Nobel Peace Prize for Bush & Blair

[patriot]

Bush and Blair have just been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. They will be in good company with the likes of Jimmy Carter, Nelson Mandela and Kofi Annan.

[MasterKiller]

*cough*

*cough*

Bullshlt

[Chang Style Novice]

When Henry Kissinger got one, George Orwell just nodded knowingly, and the rest of us came to realize there is truly nothing sacred.

[PHILBERT]

Nominated. Not recieved.

[ZIM]

Wow. Oil money sure goes a long way, doesn't it?

[MasterKiller]

I can't find any info on this. Where is your source?

[Black Jack]

Good for Bush and good for Blair.

[patriot]

Here's the nomination news: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030508/pl_nm/iraq_nobel_dc_1

[Marky]

Chirac was nominated before the war began, too. This is turning into more of a WWE wrestling match than a believable story. Ultimately, I don't think any of them deserve it.

I know one of the men who first pioneered the use of ultraviolet light to disinfect waste water and drinking water. HE deserves a Nobel Prize... but I doubt he'll get one.

[MasterKiller]

:rolleyes:

At least they'll lose. Odds of an American winning 2 years in a row are next to 0.

[Robinf]

That is the dumbest thing I've ever read!!!!!!!!

How can you award a Peace prize to warmongers. They didn't really look for peaceful solutions. And, this war never should have been fought if W's father had finished the job when he had his war. And, we don't even know if there is going to be a better Iraq. In ten years we'll see, but it's way too early to tell.

It's premature to nominate those guys for anything.

[Black Jack]

Warmongers......:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Poor Saddam.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Robinf
How can you award a Peace prize to warmongers.

They're not talking about awarding it to warmongers, they're talking about awarding it to Blair and Bush.


They didn't really look for peaceful solutions.

Neither did the Allies in WWII. **** warmongers.


And, this war never should have been fought if W's father had finished the job when he had his war.

Wait a second. Are you in support of the war, against it, or just looking for any possible reason to *****?


And, we don't even know if there is going to be a better Iraq.

You might not, but I do. So do the Kurds and Shiites, and that's what matters.

The Iraqi Olympic team is probably pleased with the change too.

[Black Jack]

Black Jack doing the hands pushing up the air thing you see on Kings of Comedy.

Good post Chris.

[Robinf]

Old Bush began a war, but didn't finish it. He should have finished it, but fell far short. We never would have had this problem if he'd had a backbone.

Current Bush is a total idiot. He deserves a kick in the croch.

You're comparing WW II to the Iraq war? There is no comparison. Half the countries around the world these days are run by atrocious dictators. WW II was fought as Germany was invading other countries. See, this is where the Old Bush had a leg to stand on with his war. Sadam invaded another country. With this current war, Sadam hadn't invaded any other country. True, he was atrocious to the people of Iraq, but most other countries are like that. Are we supposed to go to war with all those countries?

Very often the US takes leaders out of office and puts in a regime that later turns out to be as bad as or worse than the old one. Look at the real history, not the patriotic lies in today's history books.

What we need are new ways of breaking down governments and giving the power to the people. So far, the ways we try don't work. Time for something new.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Robinf
Old Bush began a war, but didn't finish it. He should have finished it, but fell far short. We never would have had this problem if he'd had a backbone.

I agree with you completely.

This is a pretty powerfull argument in support of Bush Jr's war.


Current Bush is a total idiot. He deserves a kick in the croch.

Some kind of substantiating remark here would have made more sense than slander.


You're comparing WW II to the Iraq war?!? You're pretty stupid yourself.

Ditto.

[Robinf]

Read the post again.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Robinf
See, this is where the Old Bush had a leg to stand on with his war.

If this is your position, then Bush Jr also has a leg to stand on, as his legal justification for the war was Iraq's failure to comply with the ceasefire agreement of the Gulf War.

Again, another strong argument in favor of the war.


True, he was atrocious to the people of Iraq, but most other countries are like that. Are we supposed to go to war with all those countries?

If someone is systematically executing millions of people and the only way we can stop them is going to war, then yes, we should go to war to stop them.

Do you disagree?


Very often the US takes leaders out of office and puts in a regime that later turns out to be as bad as or worse than the old one.

Which is why I'm glad we're not handling this situation the same way.

What historical situation was handled the same way Bush Jr just handled Iraq?


So far, the ways we try don't work. Time for something new.

I agree completely.

This is another very strong argument in support of what Bush Jr is doing.

[Robinf]

And it's support against what Bush Jr. is doing. It all depends on your point of view.

Ever see the movie Wag the Dog with Robert Deniro and Dustin Hoffman?

[Christopher M]

...

Which is why I'm glad we're not handling this situation the same way.

What historical situation was handled the same way Bush Jr just handled Iraq?

What the US did previously was give power to their favorites and play people off one another to participate in war-by-proxy; particularly as an international agenda against fundamentalist religion (mostly Islam), communism in general, and the Soviet's in particular.

You're quite right; this always went sour. There's no better example than Saddam himself.

But Saddam, or at least his faction, is still "our man" against these things. In the old way of doing things, if he was intolerable, we'd assassinate him and/or support a rival and play them off one another to get what we want.

You'll note we're quite explicitly not doing that.

First, we're going in and eliminating the power structure rather than playing it off itself. Secondly, we're doing it ourselves rather than waging war-by-proxy. Thirdly, we're doing it contrary to our goals of opposing communism, fundamental religion, etc. Fourthly, we're avoiding any long-term primary interests in the area.

These are all exactly contrary to everything the US has done in the past, and they are all extremely important differences.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Robinf
And it's support against what Bush Jr. is doing. It all depends on your point of view.

Perhaps. Feel free to argue this way from your point of view.

[MasterKiller]

If someone is systematically executing millions of people and the only way we can stop them is going to war, then yes, we should go to war to stop them.

I think your numbers are a little exaggerated there. Millions? :rolleyes:

Saddam isn't Pol Pot. Oh wait. We didn't try to stop Pol Pot.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
I think your numbers are a little exaggerated there. Millions?

Yes, millions.

I'm including civilians he starved to death, but not military causalties.

[MasterKiller]

You watch too much Fox News.

[Christopher M]

I don't get Fox, sorry. I rarely watch TV news at all, but when I do it tends to be CBC. For perspective lately I've been also watching TVCinq.

[Robinf]

What makes the war better doing it ourselves? It is different, true. We'll have to wait and see if it works. Think we should invade Mexico because the economy down there is so poor and there's such rampant inequality, etc. Should we wage war on Ethiopia, on a government that starves its people?

Shouldn't we wage war on ourselves for our atrocities at home and abroad?

However, is there any other solution than war? The peaceful ways we have just don't work. We need to find new ones. That's what the Nobel Peace prize should award.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Robinf
What makes the war better doing it ourselves?

The alternative is manipulating other people into dying for us.

I'd say that's worse. Do you disagree?


Think we should invade Mexico because the economy down there is so poor and there's such rampant inequality, etc.

If the government of Mexico was commiting systematic genocide and there was no other way to stop them, yes.


Should we wage war on Ethiopia, on a government that starves its people?

If the government of Ethiopia was commiting systematic genocide and there was no other way to stop them, yes.


Shouldn't we wage war on ourselves for our atrocities at home and abroad?

If the government of USA was commiting systematic genocide and there was no other way to stop them, yes.

Notice the pattern?


However, is there any other solution than war?

In some cases, surely yes. In other cases, surely no.


The peaceful ways we have just don't work.

If "the peaceful ways don't work" then it sounds like there is no other "solution than war."

[Robinf]

First, we're going in and eliminating the power structure rather than playing it off itself. Secondly, we're doing it ourselves rather than waging war-by-proxy. Thirdly, we're doing it contrary to our goals of opposing communism, fundamental religion, etc. Fourthly, we're avoiding any long-term primary interests in the area.

What proof is there in the long run that we've changed the power structure itself. We got rid of a power. The structure might reform under a new person. Or the new structure might be worse or much the same, just a different package.

How is doing it ourselves better? That just means the hated US came in and isn't leaving.

We're talking to the new government and giving them a thumbs up. How is that avoiding interests? We're going to support this guy and get him in power.

[MasterKiller]

If the government of Ethiopia was commiting systematic genocide and there was no other way to stop them, yes.

And you're saying they aren't? Ethiopia has been systematically starving it's people for decades. Remember "we are the world"? Just because it lost it's power to attact people to the televsion, doesn't mean the news isn't happening.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Robinf
The structure might reform under a new person. Or the new structure might be worse or much the same, just a different package.

That's right. However, it's not a viable argument against the action. Notably, no matter what we do this would be the case. If this were a viable argument, it would mean we can never do anything whatsoever. As that's not an acceptable conclusion, we reject the argument.


How is doing it ourselves better?

The alternative is manipulating other people into dying for us.

I'd say that's worse. Do you disagree?


That just means the hated US came in and isn't leaving.

If Bush Jr has his way, the US is leaving. This is one of the important ways his ideology differs from most other American politicians. Yet another reason to support him.


We're talking to the new government and giving them a thumbs up.

What alternative situation do you propose?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
And you're saying they aren't?

No I didn't say that.

[MasterKiller]

The argument against IRAQ shifted from WMD to liberation so that people would support it. No WMD found, so the Washington spin doctors latched on to 'liberation.' And you bought it, along with half the other dopes in America.

If liberation is the key...when do you suggest we should liberate Ethiopia?

[fa_jing]

I didn't (in my mind) oppose the war. I think it will prove to have been beneficial overall for the whole world, and especially parts-However, I certainly would have refused to go fight it myself. Tricky ain't it?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
The argument against IRAQ shifted from WMD to liberation so that people would support it.

Maybe in your eyes. Could be from watching too much Fox? :D

The Bush Jr admin publically published a document on liberation plans for Iraq the first year in office. Get your news from the mouth of the horse instead of Fox, and things are alot more clear.


If liberation is the key...when do you suggest we should liberate Ethiopia?

Going through every country in the world and deciding what it's problems are and what the ideal solutions are is wildly off-topic.

Start a thread on Ethiopia and maybe I'll reply.

[GreyMystik]

MasterKiller is on top of it. that's a big point. the administration's justification shifted from "they broke UN resolutions!" (so has Israel), to "they have prohibited WMD!" (which we still haven't found, but have had several false alarms), to "we must liberate the Iraqi people!" (like the administration really gives a rats ass about the Iraqi people- notice the rampant looting of one of the world's oldest museum, but we sure as hell protected those oil wells didn't we!)

market the "war" to sell so folks will buy it. and unfortunately many folks did buy it. i sure as hell didn't.


this isn't from "fox news". i can't recall every single news source i've ever used, but rest assured they are varied and international.

[MasterKiller]

Nice way to dodge that one, Christopher. You should be working in the white house.

I don't watch Fox News. I can barely stand CNN. Seems all the news agancies are practcing self-censorship these days.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by GreyMystik
the administration's justification shifted

No it didn't.

The media discussing the war shifted focus. The administration's been up-front since before any of the media was interested.

Media != Government. Scary thought.

[GreyMystik]

oops, i got involved in political discussions again. was trying to avoid that. :mad:

[MasterKiller]

No it didn't

My @ss it didn't.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
Nice way to dodge that one, Christopher.

Dodge what? Do you honestly want me to write a paper on my thoughts for every country in the world? Sure... if you'll pay me for my time.

Sorry, but I was under an "obligation" to clarify my perspective regarding the justification for war. No more. That's what I did.

The Fox jab was just making fun of you for making the same claim earlier.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
My @ss it didn't.

Like I told Robin, feel free to actually make an argument defending your case.

[Ford Prefect]

I doubt Bush and Blair could hold a candle to past peace prize winners like Yasser Arafat. That is a true man of peace and love for all mankind.

[GreyMystik]

The administration's been up-front since before any of the media was interested.

come on man, get real... this administration hasn't been up front about hardly ANYTHING... it's been one of the most secretive closed-off not publicly accountable administrations in US history.

yet another reason to NOT support Dubya.

oh by the way, the media is of course not the government... but everyone gets their info from some source. i seriously doubt (although i could be wrong) that you got your information "from the horse's mouth" as you put it (i.e. directly from Dubya himself).

short of being in Iraq and watching everything go down in person, we all get our info from "the media" in some form or fashion. i guess the real question is, which media do you (we?) trust with accurate info?

i'm bowing out of this discussion. it depresses me to talk about this stuff. i'd rather spend my energy on something positive...

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by GreyMystik
come on man, get real... this administration hasn't been up front about hardly ANYTHING... it's been one of the most secretive closed-off not publicly accountable administrations in US history.

And once again... care to actually make an argument backing this up?


but everyone gets their info from some source. i seriously doubt that you got your information "from the horse's mouth"

Where do you think the media gets their info?

You have access to the exact same things they do.

Eg. How many media pieces have been done commenting on resolution 1441? Read it yourself. (http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02110803.htm)

Eg. MasterKiller posted on another thread a media piece commenting on the National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap. My response? Why bother - Read it yourself. (www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/national_h2_roadmap.pdf)

In both cases, the media wildly distorted the original document to sell you something a) more interesting so you'll keep giving them money, and b) in support of their personal interests. Don't put up with that. Go to the mouth of the horse.

Same deal here.

[ewallace]

I could really go for a bacon sammy right now. Some hash-browns would be mighty tasty as well.

[Christopher M]

God **** bacon sammy's are good.

All I've got in house is chicken bacon. What sick **** buys chicken bacon!?

[MasterKiller]

In both cases, the media wildly distorted the original document to sell you something a) more interesting so you'll keep giving them money, and b) in support of their personal interests. Don't put up with that. Go to the mouth of the horse.

Which is exactly how the Bush administration has played the media. Don't you think that whole 'fly out on a carrier' crap was just a little too much? C'mon, he even had a flight suit tailored to fit. They are manipulating images and stories for their own good. Why do you think we don't get to see the horrible images from the war that everyone else in the world does? Because they present this as sanitized as possible to keep the public interested.

One of the major reasons for the shift in public opinion during Vietnam were the images of dead American soldiers being broadcast on TV. Bush knows this as well as anyone, and has used his influence to prevent the media from giving us an accurate portrait of the war.

One of the best spins they put on is the whole "support the troops" campaign. So, anyone not in favor of the war is automatically forced to say, "but I support the troops" to avoid being slandered. It was an ingenious way to avoid public criticism.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
Don't you think that whole 'fly out on a carrier' crap was just a little too much?

Yes I do.

I agree completely that the politicians are as culpible for playing the media as the media is for playing the politicians.

That just makes my case that 'one should avoid the media alltogether when seeking information' all the stronger.

[MasterKiller]

Then where do you get your info on IRAQ? Show me the 'horses mouth' on all the dead civilians Saddam is repsonsible for, or anything else about him that HASN'T been manipulated by the media.

Sure, he's a *******. But so are half the leaders in the world.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
Then where do you get your info on IRAQ?

If I want to know Bush Admin policy, I look at Bush Admin policy documents. If I want to know UN policy, I look at UN policy documents.

What do you want to know specifically?

With respect to civilian death count under Saddam, there's no one figure, since no studies have been done. But it's not hard to piece together at least a portion of it with some research. The WHO keeps track of starvation and illness deaths, including an analysis of trends and expectations (to compare the reality to the baseline), this is available off their website. Civilian death counts resulting from the Kurdish and Shiite uprisings are widely known and are available from any of a hundred sources. Do a bit of research, do a bit of math. Much better than trying to choose between Fox and Mother Jones.


Sure, he's a *******. But so are half the leaders in the world.

I think he goes a little beyond being an *******. Are you familiar with what he did at Halabja?

[Marky]

Hey all,

Let's just face the fact that every government is obscuring the facts, and every media source is obscuring the already obscured facts that they receive! If anyone on this entire forum knows ANYTHING about what's going on (I'm sure I don't, even though I listen to the news constantly), I can guarantee that it's NOT THE TRUTH!

But in the defense of GW's intelligence, he has a law degree and an MBA from Harvard and Yale, respectively (maybe it's the other way around). Money can get you into those places, but it takes more than money to graduate, whether you dislike GW or not.

[WinterPalm]

Nuke the US.

[Black Jack]

Yasser Arfat is a true noble soul. Terrorism after all is just another way of saying I love you man.

[Xebsball]

Originally posted by patriot
Bush and Blair have just been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Thats some of the most retarded stuff ive read lately, but its hilarious LOL funny american this one :D

BTW Black Jack is a totalitarist, everyone knows it by now

[Black Jack]

You should look up the meaning of the term totalitarist you moron.:rolleyes:

The term is often applied to liberal think. You should fit in well their jerk-off.

[Daredevil]

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The other guy's invader is someone's liberator. You may be cool, but somebody probably thinks you're an *******.

Can't we all just get along? :)

[ZIM]

Letterman's Top Ten Excuses Bush gives for not finding weapons of mass destruction.

10. "We've only looked through 99% of the country"

9. "We spent entire budget making those playing cards"

8. "Containers are labeled in some crazy language"

7. "They must have been stolen by some of them evil X-Men mutants"

6. "Did I say Iraq has weapons of mass destruction? I meant they have goats"

5. "How are we supposed to find weapons of mass destruction when we can't even find Cheney?"

4. "Still screwed up because of Daylight Savings Time"

3. "When you're trying to find something, it's always in the last place you look, am I right, people?"

2. "Let's face it -- I ain't exactly a genius"

1. "Geraldo took them"

Server is still down at SH's old site... wonder what happened? (http://www.uruklink.net/iraq/epage1.htm) :D

Eh, who cares, right? (http://www.alertnet.org/thefacts/reliefresources/IRCDRCview.htm)

[ZIM]

Larry Flynt has been named the chairperson of the UN Council on Women's Rights.

"It will be a privilege to hold this distinguished position," said Flynt. "For too long have women suffered as equals to men: holding management positions, working in science and medicine, serving their country in the military."

"Well, that's all behind us now. Now we have the opportunity to put women to work doing what we all know they really want.

He added, "Women know their place. We're just going to put them in it."

Flynt will be joined in the commission by fellow misogynists Howard Stern and Hugh Hefner.

In a related story, Michael Jackson will be chairing the UN Commission on Child Sexual Education.
----------------?? (http://goddoubleplusblessamerica.org/jest/leaflet-iraq-mcarabia.png)

according to the Inferno test, I'm going to the 2nd level of He ll! Yahoo!!! (http://www.4degreez.com/misc/dante-inferno-test.mv)

ignore this. (http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1395.shtml)

[Christopher M]

On the Congo...

"In the case of Democratic Republic of Congo, it is not of geo-political interest."

He's a bit off here. The Congo is an extraordinarily rich (http://www.iss.co.za/AF/profiles/DRCongo/NatRes.html) country.

"How is it possible that the United Nations has not made this a priority?"

And here. The UN actually has made this somewhat of a priority (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/monuc/facts.html).

"Where is the outrage?"

Nowhere. Why? Because outrage follows headlines, and...

"Where are the headlines?"

Nowhere. Why?

There's the real question.

A suspicious man might think it's got something to do with the well-known political ideology which dominates the media and the players (http://www2.minorisa.es/inshuti/lokenge.htm) involved here.

"Who are the greater hypocrites... the humanitarians?"

Luckily... while there are those who call themselves humanitarians and activists who only seem to care about obtaining a [faux] sense of moral superiority, and thus couldn't care less about a situation like this which does not afford them the opportunity...

There are also real humanitarians and activists, rarely needing to appropriate these names for themselves, who have always and will always toil away at these causes. Sounds like that guy is one of them. Let's say a prayer, burn a stick of incense, or rearrange our fish tanks tonight in his name.

[Laughing Cow]

Wonder when Christopher M will post a MA related post.
Oops, forgot he did one once.

1 out of 211 ain't so bad a ratio I guess.
:rolleyes:

Wonder why so many people come to a MA realed board when they are NOT interested in discussing MA.

But he is in good company there are many others who rather discuss polictics, gun control, troll and start useless debates than share their knowledge on MA related issues.

Hey, Christopher M what MA did you do again and for how long?
:D

[ZIM]

LC-
ppl come to forums for a lot of reasons, he doesn't have to post on MAs if he doesn't want to or if nothing of interest is going on. C'mon be fair here.

The guy that wrote the Congo article is, i believe, a reporter thats been over there for awhile. In that sense he's put his butt on the line more than most. Outrage DOES follow headlines, but also MONEY.

WRT "the players"- we can make hay over who's good or bad, but when you get down to it, labels like Dem or Republicrat are shorthand answers for the question "who's paying you off?" I'm personally not a fan of either.

PS- I did like the bit on sources that CM posted. Too many of us complain about the media and we all seem to know that none can be trusted. This DIY attitude is the only way to change that. "Don't complain about the media, become the media!"

[patriot]

Come to think of it, shouldn't Rumsfield also receive some kind of award for his effort to save the cultural treasures of Iraq?

...and Cheney for so selflessly try to help rebuild the oil industry in Iraq?

[Mr. Horse]

MasterKiler

"At least they'll lose. Odds of an American winning 2 years in a row are next to 0."

Too bad America did it in almost all of the other fields.:rolleyes:

[MasterKiller]

The other categories have little to do with world politics.

Now, get back to watching your Fox News, will ya.

[Black Jack]

Boy that was a burn.

Their is a reason FOX News happens to be number 1 in the ratings you know.

[MasterKiller]

It's the same reason Joe Millionaire hit it big.


People are morons.

You got your Real Cancun tickets yet?:rolleyes:

[KC Elbows]

Originally posted by Black Jack
Boy that was a burn.

Their is a reason FOX News happens to be number 1 in the ratings you know.

So the solution to a perceived bias is to take the opposite extreme bias?

Well, if they'd never cancelled Morton Downey Junior's show, Fox news would be redundant.:D

[ewallace]

Give it a rest KC.




:)

[KC Elbows]

I was just razzing Black Jack, who can handle it fine, eWallace. I wasn't running around tha forum taking this topic into actual kung fu threads. So minding your own businesss might be in order.

[MasterKiller]

You two just need to get it over with and have sex with each other. :)

[Black Jack]

If I can handle it fine then how come I am on the phone with my mother crying right now.

I hope you feel proud of yourself mister.;)

[KC Elbows]

Originally posted by Black Jack
If I can handle it fine then how come I am on the phone with my mother crying right now.

I hope you feel proud of yourself mister.;)

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you knew Morton Downey Jr. was off the air.

This must be very difficult for you. Especially with Phil Donahue back on. Oh, you didn't know?

Here's the phone. Your momma's there for you.:D

[Black Jack]

You are kidding about Donahue right???

Thats almost as liberal as they get. His show on MSNBC was horrible. I often wondered if he was really a girl pretending to be a man.

[GreyMystik]

are you crying?
or is your mother crying?

i couldn't tell by your post :D

[Black Jack]

I was crying. There is no shame in a grown man showing his fem side once in awhile. Plenty of guys around here do it all the time.

[ewallace]

Originally posted by KC Elbows
I was just razzing Black Jack, who can handle it fine, eWallace. I wasn't running around tha forum taking this topic into actual kung fu threads. So minding your own businesss might be in order.
Lighten up KC. I was just messing with you, hence the smiley.

Please show me where I took that topic into actual kung fu threads, and I will be more than happy to apologize.

As for minding my business, was it not you who told me to give it a rest last week?

[MasterKiller]

Only BJJ guys show their fem side. Well, the one on the ground does, at least. The one on top is technically 'butch'. Unless they switch the guard; in which case, it's more like two bulldogs going at each other.

[KC Elbows]

Originally posted by Black Jack
You are kidding about Donahue right???

Thats almost as liberal as they get. His show on MSNBC was horrible. I often wondered if he was really a girl pretending to be a man.

Actually, donahue sort of sums up my view of either conservatives or liberals with popular platforms that help drive popular opinion. I can't name one of them who isn't a moron when it comes to politics. Either on Fox or on anything else. Watching TV to get politically savvy is sort of like eating kosher pickles to understand hebrew. In the end, you don't know the lingo, but what's coming out of your mouth stinks bad.

[KC Elbows]

Originally posted by ewallace

Lighten up KC. I was just messing with you, hence the smiley.

Please show me where I took that topic into actual kung fu threads, and I will be more than happy to apologize.

As for minding my business, was it not you who told me to give it a rest last week?

Keerist, that's because you WERE carrying it all over other threads, thus my comment. Whereas I've made this one post on a political thread this whole week. I'm really not in the mood to argue with you, just as I'm not really in the mood to joke around with you, so later.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by ZIM
The guy that wrote the Congo article is, i believe, a reporter thats been over there for awhile. In that sense he's put his butt on the line more than most.

For sure. Like I said, dude deserves kudos. We need more like him.


labels like Dem or Republicrat are shorthand answers for the question "who's paying you off?" I'm personally not a fan of either.

I'd be a much bigger fan of Republicans if they were real conservatives. American conservatism has long been heavily influenced by the protestant roots of the country and movement though, giving it values at odds with conservatism proper. And recently in America, conservatism has been widely confounded with neoconservatism (http://heartsandminds.da.ru/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=34&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0)... out of the frying pan into the fire. And the Libertarians are ruined from attracting all the nuts. So there's no real home for a true conservative in America.

However, my point wasn't to suggest that we should be a fan of one or the other; rather to suggest that there is a vivid political bias in many people's perspectives (particularly, the segment of the media in question) that is contributing to the lack of interest in the history of the Congo situation.

[ewallace]

I'm really not in the mood to argue with you, just as I'm not really in the mood to joke around with you, so later.
Very well then Amigo

[Christopher M]

We should get back to those bacon sammy's. That'll bring you kids together. Everyone loves bacon.

Is there such a thing as kosher bacon?

[Black Jack]

The Three Amigo's was a good movie.

[GreyMystik]

three aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamigos

hehe yeah it was.

[fa_jing]

The wretched King Minos has decided your fate. His tale wraps around his body 8 times.
The sweet light no longer strikes against your eyes. Your shade has been banished to... the Eigth Level of Hell - the Malebolge!
Eigth Level of Hell - the Malebolge

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many and varied sinners suffer eternally in the multi-leveled Malebolge, an ampitheatre-shapped pit of despair Wholly of stone and of an iron colour: Those guilty of fraudulence and malice; the seducers and pimps, who are whipped by horned demons; the hypocrites, who struggle to walk in lead-lined cloaks; the barraters, who are ducked in boiling pitch by demons known as the Malebranche. The simonists, wedged into stone holes, and whose feet are licked by flames, kick and writhe desperately. The magicians, diviners, fortune tellers, and panderers are all here, as are the thieves. Some wallow in human excrement. Serpents writhe and wrap around men, sometimes fusing into each other. Bodies are torn apart. When you arrive, you will want to put your hands over your ears because of the lamentations of the sinners here, who are afflicted with scabs like leprosy, and lay sick on the ground, furiously scratching their skin off with their nails. Indeed, justice divine doth smite them with its hammer.


wierdly, I scored a high level of match with level 2 - Virtuous non-believers as well. Guess it's the closest match or the worst of your best matches. level 8 = Fraudulent, Malicious, Panderers

shucks

[David Jamieson]

wow, a peace prize nomination for aggressors and occupiers!

They should posthumously award one to all the likened individuals too then. :rolleyes:

ah well, just shows you that the peace prize can be nominated to anyone really. Now, we can be certain they won't win the important Nobel prize. :D

cheers

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
wow, a peace prize nomination for aggressors and occupiers!

I think the idea would be more that they were nominated for the peace they created.

[Chinwoo-er]

going by that logic, anyone who win a war would have created peace.

[Christopher M]

Going by a weak version of that logic, sure.

It's possible I meant a stronger statement of it though.

[Mr. Horse]

There is only one type of logic. Common sense and logic are two different things.

[Christopher M]

Person A: "Terry Fox should be nominated for a humanitarian award."
Person B: "That's silly. People shouldn't get humanitarian awards for running."

Is B's argument valid? It is so long as A's position was taken to be particularly weak or silly: that he meant specifically that running should give people humanitarian awards, or if he meant that anyone in any circumstance doing what Terry Fox did should be given a humanitarian award.

It's rather unlikely that A meant either of those things though, especially if you have any of the aforementioned common sense.

Warping A's position like this for the sake of looking right is a version of the straw man fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html).

Accepting A's position doesn't mean accepting that Terry Fox should win the humanitarian award. What it means is that you are then equipped to move on to consider and discuss the merits and faults of this position, rather than commiting a logical fallacy to close the doors (your mind) to reason in the first place.

... Which is why my first remark here was to clarify that the nomination was not for "aggressing and occupying"; symbolized by "running" in the above example. And my second remark was to distinguish between weak and strong positions and the fallacy of confounding them.