (all that cognitive stuff) to exercise your right? Can you think of instances where being right and saying so is harmful. In my younger days, there were many times that I cut my nose off to spite my face. Sometime I still fall into that trap.

One example, it has been mention here about how Islam responds to criticism. Burning houses and killing people is rather an extreme response. Personally you may think Islam is a dumb religion. You have a right to say so but is it smart to say so?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmrs2

Gosh! It is only a game. But, it is fun to play with friends.

Let's get on target with this thread, I agree.

Can I ask a question that might need to be answered? I think we mostly agree that we have the right to hurt another's feelings. But, what I ask is whether it is smart, intelligent, wise (all that cognitive stuff) to exercise your right? Can you think of instances where being right and saying so is harmful. In my younger days, there were many times that I cut my nose off to spite my face. Sometime I still fall into that trap.

One example, it has been mention here about how Islam responds to criticism. Burning houses and killing people is rather an extreme response. Personally you may think Islam is a dumb religion. You have a right to say so but is it smart to say so?

---

I have heard many Islamic Clerics in the United State say that the Koran specificly states in it, that The Islamic Faith does NOT condone any type of violence such as killing, bombings ect, and that those who commit those crime, mainly the terrorists in the name of Islam have their own "Distorted" interpretation the Koran and that most Islamics world wide do not support or believe in what the terrorists do si in thiscase it is the few again the many and the Terrosits are making it apear that ALL Muslins andone of the Islamic Faith supports what the Terrorist do
Also as ironic as this is Osama Bin Ladin acutaly worked for and was paid by the United States in the 1980's during battles again Russia, my how times have changed

Made in the USA

In April 1978, the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) seized power in Afghanistan in reaction to a crackdown against the party by that country's repressive government.

The PDPA was committed to a radical land reform that favoured the peasants, trade union rights, an expansion of education and social services, equality for women and the separation of church and state. The PDPA also supported strengthening Afghanistan's relationship with the Soviet Union.

Such policies enraged the wealthy semi-feudal landlords, the Muslim religious establishment (many mullahs were also big landlords) and the tribal chiefs. They immediately began organizing resistance to the government's progressive policies, under the guise of defending Islam.

Washington, fearing the spread of Soviet influence (and worse the new government's radical example) to its allies in Pakistan, Iran and the Gulf states, immediately offered support to the Afghan mujaheddin, as the “contra” force was known.

Following an internal PDPA power struggle in December 1979 which toppled Afghanistan's leader, thousands of Soviet troops entered the country to prevent the new government's fall. This only galvanized the disparate fundamentalist factions. Their reactionary jihad now gained legitimacy as a “national liberation” struggle in the eyes of many Afghans.

The Soviet Union was eventually to withdraw from Afghanistan in 1989 and the mujaheddin captured the capital, Kabul, in 1992.

Between 1978 and 1992, the US government poured at least US$6 billion (some estimates range as high as $20 billion) worth of arms, training and funds to prop up the mujaheddin factions. Other Western governments, as well as oil-rich Saudi Arabia, kicked in as much again. Wealthy Arab fanatics, like Osama bin Laden, provided millions more.





According to Ahmed Rashid, a correspondent for the Far Eastern Economic Review, in 1986 CIA chief William Casey committed CIA support to a long-standing ISI proposal to recruit from around the world to join the Afghan jihad. At least 100,000 Islamic militants flocked to Pakistan between 1982 and 1992 (some 60,000 attended fundamentalist schools in Pakistan without necessarily taking part in the fighting).

John Cooley, a former journalist with the US ABC television network and author of Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism, has revealed that Muslims recruited in the US for the mujaheddin were sent to Camp Peary, the CIA's spy training camp in Virginia, where young Afghans, Arabs from Egypt and Jordan, and even some African-American “black Muslims” were taught “sabotage skills”.

Bin Ladin was one of those recuit by the US governemnt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmrs2

Gosh! It is only a game. But, it is fun to play with friends.

Let's get on target with this thread, I agree.

Can I ask a question that might need to be answered? I think we mostly agree that we have the right to hurt another's feelings. But, what I ask is whether it is smart, intelligent, wise (all that cognitive stuff) to exercise your right? Can you think of instances where being right and saying so is harmful. In my younger days, there were many times that I cut my nose off to spite my face. Sometime I still fall into that trap.

One example, it has been mention here about how Islam responds to criticism. Burning houses and killing people is rather an extreme response. Personally you may think Islam is a dumb religion. You have a right to say so but is it smart to say so?

---

I have heard many Islamic Clerics in the United State say that the Koran specificly states in it, that The Islamic Faith does NOT condone any type of violence such as killing, bombings ect, and that those who commit those crime, mainly the terrorists in the name of Islam have their own "Distorted" interpretation the Koran and that most Islamics world wide do not support or believe in what the terrorists do si in thiscase it is the few again the many and the Terrosits are making it apear that ALL Muslins andone of the Islamic Faith supports what the Terrorist do
Also as ironic as this is Osama Bin Ladin acutaly worked for and was paid by the United States in the 1980's during battles again Russia, my how times have changed

Made in the USA

In April 1978, the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) seized power in Afghanistan in reaction to a crackdown against the party by that country's repressive government.

The PDPA was committed to a radical land reform that favoured the peasants, trade union rights, an expansion of education and social services, equality for women and the separation of church and state. The PDPA also supported strengthening Afghanistan's relationship with the Soviet Union.

Such policies enraged the wealthy semi-feudal landlords, the Muslim religious establishment (many mullahs were also big landlords) and the tribal chiefs. They immediately began organizing resistance to the government's progressive policies, under the guise of defending Islam.

Washington, fearing the spread of Soviet influence (and worse the new government's radical example) to its allies in Pakistan, Iran and the Gulf states, immediately offered support to the Afghan mujaheddin, as the “contra” force was known.

Following an internal PDPA power struggle in December 1979 which toppled Afghanistan's leader, thousands of Soviet troops entered the country to prevent the new government's fall. This only galvanized the disparate fundamentalist factions. Their reactionary jihad now gained legitimacy as a “national liberation” struggle in the eyes of many Afghans.

The Soviet Union was eventually to withdraw from Afghanistan in 1989 and the mujaheddin captured the capital, Kabul, in 1992.

Between 1978 and 1992, the US government poured at least US$6 billion (some estimates range as high as $20 billion) worth of arms, training and funds to prop up the mujaheddin factions. Other Western governments, as well as oil-rich Saudi Arabia, kicked in as much again. Wealthy Arab fanatics, like Osama bin Laden, provided millions more.

Simply Put OUR CIA created Bin Ladin and paid ihm





According to Ahmed Rashid, a correspondent for the Far Eastern Economic Review, in 1986 CIA chief William Casey committed CIA support to a long-standing ISI proposal to recruit from around the world to join the Afghan jihad. At least 100,000 Islamic militants flocked to Pakistan between 1982 and 1992 (some 60,000 attended fundamentalist schools in Pakistan without necessarily taking part in the fighting).

John Cooley, a former journalist with the US ABC television network and author of Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism, has revealed that Muslims recruited in the US for the mujaheddin were sent to Camp Peary, the CIA's spy training camp in Virginia, where young Afghans, Arabs from Egypt and Jordan, and even some African-American “black Muslims” were taught “sabotage skills”.

Bin Ladin was one of those recuit by the US governemnt

This was good information. I enjoyed reading it. You apparently did some research and some reading. Do you have any suggestions how we can put it to use in someway to increase our understanding in world politics? Did you have any specific purpose in doing this research that you would share with us? Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmrs2

This was good information. I enjoyed reading it. You apparently did some research and some reading. Do you have any suggestions how we can put it to use in someway to increase our understanding in world politics? Did you have any specific purpose in doing this research that you would share with us? Thank you.

---

I do the reasearch to learn, to verify things i heard to make sure they are correct, rshter thn assuming they are, when i first heard this about Bin Ladin, i did not believe it , but history speaks for itsefl,
i thing 1 thing EVERY needs to understand is that these Militants to NOT represent Islam as a faith, any more the say the KKK represents White Pepole of the South, people have i am sure distorted intepretations of the Bible, The Torah, and otherreligious Holy Books and it is imprtant to know that thse are fringe elements of these relgions
I know white peole not klan members that Hate Jews simply becausethey are Jewsih, or Hate Cathlic because the Church has idiology they do not believei n, i have afriend who was goingto be a Priest, instead he chooose another field years ago, he and his wife go to church on a regularbasis, observe lent, go to midnight mass on CHristmas EVe, but they also nboth believe that there is nothing wrong with Gay Marriages, or Abortions, so someonecan be relgious andstill havetheir own belifs
I even asked my friend one day, you have no issue with gay marriage, or aborotion how does that comflict with your religiousbeliefs and they told me nobody can dictate to them what to think, believe or say and that Jesus she said acceptsthem becausethey beieve in her and her husband and adult kids
it is avery tough situation, i only hopethat as peole look at the whole world and see these acts of terrosism for axample that they realise, that for every 5 Terrorists they are 10 Islamics who do not condone these acts, the world never seems both side of religion they assume that al Islamicsare terrorists because of what the Bin LAdens of the world do i believe it is called steroetypin,g we as humanity need to spend more time learning about other an less time condming everyone
I also mentiondi nanotherthread, one pseron said the thread was going nowhere he wasdonewithi t and the Modsneed to closei t out
I told him, ok, you are a Miltary man, you are ot where in the srtvice you fought for our freedom., but parto f that freedom is freedom of expression and rather then closing ou the thread if you do not likewhat poele posted simply do notreply, but dso not deprive everyone else here ofthe Freedom to reply, amazingly enough an hour later hereplied "Yea, maybe we should keep this thread open"
if you do not like what someonedoes ignore it if you ake offense to something that was said let the personknow, you cn do so without insultingthem, flamingthem ect fihtingfor FReedom as our Service Men and Women do, means more then just Freedom, it means our guarantee of expressing ourselvesand not worrying about going to jail, or bein black listed freedom or speach and expression ECEPT FOR THE 2 thing NOT ocvered by the constitution are all part of the freedomswe enjoy, that is FREEDOMS noyt singlat but plural
I do not support the war in Iraq, but does that make me less of an American the my neighbors, NO it simply alows me to express my feeling, i support the troops just not the war itself, butt hat does not make me any less patriotic or loving my country less then someone who supports both the war and our troops, Freedom of Speach Expreson arewonderful, we may very well be the only nation on earth that outside of 2 things you can NOT shout in public, i am free to do as i wish and say as i wish without fear of arrest and jail if you wantto knowwhat those 2 things are that are not guranteeed under our constitution pm me and i will tell you, i preffer not to post in a public forum andfor some to takewhat i say out of context no matterhow basic thses 2 things are, but trsut me there are 2 specific things that freedon of expression and speach do not cover and thanks fpr your kind remarks about my posts:wave: