Cowardice vs. Sheeplike stupidity [Archive]

Meat Shake

05-28-2004, 05:45 PM

Wow.
This thread seemed interesting but derailed increadibly quickly.
You are trying to equate too many different things that dont equate.

"If you're anti-war, that's fine. Just don't ever claim to be a warrior."

War has little to do with being a warrior.
Warrior n One who is engaged aggressively or energetically in an activity, cause, or conflict: EX: neighborhood warriors fighting against developers.

Cited from dictionary.com

Now onto the trying to equate not wanting to kill someone and practicing martial arts... War has little to do with punching and kicking, and a lot more to do with shooting, stabbing, and from what I understand quite a bit of rape and robbery if you're american. Practicing martial arts for me was something I just wanted to do... I was popular in school, I scored a 1380 on the SAT, I frequent the library and barnes and nobles, and I not only know where the good clubs are, but I know quite a few club owners.
Right now this thread is basically breaking down and trying to explain stereotypes...

"I'm arguing against people who spend years learning how to hurt other people (punching, kicking, etc) who are completely against using violence as a means to resolve a conflict. "

Thats not what this thread is about. It was started as an explanation as to why its not cowardice to not fight another mans war, and to not kill in another mans name. Unless my family or close friends are involved, and there is no other choice, I do not justify killing by any means. That doesnt mean I dont enjoy a good full contact sparring match, and it definately doesnt mean I am afraid to fight. I just dont agree with shooting a man Ive never met for reasons Im still unsure of.

Phrost

05-28-2004, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by Meat Shake
Wow.
This thread seemed interesting but derailed increadibly quickly.
You are trying to equate too many different things that dont equate.

"If you're anti-war, that's fine. Just don't ever claim to be a warrior."

War has little to do with being a warrior.
Warrior n One who is engaged aggressively or energetically in an activity, cause, or conflict: EX: neighborhood warriors fighting against developers.

Cited from dictionary.com

You also conveniently left out the PRIMARY definition of Warrior for the alegorical one, which was:

"One who is engaged in or experienced in battle."

In this case, the second definition is irrelevant, as the Martial (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=martial) arts, by definition are war arts. We're not talking figuratively about neighborhood crusaders. We're talking literally about punching and kicking.

Originally posted by Meat Shake

Now onto the trying to equate not wanting to kill someone and practicing martial arts... War has little to do with punching and kicking,

It does now, because of technology. 200 years ago in China, punching and kicking were part of the core skills warriors learned. (*cough* martial arts *cough*)

Originally posted by Meat Shake

and a lot more to do with shooting, stabbing, and from what I understand quite a bit of rape and robbery if you're american. Practicing martial arts for me was something I just wanted to do... I was popular in school, I scored a 1380 on the SAT, I frequent the library and barnes and nobles, and I not only know where the good clubs are, but I know quite a few club owners.
Right now this thread is basically breaking down and trying to explain stereotypes...

I scored a 1440 on my SAT, and served 7+ years in the Army as a SGT. I also know a bit more about modern warfare than you do, by a large margin.

Originally posted by Meat Shake

"I'm arguing against people who spend years learning how to hurt other people (punching, kicking, etc) who are completely against using violence as a means to resolve a conflict. "

Thats not what this thread is about. It was started as an explanation as to why its not cowardice to not fight another mans war, and to not kill in another mans name. Unless my family or close friends are involved, and there is no other choice, I do not justify killing by any means. That doesnt mean I dont enjoy a good full contact sparring match, and it definately doesnt mean I am afraid to fight. I just dont agree with shooting a man Ive never met for reasons Im still unsure of.

Go back and re-read the first post of this thread. You're completely wrong.

Here's the first sentence:

"All of you who say that those of us martial artists who don't want to fight in war are cowards need to understand a few key points."

It didn't state "this" or "any unjust" war. It stated "war".

And guess what? If you chose to be a citizen of a particular country, in a Democracy in particular, if you're called to serve your country and chose to run instead, you ARE a coward AND a traitor.

Just because the scale of community is much greater (country vs family) doesn't invalidate your selfish disregard for helping protect your way of life. At the very least, anyone who runs from a draft and then choses to return to their home country should not be allowed to benefit from public services because they weren't willing to fight to preserve them (regardless of whether or not they PERSONALLY felt it was in their country's interest).

Yes, if you run from your duty as a citizen then you are a coward. And if you're a martial artist who runs, you're even lower on the sh*t scale, for pretending to play war in the dojo, that might not be there if it weren't for the sacrifices put down by men and women better than you.

Shaolinlueb

05-28-2004, 08:55 PM

i didnt take my SAT's, my forms are good, my fighting sucks, i dont get chicks, i go to the same two lame nightclubs they have in our area, i dont get chicks. im only popular with people in the ages 5-10 age bracket.....

okay nm. :o

JMantisSmurf

05-28-2004, 09:20 PM

hey

i come from a family of marines, many who served in nam, so i understand where frost is coming from. but no one asked to be born whereever they are.
"when the bullets starty flying all that political BS goes right out the winow... you shoot back"
i grew up in not the nicest neighbrohood of chicago, and i learned man's strongest instinct is survival. if anyone threatens me or thing i care about, be it an invading army or a midnight mugger, i have absolutely no problem defending myself, even killing if that is what is required. if you arn't ready to do that you arn't ready to live. we all have to kill to survive it is how the world works.
oh yeah made a 1320 on the SAt's high GPA, just got a scholarship to U of I and i do have a life (did i mention i was a dancer/singer/actor?)
"adventure. Ha! exitement. Ha! a jedi craves not these things."

CaptinPickAxe

05-28-2004, 09:24 PM

Martial arts is also for protection, not just aggression. If I recall, Shaolin Monks took up martial arts to PROTECT the temple, not wage war with other temples. Then again, its all hearsay.

JMantisSmurf

05-28-2004, 09:30 PM

yes but didnt alot of them get dead

JMantisSmurf

05-28-2004, 09:40 PM

this thread souds strangely like the one about the draft
ring bells anyone??

JMS

CaptinPickAxe

05-28-2004, 09:40 PM

get dead?
Yes, but my point being that not all MA's were created as a tool to destroy, but also protect.

Xebsball

05-28-2004, 09:41 PM

"fu.ck you i wont do what you tell me
fu.ck you i wont do what you tell me
fu.ck you i wont do what you tell me

killing in the name of
killing in the name of"

my sugestion is
if the system is stupid
hack the system like i did, kids

and to choose not to fight is NOT cowardice

and
i
pi.ss
on
the
draft
and
its supporters

T'ai Ji Monkey

05-28-2004, 10:03 PM

If you are Solider you fight the war in front of you, there is NO choosing which war to fight or not.

The people that got this choice are called MERCENARIES.

Said that there are many reasons why People practice and study MA this is true for now and days gone by.
But once you made the decision to be a warrior/soldier your options are limited in choosing when and who to fight.

The Willow Sword

05-28-2004, 10:07 PM

I will say that "martial arts" are NOT about getting in to a ring and going after some other guy in the ring and pummeling his head in or him choking you out"
"Martial arts" are NOT about dressing up in some stupid spandex outfit and taking anabolic steroids and playing a heavy metal song as you walk out in to a crowd of low life white trash screaming for you to kick his a$$"
Martial Arts is not about some Noodle brained jock douche bag gloating over how well he can beat the sh!t out of someone else and thinking that those of us who have some substance to our lives and refuse to be a part of it are pu$$ies.
Martial arts are a sacred discipline and fighting is not ALL martial arts are about.

i swear this country's mentality is about a mile wide and an inch deep.:rolleyes:

PEACE,,,TWS

YinYangDagger

05-28-2004, 10:31 PM

I suppose different folks get different things out of MA. The only reason I do any martial art is to find better and more efficient ways to take someone out. Period.

Regardless of all the bantering and "words" written here, you'll never change my mind regarding what I feel about draft dodgers. They're cowards. I guess it all comes down to me giving up a Baylor University scholarship out of high school to go the Marines. Two years later I was in Kuwait. I regret none of it.

I tried to be nice when the rape thing came up the last time. Now I won't. There's an old saying pertaining to warfare: TO THE VICTORS GO THE SPOILS. Tragic? Perhaps. Better them than us.

And MST, if you read this, I'm inclined to go ahead and agree with you: I'm beginning to LIKE Phrost more and more.

Phrost

05-29-2004, 02:12 AM

Originally posted by The Willow Sword
Martial arts are a sacred discipline and fighting is not ALL martial arts are about.

i swear this country's mentality is about a mile wide and an inch deep.:rolleyes:

PEACE,,,TWS

A sacred discipline involving punching and kicking? Does that make you feel less guilty about what you do, or is it just the marketing spin you fell for?

Yoga is a sacred discipline, if that could be said about anything. Training to hurt other people (which, SHOCKER, is what punching and kicking does), is only sacred in religions that explicitly espouse violence. Fortunately for society, such religions aren't very common.

Something is deep around here, and it's definately more than an inch. I'm breaking out the hip waders.

And YYD, it's just that straight shooters tend to be so few and far between that eventually they'll ignore any petty differences to agree on the bigger issues.

I'd say cowardice is a pretty big issue.

And Xebsball, grow up dude. Rage Against the Machine is so 1990's. They're a much better band now that they're not whining about "The Man" holding them down.

The fact is, if you expect to benefit from public services (driving on public roads, going to public schools, using public parks and property), then you have an obligation to support the public interest as dictated by your democratically elected government.

Otherwise, get the F**K out of my country and stay gone. We don't need cowards like you pi$$ing in our gene pool anyway.

Mr Punch

05-29-2004, 04:49 AM

Phrost, your first post made sense in relation to the initial 'point' (and I use that word loosely) in the thread.

But after Banjo's Dad took the thread to it's logical conclusion, IMO opinion, everything else was redundant.

Monkeyslap2
Over 70% of the world's conflicts are caused by islamists.What retard fundamentalist Christian ****rag website did you pull that from?

YinYangDagger
I tried to be nice when the rape thing came up the last time. Now I won't. There's an old saying pertaining to warfare: TO THE VICTORS GO THE SPOILS. Tragic? Perhaps. Better them than us.
You know, it's *****s like you that make extremists. Like it makes me want the Islamic fundamentalists to actually make it you and your wife, and your daughters/sisters/mom. Doesn't make any odds to me, one extremist is as good as another.

Merryprankster

05-29-2004, 05:10 AM

TWS once again demonstrating that he's a tard...

Nothing wrong with chosing your battles. I'm arguing against people who spend years learning how to hurt other people (punching, kicking, etc) who are completely against using violence as a means to resolve a conflict. It just doesn't follow

This is true. Violence is the means of last resort, but an option, nonetheless. Some people out there really don't care and you have to clock em in the noggin.

Losttrak

05-29-2004, 06:11 AM

If you study combat, you are a martial artist.

If you fight, you are a fighter.

If you kill, you are a warrior.

If those are not necessary, then you are fortunate.

p.s. In my opinion, if you take the fighting aspect out of what was originally a "martial art", then it should be considered something else. Martial has an significant meaning in the term, and should be used as such, so as not to further propagate the ALREADY blunted context.

The Willow Sword

05-29-2004, 09:07 AM

Quoted by Phrost
"A sacred discipline involving punching and kicking? Does that make you feel less guilty about what you do, or is it just the marketing spin you fell for?

Yoga is a sacred discipline, if that could be said about anything. Training to hurt other people (which, SHOCKER, is what punching and kicking does), is only sacred in religions that explicitly espouse violence. Fortunately for society, such religions aren't very common.

Something is deep around here, and it's definately more than an inch. I'm breaking out the hip waders"

as i stated earlier
" A Mile Wide and an Inch Deep"

"Martial arts are a sacred discipline and fighting is not ALL martial arts are about." This is FACT. Just because guys want to skim the surface in the MA doesnt mean that we here have to.
and besides ,Phrost?,,,this is the Kung Fu forum,,,,if you want to troll then go to the Reality/ street fighting section of these forums.
and dont you have your OWN forums for your brand of mentality?

Proud to be an American(for PEACE) TWS

Phrost

05-29-2004, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by The Willow Sword
Quoted by Phrost

as i stated earlier
" A Mile Wide and an Inch Deep"

Your beliefs help you cope with the fact that you're learning how to hurt people, but they don't change reality.

Please stop pretending you have some 'secret, special insight' on things. It just makes you sound more pretentious than you already do.

Originally posted by The Willow Sword
] This is FACT. Just because guys want to skim the surface in the MA doesnt mean that we here have to.
and besides ,Phrost?,,,this is the Kung Fu forum,,,,if you want to troll then go to the Reality/ street fighting section of these forums.
and dont you have your OWN forums for your brand of mentality?

Fact?

If it's a fact, then you can prove it. I invite you to do so.

Again, what in the blue f**k does punching and kicking have to do with anything "sacred", unless you're a religious nutcase?

Deep down, you just don't like what you're doing, but something compells you to keep doing it and so you've swallowed this BS as a coping mechanism. That doesn't change the fact that it's a delusion.

As far as 'my own brand' of anything, unfortunately for you, I'm not alone here in this opinion. In fact, I'd wager more people agree with me here than you.

The Willow Sword

05-29-2004, 09:44 AM

i have no "secret, special insight", phrost. i just know what i know. Apparently you know what you know,,,,so there we have it.

and My "Beliefs" are none of yours or anyone elses buisness for that matter, so dont try to ASSume anything about them.

PEACE,,,TWS

Phrost

05-29-2004, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by The Willow Sword
i have no "secret, special insight", phrost. i just know what i know. Apparently you know what you know,,,,so there we have it.

and My "Beliefs" are none of yours or anyone elses buisness for that matter, so dont try to ASSume anything about them.

PEACE,,,TWS

I'm still waiting for the factual evidence supporting your 'beliefs'.

The 'facts' are, that a lot of the BS about the martial arts being deeper than fighting are more about making training for violence palatable to soccer moms. It's just window dressing.

Punches, kicks, and weapons have but one purpose: to hurt people.

YinYangDagger

05-29-2004, 10:45 AM

Sorry Phrost, had to steal that one!

Mat - STFU already. You think I made that quote up? It's been around longer than you and I, and will be around (and be true) long after we're gone.

Phrost

05-29-2004, 11:23 AM

I'm honored, sincerely.

The Willow Sword

05-29-2004, 12:20 PM

Once again " A mile wide and an inch deep".

If you dont have the will or the open mind to figure this out i am definately NOT going to spend my weekend trying to "prove" anything to you,,,because quite frankly i dont have to prove a thing to you when it comes to the aspects of the fighting arts, combative arts, martial arts whatever label you want to put on it.

instead,,why dont you go visit a military cemetary in your area and honor those REAL Warriors (not the spandex ring fighters,lol)
who sacrificed alot for this country.

This is Memorial weekend bro,,,, Not Troll weekend.

that is all i have to say in this thread.

PEACE,,,TWS.

Phrost

05-29-2004, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by The Willow Sword
Once again " A mile wide and an inch deep".

If you dont have the will or the open mind to figure this out i am definately NOT going to spend my weekend trying to "prove" anything to you,,,because quite frankly i dont have to prove a thing to you when it comes to the aspects of the fighting arts, combative arts, martial arts whatever label you want to put on it.

Convenient for you, seeing as you can't prove it. You keep up with the baseless assertions though. I'm sure they'll help you cope with the fact that you're learning how to hurt people.

Originally posted by The Willow Sword

instead,,why dont you go visit a military cemetary in your area and honor those REAL Warriors (not the spandex ring fighters,lol)
who sacrificed alot for this country.

This is Memorial weekend bro,,,, Not Troll weekend.

that is all i have to say in this thread.

I think I know a bit more about this than you do, considering I was a SGT serving in the US Army for 7 years.

Are you done now, or are you going to continue and play your silly little game?

Xebsball

05-29-2004, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by Phrost
And Xebsball, grow up dude. Rage Against the Machine is so 1990's. They're a much better band now that they're not whining about "The Man" holding them down.

The fact is, if you expect to benefit from public services (driving on public roads, going to public schools, using public parks and property), then you have an obligation to support the public interest as dictated by your democratically elected government.

Otherwise, get the F**K out of my country and stay gone. We don't need cowards like you pi$$ing in our gene pool anyway.

Fu.ck you if you dont like RATM you dont like good music
you probably just listen to crap like more than 90% of the worlds population do too so whatever screw you i dont care.

The benefits? I pay my taxes
And i refuse to do more
None you fu.ckers can control me

AND im NOT in your fu.cking country stupid suck ass fu.ck
You mentioned keeping me from your gene pool right, i knew you were a fu.cking NAZI from the beggining, dont give me your eugeny whatever crap you mother fu.cker racist *******
WE HAVE A FU.CKING NAZI ON THE FORUM

Phrost

05-29-2004, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by Xebsball

Fu.ck you if you dont like RATM you dont like good music
you probably just listen to crap like more than 90% of the worlds population do too so whatever screw you i dont care.

The benefits? I pay my taxes
And i refuse to do more
None you fu.ckers can control me

AND im NOT in your fu.cking country stupid suck ass fu.ck
You mentioned keeping me from your gene pool right, i knew you were a fu.cking NAZI from the beggining, dont give me your eugeny whatever crap you mother fu.cker racist *******
WE HAVE A FU.CKING NAZI ON THE FORUM

By this post you seriously can't be old enough to have pubic hair, much less pay taxes on anything other than bubble gum.

Xebsball

05-29-2004, 12:35 PM

your "eugenic" coment towards me is recorded
you cant run from it
you are exposed

pathetic claims about me being young or not
wont save you

The Willow Sword

05-29-2004, 12:36 PM

Quoted By Phrost

I think I know a bit more about this than you do, considering I was a SGT serving in the US Army for 7 years.

ah so you went from a SGT in the army to a Forum Troll,,,,thats quite a step up then isnt it?
"First to go, last to know";) :p

oh yes and im done,,,,, PEACE,,,TWS.:D

Phrost

05-29-2004, 12:39 PM

You're in good company here Shallow Sword: a coward and a juvenile deliquent.

It's completely beneath me to be arguing with either of you, but so is shooting fish in a barrel. Both happen to be loads of fun regardless.

Xebsball

05-29-2004, 12:44 PM

Phrost

05-29-2004, 12:47 PM

It's obvious you have absolutely nothing to say here.

Do you know what an ad hominem is? To dumb it down for your intelligence level (grade level?), it's when you attack a person directly because you can't successfully attack his argument.

Do you realize that altering your signature to state that I am a racist is libel, and legally actionable?

Xebsball

05-29-2004, 12:50 PM

Meat Shake

05-29-2004, 12:51 PM

"Do you realize that altering your signature to state that I am a racist is libel, and legally actionable?"

I think that would only be the case if he used your real name.

Id stay and argue for a minute but Im going to the beach.
Peaceout.

The Willow Sword

05-29-2004, 12:52 PM

wouldnt hold up in court and you would spend more money trying to prosecute than you would getting any compesnation for your damaged ego phrost:rolleyes:

Phrost

05-29-2004, 12:56 PM

It doesn't make one bit of difference. I am not posting anonymously.

This is the California statute concerning libel:

""A libel is a defamation expressed in written or other graphic form that tends to blacken the memory of the dead or that tends to injure a living person's reputation and thereby expose the person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or financial injury or to impeach any person's honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation."'

Trust me, it would hold up in court very easily.

Phrost

05-29-2004, 12:59 PM

And yet again, this proves more than anything that neither of you have any worthy arguments to put forward.

Shame on you.

Phrost

05-29-2004, 01:04 PM

I've saved this thread for possible use in a libel suit. I strongly suggest you retract your statements and change your signature immediately.

Your IP address and personal information can be obtained through the administrators of this forum directly if not by subpoena.

CaptinPickAxe

05-29-2004, 01:09 PM

Xebs from south america so good luck with your case, phrost.

Also, whats with all the name calling? Owner of Bullshido comes over so we adapt Bullshido rules? You can have intellegent conversation w/o verbally abusing someone.

CaptinPickAxe

05-29-2004, 01:11 PM

Another thing. You can dish out the insults but the minute someone sends one back your way, you scream "lawsuit!" how choch is that?

Phrost

05-29-2004, 01:15 PM

Stating that I am a racist is libel, that's how.

It's one thing to tell someone you think they're an idiot, a subjective term.

It's another to accuse, no, state, that they are something they are not and to do so in such a way that it defames their character and harms their business practices.

There is a substantial difference.

Believe it or not, the internet is not a free for all zone where you can say anything you want. Libel is illegal, and so is failure to take action against someone using your website as a medium through which to make libelous statements.

The Willow Sword

05-29-2004, 01:18 PM

Just Like his Website,,,Phrost is FULL of bullshido,,,,LOLOL.

Good luck in the lawsuit:rolleyes:

PEACE,,,TWS

Phrost

05-29-2004, 01:19 PM

I'm still waiting for those "facts" of yours.

CaptinPickAxe

05-29-2004, 01:22 PM

How exactly are you going to get Xebby up here for you lawsuit? do you honestly think he'll show? I think you should cut your loses and try and mend the broken ties as opposed to making them worse with "lawsuits". Jesus, whats with everyone and lawsuits?

CaptinPickAxe

05-29-2004, 01:24 PM

and now your dragging KFO into this? thats ****ty, man.

so is failure to take action against someone using your website as a medium through which to make libelous statements.

Phrost

05-29-2004, 01:28 PM

Not necessarily. I'd rather not go there, I like this site. I strongly suspect that the appropriate action will be taken once the staff become aware of this incident.

That doesn't change the law, nor does it change the fact that I won't tolerate having my character defamed in such a manner.

You want to call me an idiot, a-hole, or similar insults, that's fine. But do not ever call me a racist. That's more than just an insult, especially according to the laws under which this website operates.

CaptinPickAxe

05-29-2004, 01:32 PM

I'll give it to you, friend, I wouldn't like to be called a racist, seeing how I'm anything but. However, I'm saying if you truely plan to follow through with this farse, it will be in vain or severly, finacially an unwise move. He resides in south america and it will extremely difficult to get him and probably very expensive.

The Willow Sword

05-29-2004, 01:49 PM

would you like some WHINE with your cheese, Phrosty?:p

Phrost

05-29-2004, 01:51 PM

No, just the facts that you said you had several posts ago.

YinYangDagger

05-29-2004, 02:08 PM

I wouldn't worry about it too much Phrost. Xebs-goof-ball only contributes crap on this forum. He's always going on about how he can't get any pu$$y or the BS music he listens to. His daddy needs to whip his a$$ and probably would if he found him writing all this profanity via his parents' computer.

Phrost

05-29-2004, 02:11 PM

That's what I figured. But still, the signature needs to go at the VERY least. Allowing libelous statements here puts this site in a bad position, legally.

CaptinPickAxe

05-29-2004, 02:15 PM

Both of you are in the wrong. Xebby is in his late 20s if I'm correct. Hold on, before you go on with all this "well, thats still a youngster to me" crap. He is no longer his father's responsibility. All his choices are his own and he can stand the conciquences on his own.

This is just getting ****in' retarded. I think this thread should be deleted...

Stacey

05-29-2004, 02:15 PM

so...your going to take a BRAZILIAN CITIZEN to court under Californian law.

NEWSFLASH: California does not rule the Earth.

Phrost

05-29-2004, 02:19 PM

Oh, he's Brazillian now.

That's excellent. Thanks for the tip.

I won't comment on the legal issues beyond this.

Stacey

05-29-2004, 02:28 PM

Racism is an idea that races should be seperate.

If you mention evolution and someone calls you a Darwinist can you sue for libel too?

Thats the problem with too many Californians. They are gutluss losers that sue at the drop of a hat.

Xebsball

05-29-2004, 02:50 PM

Captain is correct :D
Im on early 20s though

You disrecpted me and my family by offending my genes, now deal with it

YinYangDagger

05-29-2004, 03:04 PM

He still acts like 13, regardless of how old he "really" is. And as far as Phrost disrespecting your family, so what? You're usual comment on here is FU(K YOU anyway. Sure, I say it to, but I usually back it up with an opinion or something. I don't just go to threads and start spouting profanities everywhere like this clown. Then he brags about all the great drugs he takes. I guess that makes him feel more "grown up" and mature by stating how many drugs he takes. In any case you bring much more disrespect to your family than Phrost ever could with a single statement.

Phrost

05-29-2004, 03:33 PM

Hey Stacey, how is it I'm stupid for putting forth an argument that can only be met with libel and ad hominem attacks?

And how is it that I'm an internet warrior when I've actually gotten into the ring for a No Holds Barred match?

The fact is, not you, not Shallow Sword, nor the manchild could manage a halfway rational argument to defend your position, and instead seek to divert attention from your embarassment by insulting me.

To anyone that's not a half-wit, this is painfully obvious.

The Willow Sword

05-29-2004, 04:59 PM

Why should i engage in a discussion with you to "Prove" these philisophical aspects of Martial arts, again i keep saying to you that "Fighting is not ALL that Martial arts are about".

What that statement means is that I do recognize the fighting aspects of Martial arts but that i ALSO Recognize the Philisophical and spiritual aspects of Martial Arts as well(which doesnt soley focus on Hurting people).

You want Proof of this?

Here is the Proof, and i will site 2 references one chinese and one Japanese related to the "play on words" you have b@stardized in the JMA. IE Bushido(Bullshido)

1st Book " Sun Tzu's Art of War"
2nd Book "Budo" Teachings of the Founder of Aikido by Morihei Ueshiba.

You have TWO aspects of everything in the world,,Male,,Female
Good,,,Evil,,light,,,dark etc.
I was always taught that there are TWO aspects of Martial arts
the Hurting and the Healing. you learn BOTH in the traditional realm, you dont waste your energy in either aspect.

phrost,,,i am going to apologize to you for saying that you are a troll,, in fact i dont think that you are a troll at all, what i do feel is that you are one of these guys who lives by the fist rather than the MIND that moves the fist.

and as for your whining about Xebby and his comments to you.
you, in my opinion, exude this typical mentality that is associated with racism when you sput off all that "****ing in the gene pool" BS, and your angry Patriotism when someone doesnt have the same conservative view point as you.

PEACE,,,TWS

cerebus

05-29-2004, 05:23 PM

Though I don't necessarily agree with everything Phrost has to say, I don't think his "pizzing in the gene pool" remark was directed at anyone's "race" (at least race wasn't mentioned).

As I understood it he seemed to be referring to potentially passing on one's "cowardice" through their genes (though I could be reading his meaning incorrectly myself).

Phrost

05-29-2004, 05:25 PM

I was actually going to be a philosophy major in my younger days, so it's not lost on me.

My point, which I may not have effectively communicated until now, is that there are dozens of other ways to pursue philosophical understanding or spiritual enlightenment that don't involve learning how to hurt other people. And especially for those persons who object to violence, it just doesn't follow why someone would chose the path of the martial artist to attain such goals.

Does that better explain my thoughts on this?

As far as the Art of War goes, I read it cover to cover when I was a teenager. It espouses deception and misdirection, and very little about spirituality.

And I'm familiar with the philosophy of Aikido, and disagree with it.

It's my fault for even acknowledging the Xwhatever's post in the first place. I actually like the band he quoted, but it's just a bit played out to be quoting them 10 years later as if they're the next big thing.

And Xperson, as a Brazillian, doesn't have any business making comments on a thread about a US draft anyway. I stand by my statement though. I don't want a coward benefiting from the freedoms I and other service men and women have risked our lives to preserve.

Phrost

05-29-2004, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by cerebus
Though I don't necessarily agree with everything Phrost has to say, I don't think his "pizzing in the gene pool" remark was directed at anyone's "race" (at least race wasn't mentioned).

As I understood it he seemed to be referring to potentially passing on one's "cowardice" through their genes (though I could be reading his meaning incorrectly myself).

That is exactly what I'd meant. I do not see how it could be taken any other way, except to be intentionally misrepresented as something else.

omarthefish

05-29-2004, 05:42 PM

Ah yes... the peaceloveing philospoher Sun Tzu...

A favorite anecdote of mine about Sun Tzu:

Discussing the amazing abilities of his subject Sun Tzu in matters of military leadership one day he started to wonder if ANYONE could be shaped into an army. Si he called in his subject Sun Tzu and asked him is even his harem of royal concubines could be trained into an ordered regiment capable of following orders and working as an efficient unit.

He said yes they could.

The emperor was sceptical and demanded to see.

Sun Tzu said that he would need complete authority over them.

The emperor agreed.

The first day of training went poorly as the girls giggled and made jokes etc. So at the end of the day Sun Tzu announced, "There has been a problem of discipline in this group. I am going to take steps," At which point he had the first girl in line beheaded. The next day, discipline was much better. :D

This strategy is called, "Sha ji gei hou kan" or "killing a chicken for the monkeys to see."

Ah good old Mr. Tzu. Always the philospoher.

cerebus

05-29-2004, 05:51 PM

Hello Phrost. You seem to be looking at the world with a very simplistic black and white viewpoint.

I, for one, am not a coward. I served my country during the first Gulf War. I was an amateur boxer for more than four years and a San Da fighter for around 3 years, I've been a cop and a prison guard. I'm not afraid of fighting.

But do I like to fight? Hell no! I began boxing at the age of 13 because I HATED fighting. Sounds strange, eh? But where I grew up if you couldn't fight, then you just became everyone's punching bag.

I never wanted to hurt anyone (even when I was attacked) but I'd much rather that they get hurt (since they deserved it for attacking me in the first place) than that I get hurt (for minding my own business or flirting with a girl who wasn't even interested in the guy who then attacks me).

I've trained in Shotokan Karate (blackbelt), Renbukan Karate (brownbelt) Shaolin, Wing Chun, San Da, Goju Kai Kickboxing, Jujitsu, and am now training exclusively in Hsing-I and Bagua.

Am I training because I like to fight or so I can hurt people? No. In fact, am I training for ANY single reason? No, I'm actually training for MANY reasons. You showed how so many other activities can provide the same things as martial arts training, but only the martial arts provides ALL of those things in one.

So I practice for physical fitness, self defense, "spirituality" (for lack of a better word. Mind-body-world integration and harmony is more my own goal), and to carry on a cultural and historical tradition that interests me.

One other point is that you seem to confuse "sparring" with with "fighting". I enjoy "sparring", including full-contact sparring, but I don not enjoy "fighting". I'll take it for granted that you know the difference.

Phrost

05-29-2004, 05:51 PM

I'm familiar with that story. In the spirit of toning down this discussion, I left it unsaid.

Glad you brought it up. :)

omarthefish

05-29-2004, 05:53 PM

To make a more intelligent counterpoint to Phrosts stance:

I am one of those peacenik MA he's harping on. VERY anti-war. I avoid the news these days because it ruins my apetite, making me naseuous for several day at a time.

I have noticed a problem with peaceniks like me that don't like to fight. They get their ass kicked regularly. This happens on a macrocosmic scale as well. Boy, Tibet was a beautiful peace loving culture who hadn't waged a war in centuries. . .

My Shifu say Taijquan is stell wrapped in cotton but it IS STEELE wrapped in cotton. No steele and nobody really cares about yer stupid taiji.

Then there is aspect number 2:

I am a member of the animal kingdom and basically DO like to fight...from a physical standpoint. Emotionally, intelectually I have problems but physically, I get mad....I . . . get . ..A .n gRRYYY!!!! SMASH!!!! SMASH!!!! SMA A A SS HHH!!!!! :mad: Smash puny humans . . bad??? oh. :(

So I go and train. I find an envoroment where it is acceptable to smash people without worryiong about social consequences. I also learn that OUSIDE of the gymn nobody smashes ME anymore. This is good. So I train. What this all has to di with was is beyond me. Philosophically I am waging the cold war on an individual level.

I hate war.
I love fighting.
I despise killing.
I can imagine a situation where I would kill.
I am not adding on philosophical BS to make myself feel better for training in violence.

People are complex.

cerebus

05-29-2004, 05:54 PM

Heh, heh! Yeah, Omar, I always liked that story myself. Reminds me of Mr. Han in Enter The Dragon: "Few people can be totally ruthless. It takes more strength than you might think."

omarthefish

05-29-2004, 05:55 PM

Cerberus Phrost and I all just simultaneously posted.

Looks like Cerberus and I have a bit in common.

Both Baji guys too....hmm....something in the "Hulk Smash" aspect that appeals a certain type I guess.

cerebus

05-29-2004, 05:57 PM

Actually, I'm a Hsing-I/ Bagua guy, though I trained in Baji for a few months (and my best friend continues to) before I moved out West! :D

omarthefish

05-29-2004, 06:00 PM

Oh. I just thought I rmembered you posting on Baji now and then. I didn't realize it was just for a short while. I'm doing Baji and Bagua these days. Pretty similar combo actually.

Phrost

05-29-2004, 06:01 PM

One at a time haha.

cerebus

05-29-2004, 06:02 PM

Nice! Yeah, when I first arrived here in Cali I looked for a Baji instructor but didn't end up finding one so I ended up being fortunate enough to stumble upon my Hsing-I & Bagua instructors.;)

Phrost

05-29-2004, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by cerebus
Hello Phrost.

---SNIPPET---.

I never said you had to like fighting to be a martial artist. What I said was that to be completely opposed to violence is contradictory to everything the martial arts are about.

A true pacifist is not someone who believes violence is a last resort; they believe violence is never acceptable for any situation.

You can train for many reasons, but never forget that you are learning how to hurt people in the process. If you have qualms with this, you shouldn't be in the martial arts.

CaptinPickAxe

05-29-2004, 06:15 PM

Its nice to see things have simmered down here. Maybe now we may have a serious debate like adults w/o name calling, bashing, and piszing contests.

I have a few point of views I'd like to add:

And Xperson, as a Brazillian, doesn't have any business making comments on a thread about a US draft anyway

Yes, this at the heart of it, an American concern. Seeing how we like to force our views on other people though, makes this a global concern. This is sign that we are gearing up for a war, and not a little policing action, but serious war with serious casualties involved. Besides this time in Iraq, The US usually likes to get other nations in on the fight. Thus making it a global concern. Maybe not such a big deal in S.America, but should be just as concerning to our British and Spainish friends.

I hope you can see my point of view on how the Draft would effect more than just Americans. If we gear up for war so do our Allies.

Phrost

05-29-2004, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by omarthefish
To make a more intelligent counterpoint to Phrosts stance:

I am one of those peacenik MA he's harping on. VERY anti-war. I avoid the news these days because it ruins my apetite, making me naseuous for several day at a time.

I have noticed a problem with peaceniks like me that don't like to fight. They get their ass kicked regularly. This happens on a macrocosmic scale as well. Boy, Tibet was a beautiful peace loving culture who hadn't waged a war in centuries. . .

My Shifu say Taijquan is stell wrapped in cotton but it IS STEELE wrapped in cotton. No steele and nobody really cares about yer stupid taiji.

Then there is aspect number 2:

I am a member of the animal kingdom and basically DO like to fight...from a physical standpoint. Emotionally, intelectually I have problems but physically, I get mad....I . . . get . ..A .n gRRYYY!!!! SMASH!!!! SMASH!!!! SMA A A SS HHH!!!!! :mad: Smash puny humans . . bad??? oh. :(

So I go and train. I find an envoroment where it is acceptable to smash people without worryiong about social consequences. I also learn that OUSIDE of the gymn nobody smashes ME anymore. This is good. So I train. What this all has to di with was is beyond me. Philosophically I am waging the cold war on an individual level.

I hate war.
I love fighting.
I despise killing.
I can imagine a situation where I would kill.
I am not adding on philosophical BS to make myself feel better for training in violence.

People are complex.

I think I covered what I was trying to say in the post above, but I didn't want to give the impression that I'd ingored what you had to say. :)

Would you punch a guy that was attempting to rape your wife? Would you go fight in war if you knew the cause was just, such as in WWII?

If so, you're not the type of peacenick I'm after.

CaptinPickAxe

05-29-2004, 06:21 PM

I'd like to agree with phrost though about his quote about pacifists. They don't fight.
When you are a concienous objector, then you fight as a last resort. I am as above. I will fight if the cause is directly related to me. A threat in my own backyard. I cannot however see fighting, and dying for that matter, in a foreign land, because a presidents says its threat. I don't see the situation in Iraq as a threat to my friends and family. If however I was asked to battle sleeper cells in America, I could see how that would concern me, and would help to the best of my ablities.

Phrost

05-29-2004, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by CaptinPickAxe

Yes, this at the heart of it, an American concern. Seeing how we like to force our views on other people though, makes this a global concern. This is sign that we are gearing up for a war, and not a little policing action, but serious war with serious casualties involved. Besides this time in Iraq, The US usually likes to get other nations in on the fight. Thus making it a global concern. Maybe not such a big deal in S.America, but should be just as concerning to our British and Spainish friends.

I hope you can see my point of view on how the Draft would effect more than just Americans. If we gear up for war so do our Allies.

Brazil is notoriously left-wing in general. I don't see how an American draft would affect them one way or another, unless they start flying planes into our buildings as well.

I don't think your argument is very strong here. We're talking about a war that Brazil is already not participating in, with no expectation for this to change.

CaptinPickAxe

05-29-2004, 06:25 PM

please notice:

Maybe not such a big deal in S.America

I was directing the statement ot our noted allies. You can agree that does effect them, correct?

Stacey

05-29-2004, 06:25 PM

Phrost: fighting nhb does not save you from being a coward. I don't follow Bu$h's B$ and would refuse to fight for his fiefdom. I have fought nhb too. So what?

You are right about Sun Tzu. It might also interest you that he took his military strategy from the taoist classics of leadership and strategy as well as the tao te ching.

If you read those books and other classics such as the 36 strategies, it makes US involvement in the Middle East commical and tragic.

This is similar to midieval Europe. You know that Bush's daughters won't be drafted or ever fight, no one he knows will. Its the peasant class that will go pave the road to Oil dorado with their blood.

Phrost

05-29-2004, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by Stacey
Phrost: fighting nhb does not save you from being a coward.

Have you ever fought under NHB rules? Have you ever served your country in the armed forces? Until you've done either of these, you really have no place calling me a coward.

I can't put it any more simply than that.

As far as the rest of your post, that's outside of the scope of this discussion. I could sink to a certain level and call you a "Commie" based on some of the Marxist rhetoric you espoused in your post, but to do so would be undignified.

KC Elbows

05-29-2004, 07:18 PM

I've met Phrost, and not only is he entirely not a racist, but he's a really good guy, and certainly doesn't deserve to be called a racist. He's conservative, but everyone's got their flaws ;) , and I respect that he's generally not reflexively conservative, but tends to research and think.

As for philosophy and martial arts, I've yet to see a philosophical art where the philosophy was truly accessible any other way than fighting. My opinion, of course, but humility comes from crossing hands, yielding requires something to yield to, balance requires an outside force to balance with to truly get the point, etc. Push hands is not a replacement for that, nor is sticky hands.

And the art of war still calls for attack when that is the correct option.

And the litmus for whether Phrost was so far out of line would be whether Xebs and co. think it would be okay to offhandedly say that the Bushes should be excluded from the gene pool.

cerebus

05-29-2004, 07:28 PM

Well, I don't know if the Bush family should be excluded from the gene pool, but they should DEFINITELY be excluded from the office of President of the United States!

I may not be a big fan of Kerry, but hey, at least he's not Bush!;)

KC Elbows

05-29-2004, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by cerebus
Well, I don't know if the Bush family should be excluded from the gene pool, but they should DEFINITELY be excluded from the office of President of the United States!

Racist!

CaptinPickAxe

05-29-2004, 08:47 PM

I agree with cerebus. How the **** are you gonna take actions towards empeachment for a guy getting his cock sucked, and then completely ignore the fact the our current president's entire term is based on lies....****in' double standards.

cerebus

05-29-2004, 08:57 PM

Well, let's not be TOO harsh. His term hasn't been based JUST on lies.

It's also been based on revoking clean air and water laws to make it easier for big business (his business partners, remember) to operate freely and pollute the hell outta this wonderful country.

CaptinPickAxe

05-29-2004, 09:04 PM

Also give tax breaks to the rich to "stimulate economy", get rid of the Death Tax because "Farmers had to sell the farm to pay to inherit the farm" which is bullshido, support a tuition hike for higher learning (and he supports higher learning ;) ), turn his head for his friend Kenny Boy A.K.A. Kennith Ley Owner and C.E.O. of Enron, Take us from being billions out of debt into the biggest deficit in American History.

No wonder his current commercials only atttack "Mr.Kerry" and don't mention all the good he's done for this country.

cerebus

05-29-2004, 09:11 PM

Yup!;)

Phrost

05-30-2004, 09:11 AM

That tax cuts for the rich bunk is just that. Seriously, look at the numbers. The rich (top 3%) already paying 50% of the tax burden, while those making less than $20K a year pay virtually NOTHING.

Come on, be a bit more rational and don't buy into the spin just because you want to believe it. I paid $12K in taxes this year, and I don't consider myself rich.

By the way KC, I'm not a conservative... I'm Libertarian. Unlike liberals, both Libertarians and Conservites (to some extent) believe it's up to the individual to provide his own standard of living, not the government. You sink or you swim.

Liberals feel everyone is entitled to a certain standard of living, and feel it's their place to forcibly take money from those who are successful, to redistribute it to the lazy, inept, and stupid.

The difference between Libertarians and Conservatives is that we feel the government has no business playing Mommy to the public. Conservatives like to cram religion and morality down peoeple's throats, and we're against that as well.

Libertarians are:

Strong on Defense
Hands off on Foriegn Policy unless it directly affects us
Strong on Individual Responsiblity

KC Elbows

05-30-2004, 09:47 AM

In essence, you're actively conservative, whereas repubs are theoretically conservative, on paper, under the right conditions, during leap years in the mayan calender.

YinYangDagger

05-30-2004, 10:15 AM

In essence, if you're not liberal and support their fu(ked up ideals, you're for the "dark side". Just had to clarify that since KC was trying to be cute in his post.

Stacey

05-30-2004, 10:53 AM

Yes Phrost I have sparred a lot under NHB rules, and under less restrictive conditions. This is sparring, not violence. I have lived in and around very violent neighborhoods and family situations. I know violence, I know what terror is and I know a tryrant when I see one.

I really don't understand a libertarian backing bush. I am in many ways conservative and have strong leanings toward libertarianism, but what good can come of Bush's agenda?

If you see some actual good in it please point it out to me. It seems like he's fanning the flames of fear to create a smokescreen in which he can do whatever he wants to.

As for tax cuts to the rich, thats an economic approach and I won't claim to know if thats good or not. His approach on terrorism and foreign policy is dangerous for the whole world.

As for Brazil being left wing. The whole world is more left wing than the US aristocracy right now. In fact, I find it curious that most professors and educated people are strongly left leaning.

PS...Phrost writes as though he's intelligent, thats why I'm asking for his side on the subject.. I'm changing my signature.

YinYangDagger

05-30-2004, 11:15 AM

I am in many ways conservative and have strong leanings toward libertarianism, but what good can come of Bush's agenda?

BS. I call you on it. I may be wrong, but I've NEVER seen you post ANYTHING remotely close to being conservative. What conservative viewpoints do you adhere to?

Vash

05-30-2004, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by Phrost
Would you punch a guy that was attempting to rape your wife? Would you go fight in war if you knew the cause was just, such as in WWII?

If so, you're not the type of peacenick I'm after.

I'd answer yes to both of the above. If I feel it is just and necessary, I am willing to fight, maim, be maimed, or die for this country wherein I have so many freedoms and opportunities.
It would be immoral of me not to.

However, it would also be immoral of me to do the above things if I knew my actions were for something less than just and less than necessary. Therefore, refraining from participating in those events I feel are less than just and less than necessary is, in my philosophical, moral, and logical frame of reasoning, is moral.

I love this country, and have the utmost love and respect for each and every man, woman, boy and girl that has shed blood, sweat, and tears to preserve it. It is a disgrace to use these amazing people for anything aside from the preservation and protection of this Union.

Mad, Mad props to you, Phrost, for serving our country. Thanks.

I will close with two quotes which always come to mind when I have the misfortune of catching the news:

Originally posted by James Madison, 1751-1836
I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.

Originally posted by John Quincy Adams, 1767-1848
America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

peace

KC Elbows

05-30-2004, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by YinYangDagger
In essence, if you're not liberal and support their fu(ked up ideals, you're for the "dark side". Just had to clarify that since KC was trying to be cute in his post.

Lovely. The difference between your post and mine is that I placed no value judgement on being conservative, but stated the reality that the republican party is not often actively conservative, whereas Phrost and people like him are. It was a complement to a friend, kind sir, from a liberal to someone more conservative, by the texbook usage if not the modern one. If you cannot take good natured ribbing to your politics, take midol instead.

Also, I never even intimated that Phrost was for the "dark side", wingnut. I believe I even called him a good person.

I guess since much of my political reading right now is on Zel Miller and J.C. Watts, both topics recommended to me by a conservative friend, I must be simply researching them to debunk one's position and aid anothers, eh? I couldn't possibly find that competence, insite, and wisdom comes more from individuals with those traits, as opposed to whatever party you're backing, eh?

Try reading the words I actually said before trying to put words in my mouth. In short:

if you're not liberal and support their fu(ked up ideals, you're for the "dark side".

is what I said when I was saying that someone who on the spectrum is more conservative than me by a longshot is a good person, because the average reader can't tell that Phrost and I know each other, since I'm the admin at his website, and maybe respect each others opinion while being able to take a good natured ribbing.

and

Just had to clarify that since KC was trying to be cute in his post

means someone needs ben and jerries and perhaps should lighten up. It's okay, those pants don't make your arse look fat.

KC Elbows

05-30-2004, 01:09 PM

In otherwords,

tax cuts on the national heavily backed by GOP members followed by tax hikes on the state level with substantial GOP support /= small government, but does = big state government

government involvement in marriage, gay or not, most recently largely spearheaded by some in the GOP/= small government.

However, there is almost nothing in phrost's description of libertarianism that is outside of the original definition of conservatism, as opposed to the revisionist modern one.

That's all I was saying. Sorry to make you think I thought negatively of the concept of conservatism, I should have made clear I was talking about party line republicans(which I did). I don't think highly of party line democrats anymore either, but you can ignore that if that makes it easier to fly off the handle, yinyangdagger. Flying off the handle appears to be part of the party line of both parties online, so congrats, you've paid your dues. You'll never need hear criticism again. Have fun in your little bubble. You'd make a great democrat.

I'm quickly starting to think that one get sh1t done party might be better than two freak out at the first site of honest criticism parties.

KC Elbows

05-30-2004, 01:24 PM

Also, I don't think Xebs should breed, but it is unimportant, as he has not bred yet, and will likely not breed in the near future. I do feel his people should breed, whatever people that is(brazilians?), but only Xebs himself should be singled out for this punishment. I would appreciate that this not be eronneously listed as racism in any signatures, since Xebs is not a race unto himself, but instead would prefer it be called Xebsism. This program shouldn't require any outside influence or governmental pressure, provided that at no time are there 65 year old female virgins in brazil, which, at present, there aren't.

Nature will take care of the rest.

YinYangDagger

05-30-2004, 02:14 PM

KC - since you put it that way, I apologize. Yes, I do get all worked up over this crap. It's because it's something I believe in quite heavily. I couldn't read the clarification you provided in your one post I was replying to. When I make a mistake, I'm the first to apologize.

Have fun in your little bubble. ~ Sometimes I wish I COULD be in one.

You'd make a great democrat. ~ I'd rather be called anything but that. But I guess you said that to really offend me
:D

government involvement in marriage, gay or not, most recently largely spearheaded by some in the GOP ~ And I support the GOP on this 110%

Also, I never even intimated that Phrost was for the "dark side", wingnut ~ I can live with that name, just not being called democrat

means someone needs ben and jerries and perhaps should lighten up ~ More partial to Blue Bell

KC Elbows

05-30-2004, 02:18 PM

No, you're supposed to flame back.

Liberal.

YinYangDagger

05-30-2004, 02:30 PM

Liberal.

You're right, that's even worse. Now I have to take action. Either 1) I'll hire a group of Ninja to hunt down you and your family to whipe out your clan or 2) Commit hara kiri.

Dayum. Can't do either one :(

1. Ninja - don't have any money and I hear Stephen Hayes is expensive :mad:

2. Can't commit hara kiri because that would be letting too many people off easy. Gotta stick around for the fight.

So, I'll just ignore the liberal comment and live and let live. :D

Losttrak

05-30-2004, 02:30 PM

I dont think John Quincy Adams had ever dreamt of someone named Hitler exterminating people wholesale. We were isolationists until WW2. If people want to blame America for how we act today, go stick it to some Neo-Nazi or something.

Vash

05-30-2004, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by Losttrak
I dont think John Quincy Adams had ever dreamt of someone named Hitler exterminating people wholesale. We were isolationists until WW2. If people want to blame America for how we act today, go stick it to some Neo-Nazi or something.

Indeed. However, we didn't get into WWII to stop Hitler.

Vash

05-30-2004, 02:52 PM

Oh, here is another quote which often surfaces when I hear of the unAmerican questioning of the abridged freedoms were currently enjoy.

Originally posted by Benjamin Franklin
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Xebsball

05-30-2004, 07:36 PM

da.mn you KC!! :mad:
Thats it, im donating my sperm

Chang Style Novice

05-30-2004, 09:14 PM

I doubt the panhandlers will appreciate your gesture, Xebs, no matter how well-meaning you are.

BM2

05-30-2004, 10:25 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Meat Shake

War has little to do with being a warrior.
Warrior n One who is engaged aggressively or energetically in an activity, cause, or conflict: EX: neighborhood warriors fighting against developers.

Cited from dictionary.com

Many dictionarys contain useage of the word including non standard English. In other words, how it is used even in the wrong sense.
The word conspire is a good example. You have to have someone else to conspire with so co- conspirator is rather silly. Why not just fellow consipirator?
Another example is to mispronounce words. A person's strong point is thier forte. Did you know the forte is the first 1/3 of a sword? It is the strongest part of a sword, its strong point. Forte' however, means to play loud. For the last twenty years or so some people have been saying forte' when they should have been saying forte (for tay when it should have been fort) when refering to someone's strong point. You will find it now listed with both pronuciations. Look it up in a older dictionary.
I suppose you could make the arguement about war as in the football game is going to be a real war next Sunday. Does this mean you are for wars now? Of course not.
A third example would be how the word it self changes completly. Tawdry used to mean the best. If I said your girlfriend was tawdry you would infer that she was cheap and if she is dating you....well let's leave it at that.

BM2

05-30-2004, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by Xebsball
da.mn you KC!! :mad:
Thats it, im donating my sperm

Don't worry KC, he can't impregnant his socks.

Stacey

05-31-2004, 04:59 PM

yyd.

no gun control

the idea of small government

thats how I'm conservative.

YinYangDagger

05-31-2004, 05:45 PM

not bad Stacey, you hit one of my pet peeves with Dems on the head...thanks for clarifying....

Vash

05-31-2004, 07:51 PM

Democrats = Suxors
Republicans = Suxors
Independents = Suxors
Liberals = Suxors
Conservatives = Suxors
Moderates = Suxors

To quote the great and powerful Chris Rock, if you make your mind up before you hear the issue, you is a *******.

To have beliefs to which you cling, that is necessary. To be loyal to that stance, even when "opposing" views and actions would prove superior, is sofa king we todd did. It's lazy to attach yourself to this, that, or even the other.

Oh, and don't be a hippy, because hippies suxors.

cerebus

05-31-2004, 11:51 PM

Meanwhile, YYD is praying for the draft to be enacted and looking forward to killing people and robbing foreign merchants. Doesn't that just make ya' proud to be an American?:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Mr Punch

06-01-2004, 10:21 AM

Yeah, not to mention raping little boys, because 'to the victors the spoils'.

The historical precedents with the samurai, the Romans, Greeks and probably countless Catholic crusaders and of course priests through the ages makes it alright.

BentMonk

06-02-2004, 05:06 AM

The fact is that war is big business. Every war, yes even the ones that supposedly were fought "to defeat evil, and preserve our way of life", were much more about money and power than they were moral high ground. I do not agree with what we are doing in the Middle East. IMO it is about controlling the oil rights than it is about fighting terrorism. I do however hope and pray for the safe return of the men and women that are putting their a$$es on the line. It doesn't matter if they believe in what they're fighting for, or simply doing what they're paid to do. Not all of them are commiting the attrocities that the media just can't quit dwelling on. War has never been pretty, and it never will be. Anyone who thinks the Iraqis aren't doing the same kind of sick sh!t to our soldiers who were captured is deluding themselves. The difference? The Iraqi soldiers didn't end up on every international media outlet being portrayed as sickos. It was US soldiers who leaked the photos and videos. Duh! If you're going to do something you wouldn't want the whole world to know about...don't photograph and video tape it. Why has there not been a video of Iraqis torturing our guys? They weren't dumb enough to make one. I am in no way condoning this type of behavior. The fact that it has gone on for centuries does not make it right. No matter what you think of war, our leaders, or the Iraqi people, don't turn your back on those who are dying. This is just my two cents. You may hit me with the napalm when ready. Peace.

cerebus

06-02-2004, 05:11 AM

Well, there was that video of those Iraqis slowly cutting that guy's head off while he screamed in agony. :(

Christopher M

06-02-2004, 05:42 AM

Originally posted by BentMonk
Every war, yes even the ones that supposedly were fought "to defeat evil, and preserve our way of life", were much more about money and power than they were moral high ground.

This sort of remark is something I see commonly, but I'm not entirely clear on the logic behind it.

For any event, say a war, we can agree that there are certain actions (A), which will have certain consequences (C). While given to certain dispute resulting from various levels of knowledge and standards of judgement, these things can generally be discussed objectively.

In addition, for any event, say a war, there also exist motivations (M). It should be noted that there exist many motivations, since groups may agree on the same As and seeks the same Cs while having different Ms. Unlike the As and Cs, Ms can't be discussed objectively. We may rely on some extent to people's self-reports of their Ms, but this is quite limited - particularly when such people's honesty is in dispute, as is typically the case for politicians and other figures in world affairs.

This creates a problem if we are to judge a certain event based on Ms. In response to this problem, I ask - why should we care at all about Ms, provided we care no less, in so doing, about As and Cs?

There are clearly people who claim to agree with the As and Cs of this event (the war) yet conclude an ultimate disagreement which hangs entirely on Ms which they themselves impute in order to disagree. The vacuousness of this approach seems obvious when observed in this manner. If we limit ourselves to objective analyses of the events, this fallacy is avoided.

Vash

06-02-2004, 05:50 AM

Originally posted by BentMonk
I do however hope and pray for the safe return of the men and women that are putting their a$$es on the line.

**** skippy. These people, those who serve honorably and do not commit those inhuman attrocities, they deserve more than we can give them. Absolutely amazing people serving the US.

And that doesn't change when their C.I.C. is worthless. It just makes their sacrifices even more tragic than they already were.

cerebus

06-02-2004, 05:54 AM

Amen to that, Vash. Too friggin' tragic!

Water Dragon

06-02-2004, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by Phrost
If you don't like fighting, then give me one, rational reason why you practice punching and kicking?

Just one.

I'll give you 5

1. My wife
2, 3. My sons
4. My safety
5. my health

GunnedDownAtrocity

06-02-2004, 11:57 AM

this is the very first political thread i have ever read.

this is the very last political thread i will ever read.

Phrost

06-02-2004, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by Water Dragon

I'll give you 5

1. My wife
2, 3. My sons
4. My safety
5. my health

Ok.

Saddam sends $10M to Al Qaeda who spends it on training people to fly airplanes and other such ventures.

Not your problem.

Six months later, the pilot crashes an explosives laden private plane into a nuclear reactor, wiping out 100 sq miles of a state in which you don't live, killing thousands of your countrymen.

Not your problem.

The power grid for the area goes out, causing that state's economy to collapse.

Not your problem.

Unfortunately, a few members of your company's board of directors take a major hit financially as a result, and decide to sell your company off in pieces.

Still not your problem?

You get laid off, and because the economic burden of the now radioactive state is being shared across the nation, you cannot find work in your chosen field.

Your problem?

Water Dragon

06-02-2004, 02:05 PM

WTF are you talking about Phrost?

I quoted the part about not liking to fight yet still training to fight. Where did terrorism come from?

IMO, there is a big differtence between putting on some gloves and going at it in training and enjoying fighting in the streets.

I don't enjoy fighting in the streets, but I can if need be.

Please don't involve me in political rhetoric, I'm not interested. Thank you

Stacey

06-02-2004, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by Phrost

Ok.

Saddam sends $10M to Al Qaeda who spends it on training people to fly airplanes and other such ventures.

Not your problem.

Six months later, the pilot crashes an explosives laden private plane into a nuclear reactor, wiping out 100 sq miles of a state in which you don't live, killing thousands of your countrymen.

Not your problem.

The power grid for the area goes out, causing that state's economy to collapse.

Not your problem.

Unfortunately, a few members of your company's board of directors take a major hit financially as a result, and decide to sell your company off in pieces.

Still not your problem?

You get laid off, and because the economic burden of the now radioactive state is being shared across the nation, you cannot find work in your chosen field.

Your problem?

Since you can look so far into the future, maybe you should look into the past and see that oppressed people will find a way to strike back.

a handful of men, crippled the US economy, sent shockwaves of fear that fueled blind rage patriotism. How did the do it? They had the will and nothing to lose. WHY did they do it. Because the US has used its influence to oppress the third world and warlord the middle East's oil. Our puppet state Israel ***** slapps palestine around. And our general foreign policy is based on orientalism that has survived in our literature and stereotypes since the Crusades and the Ottoman Empire. So the Hell you fear the US becoming is worse than the Hell these terrorists come from that was made largely impart to the US government.

Trying to oppress terrorism to death is like trying to stamp out napalm. It only spreads the seeds of terrorism. Look at the Irish Republican Army? How long was Ireland conquered and how many generations after did they continue guerilla activity, funded mainly by US citizens. Oppression didn't help. Oppression won't help us either. The only way the US will become as you say is if we follow Bush on his blind path to oblivion.

Mr Punch

06-02-2004, 05:44 PM

While this thread has gone a long way in pointless unrelated argument... this example of rhetoric takes the biscuit:
Originally posted by Phrost

Saddam sends $10M to Al Qaeda who spends it on training people to fly airplanes and other such ventures.
... OK, let's stop there for a second. Can you tell me where there is any proof that Saddam sent any money to Al Qaeda, people who were fundamentally diametrically opposed to his regime?

If the choice of whether to fight is going to be based on the accuracy of the information you are given, I would have to agree with Phrost. So that's, if you believe the tissue of BS all through this war, you are a coward for not being there.

But then, if you believe the tissue of BS all through this war, you are a sheep for being there. A brave sheep, but a sheep nonetheless.

(I'm not including the men and women who were already serving, I'm talking about the people who joined up.)

It's difficult to draw the line between political expediency and falsehood, but if my country (which in this case equates to my government) was gonna expect me to serve, I would be expecting to be given enough proof that my country was doing somewhere near a morally defensible thing (I wouldn't be naive enough to want 'proof' that it was 'right'), so that I could make a value judgment.

Some things in war are not down to value judgment: if you believe that rape and torture in modern society (and war) are right in any way, you are welcome to stand there like the sheep you are, grinning for the camera like England, Graner did and our friend YinYangDagger probably would.

Do a search... hell just go to that weblog that Jun-erh posted a while back. The servicemen who are doing their (and their countrymen's) duties out there are also questioning why the **** they're there - why what they're being told isn't matching up to what they're seeing... but still managing to do a better job of being ambassadors to the values of the United States than that assmunky Bush.

Xebsball

06-02-2004, 05:54 PM

of course theres proof Mat :mad:
how dare you not believe the govment :mad:

they got proofs like they got proofs of the wmd of course

know what i think you are Mat? You are a unpatriot coward who isnt at the war fighting cos youre a coward :mad:

;)

T'ai Ji Monkey

06-02-2004, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by Xebsball
[B]of course theres proof Mat :mad:
how dare you not believe the govment :mad:

they got proofs like they got proofs of the wmd of course

"Proof we don't need no stinking proof."
:D

Mr Punch

06-02-2004, 06:04 PM

Good guess Xebs, good guess.;)

But I'm not at the war because I don't believe in my government's reasons for believing in the Bush Admin's reasons for being there. The paradox is: I'd fight to keep that freedom of choice, but I'd wanna be sure I'd be fighting the right people.

And I'm too old to join up! :D

Right now, through the laws of its government and the paranoia of extremist politics, the people of the US (judging by this board) seem as far from free as they have been since it was a colony.

Christopher M

06-02-2004, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by Stacey
WHY did they do it. Because the US has used its influence to oppress the third world and warlord the middle East's oil.

This is a popular theory, but it doesn't seem to accord with the facts of the situation. France and Canada are among the top targets for the terrorist organizations you allude to. It seems that if the issue was specifically with America, let alone specifically with recent American actions, this wouldn't be the case.

Christopher M

06-02-2004, 06:28 PM

... to my previous argument (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=487932#post487932) against judgements based on imputed motives, I would add this:

Many people's primary complaint regarding the war seems to concern their understanding of the official justification offered for it (eg. WMD). However, it seems that this understanding has been informed by a media whose interests are other than simply providing an objective account of the situation, and who have dramatically misled readers in this case. It would be unfortunate if most people's opinions on so important a matter as this were derived from media spin rather than fact. Again, this would be an argument in favor of judging events in terms of their actions and consequences rather than in terms of imputed motives.

BentMonk

06-03-2004, 04:34 AM

The Iraqis did put out a video of an American being beheaded...AFTER all the pics and vids of our guys acting like drunken frat boys at a hazing were common knowledge. Again to those soldiers in the pics, if you're going to do that kind of stuff, keep the freakin' cameras out of it, duh. This is defenitely a case of two wrongs not making a right. Still, as I said before war is and always will be ugly business. I totally supported going and attacking those responsible for 9/11. Of course had something been done about Bin Laden back in the 80s when Ollie North tried to warn everybody about him, 9/11 would never have happened. We have whooped enough a$$ to avenge 9/11. That a$$ kicking should have been over six months ago. ALL of our soldiers should now be home with their families where they belong. Bush's idea about trying to kill every terrorist is like trying to kill every ****roach, it'll never be done. The US needs to get its nose out of every one elses business, and get busy fixing its own backyard. Yes we live in a great country. I am thankfull that I have freedom. If somebody comes in my yard and tries to take it, God help them. I am not going to go attack my neighbors on the next block because I don't like what they're doing to my other neighbor. It is my neighbor's responsibility to defend himself just like I do. If my house and yard are straight, and my neighbor asks for my help, it will be given. However, I will not neglect my own house to go and save his. Nor will I begin attacking the rest of the neighborhood looking for criminals that might be lurking around. This is exactly what the US is doing. Bush wants to be the number one oil dealer in da hood. He used 9/11 as an excuse to start whacking the competition. After you've avenged the death, your motives for continued killing do matter, no matter how eloquently you may say that they do not. Peace.

T'ai Ji Monkey

06-03-2004, 05:17 AM

Bentmonk good post.

Read an interesting article about the current war and it's monetary cost so far USD 119 BILLION.

Alternative uses for the same price:
1.) Star Wars project x 2.
2.) Giving EACH Iraqi 4500+USD (8 times their average annual income).
3.) Benefits/Aid for the 20% of Americans that live below the poverty lines, etc.
4.) fixing of pension fund.
5.) etc. etc.

In another article I also read an interesting quote (not accurately reproduced):

"A safe American is an American that is internationally liked and respected."

Makes me wonder if the money could have been used in other ways that would produce more long-term benefits than the current war.

Peace.

omarthefish

06-03-2004, 06:13 AM

2.) Giving EACH Iraqi 4500+USD (8 times their average annual income).

wow.

I wonder how that would have worked. Like if we just went in there and bought there support. I mean in America you can get votes for a crummy $450 tax rebate. Imagine how popular Bush would be if he just sent us all checks for $4500. And with a country small enough that we could do for real... boggles the mind.

Funny thing is, I almost wonder if we might even still get those sweetheart construction deal and oil profits. I mean, if we went in there and just said, "look everybody, I know you guys think were evil and all but here's 3 years pay if you'll just open up your markets for us and let us hire our own companies to bring you folks into the 1st world."

Would they welcome us then?

MasterKiller

06-03-2004, 06:21 AM

Originally posted by BentMonk
AFTER all the pics and vids of our guys acting like drunken frat boys at a hazing were common knowledge. I don't remember any drunken frat boys sodomizing each other with light bulbs, or forcing others to ejaculate into someone else's mouth. Those pictures you see on the news every night are the tip of the iceberg, not the whole story.

BentMonk

06-03-2004, 06:49 AM

Originally posted by MasterKiller
I don't remember any drunken frat boys sodomizing each other with light bulbs, or forcing others to ejaculate into someone else's mouth. Those pictures you see on the news every night are the tip of the iceberg, not the whole story.

Point taken. My analogy was as mild as the pics on the news. Still I've said twice that war is ugly. We all know that it was worse than the pics they let everybody see. That's why everybody's so pizzed off. There is no dignity or honor in either side defiling POWs. Yes there is a time to fight, but many of the fiercest warriors in history fought with honor and allowed their enemies to die with dignity. The actions of a few have over shadowed the good deeds of the many.

TaiChiBob

06-03-2004, 06:55 AM

Greetings..

Those that would assert Martial Artists that choose to exercise common sense over dictated agression are cowards, are, themselves, deluded and cowards.. If you're not there, in combat, you are just empty words.. oh, what excuse do you have? get with your own philosophy, Mercenaries are looking for some simple-minded souls..

I was anti war, but went to Viet Nam (1969-1971).. i am anti war, now.. and if you think i am a coward you are sadly mistaken.. war, for a worthwhile cause (defense of the nation), is honorable and necessary.. Iraq is a poorly executed joke.. US foreign policy is a poorly conceived plan to maintain our world dominance, sustain our lavish economy, and further demonize the US image in the eyes of the rest of the world..

The mental requirements to make the statement that Martial Arts = war is so shallow as to be unmeasureable.. martial arts are disciplines that train us to be prepared for war, not to initiate it, not to suggest that it is a valid tool for negotiating national issues.. only to prepare us for it, if it should actually be necessary..

i am amused by the simple-minded folks that spout such nationalistic nonsense as Phrost.. folks that see martial arts as training for war.. martial arts are for preserving life, period. there may be times when war is the method for preserving more lives than not, but to assert that rejecting war on grounds of common sense and principle equates to cowardice is too simplistic to be valid.. i participated in a war (Viet Nam) where 52,000 of my brothers and sisters lost their lives for what, retreat? we abandoned the South Vietnamese after we devastated their country.. the US's recent history suggests that we are not dependable, we tend to start big and leave small.. first and foremost, this government needs to look at the root causes of conflicts and address those before choosing war.. war is the easy option, changing imperialistic policies is more dificult.. actually honoring the notion that life is sacred has been so denigrated by society and government that war is accepted as a way to improve the economy, as a way to export democracy, a way to make other nations like the US..

Yikes, i'm rambling.. calling someone a coward for not believing like someone else is fundamentally without merit.. there many things i will sacrifice my life for, but.. dictatorial and poorly conceived national policy is not one of them..

Be well..

PS: Kudos to Phrost for a well conceived and executed troll.. but, thumps for purely simplistic notions of martial arts..

red5angel

06-03-2004, 06:56 AM

where did this come from? I've never seen anyone on this forum accuse anyone else of being a coward cause they wouldn't go to war.

MasterKiller

06-03-2004, 06:58 AM

Originally posted by BentMonk
The actions of a few have over shadowed the good deeds of the many. A few? Those same reports have come out of Afghanistan and Guantanamo. It was a systemized program of interrogation, not an anomaly amongst a few MPs.

red5angel

06-03-2004, 07:06 AM

hell just go to that weblog that Jun-erh posted a while back. The servicemen who are doing their (and their countrymen's) duties out there are also questioning why the **** they're there - why what they're being told isn't matching up to what they're seeing

Just so we're all perfectly clear - this one soldiers blog does not serve as evidence to anything - period. I served with guys who were joined to get money for school, and swore they would jump ship if we went to war. I know of guys who did jump ship when Desert Storm took place. In WWII, supposedly the greatest war of all, there were millions of letters sent home from soldiers wondering why they were there, what did it matter to them if the germans didn't like the jews and so on.
It's war guys and it's scary. It's not fun when bullets start flying and freinds start dropping. Many people question why they do it or why they are doing it. Those opinions have no factual bearing on what is going on there.

A few? Those same reports have come out of Afghanistan and Guantanamo. It was a systemized program of interrogation, not an anomaly amongst a few MPs.

OH MY GOD!!!!:eek: You mean there is a war on and people are getting hurt?! WTF?! I can't believe that, I mean sure people get killed but then they just hit the reset button and it's all ok right?! :rolleyes:

MasterKiller

06-03-2004, 07:21 AM

Originally posted by red5angel
OH MY GOD!!!!:eek: You mean there is a war on and people are getting hurt?! WTF?! I can't believe that, I mean sure people get killed but then they just hit the reset button and it's all ok right?! :rolleyes: My dad served in the Pacific during WWII in the Army Air Corps. I have his Purple Heart.

One of the things he was always proud of was that we didn't treat prisoners like the Japanese and and Germans did. I'm glad he didn't live long enough to see this ****. It would have broken his heart.

Besides, Red5, you need to get your story straight. Last time I checked you were riding CM's jock about ridding the world of Saddam's brand of terror and being a global humanitarian. Or was that last months flavor?

red5angel

06-03-2004, 07:30 AM

I'll make you a deal MK - you and your dream world partners all stop trying to force your unrealistic morality on everyone else (take off the hippy power jack boots for amoment), and get real for a while and I'll get "my story straight". Or maybe you coudl just pay attention to "my story" in the first place ;) Morality is nice and all when you have something to hide behind but I bet you and your buddies all do an about face when it starts to really affect your lives.

MasterKiller

06-03-2004, 07:34 AM

Originally posted by red5angel
I bet you and your buddies all do an about face when it starts to really affect your lives Here's a hint. It has affected my life, and yet I have not done an about face. That's the funny thing about real morality; it doesn't change with a strong wind.

red5angel

06-03-2004, 07:39 AM

oh it has has it? how many people did you lose in 9/11? Or any other acts of terrorism? Oh wait! Are you Iraqi?! How long were you tortured by Saddam's lackeys? What family member of yours was beheaded on television again?

I'm not talking about affected in that poor me, I'm a westerner and I know someone this or that. I'm talking about real affect. I'm talking about burying family and freinds because someone you don't know decided to smash his plane into them to try to make a point that his own religious beliefs are dominant and all others will die horribly. I'm talking about digging up the bodies of those freinds and family members buried in mass graves under an oppressive regime.

it'd be nice if we could all get along, but we don't and we won't for along long time and so we have to do for ours. You take care of number 1 first or you go down.

MasterKiller

06-03-2004, 07:42 AM

Originally posted by red5angel
how many people did you lose in 9/11? One, smart guy. A family friend. How about you?

red5angel

06-03-2004, 07:46 AM

thats just the beginning MK. It turns out though that violence can sometimes solve things.

TaiChiBob

06-03-2004, 08:39 AM

Greetings..

Casually accepting violence as a valid social tool is what got us here in the first place.. Violence is the LAST resort, and that includes philosophical violence.. idealistic violence inevitably leads to physical violence..

Who here can say with certainty they have had to pull the trigger in combat knowing full well that their action ended the life of another human being.. the first time is sickening, the second feels bad, the third is concerning.. soon, it's just something that you do as part of the job.. ultimately it is dehumanizing..

In every instance every option must be exhausted prior to sacrificing human lives to support ideologies.. otherwise we will continue to stagnate at this evolutionary stage.. it is likely that the costs associated with war would cure the issues that caused it in the first place..

Be well..
It turns out though that violence can sometimes solve things.
It may prevent things, or deflect things, it may subjugate others, it may defend a nation, it may control resources, it may satisfy the warmonger's appetite.. it solves nothing, it only creates new conflicts and tells the world that it's an acceptable tool for negotiating world affairs.. when we deny war as an acceptable option and only use it as a LAST option, then maybe, we can look for a better human condition..

Be well..

KC Elbows

06-03-2004, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by Christopher M
... to my previous argument (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=487932#post487932) against judgements based on imputed motives, I would add this:

Many people's primary complaint regarding the war seems to concern their understanding of the official justification offered for it (eg. WMD). However, it seems that this understanding has been informed by a media whose interests are other than simply providing an objective account of the situation, and who have dramatically misled readers in this case. It would be unfortunate if most people's opinions on so important a matter as this were derived from media spin rather than fact. Again, this would be an argument in favor of judging events in terms of their actions and consequences rather than in terms of imputed motives.

Don't you feel that, to some extent, the media was reporting on exactly what little info the administration was putting out? Specifically, prewar, wasn't Bush doing speeches in lieu of true press conferences pretty much every time? And weren't the WMD's given a starring role in much of the rhetoric of those speeches?

When the Commander in Chief is pushing the topic, wouldn't it be a bit hard for the media to give it too much coverage?

Media does a lot of things, but they didn't write Bush's speeches, nor require that he almost never hold question and answer sessions.

The traditional rmedia response to presidents who do not report directly to the nation's free press from time to time can be seen in the case of Nixon. Since the free press is part of the checks and balances of our nations government, when a president seeks to exclude them from examining the direction the country is moving in, the press may tend to ride it out, but eventually will become highly cognizant of that president's worst behavior, see Pentagon Papers, Herb Block, Watergate, etc. Since the press is largely conservative owned and liberal managed, the blame cannot be placed on libs or cons, but on the president for seeking to undermine the checks and balances of the United States and seeing himself as above reporting to the press, which is his main conduit for reporting to the American people.

Bush's speeches were not vague about WMD's, connections between al queda and Iraq, or the danger to the US. The only real concern of the three, the danger to the US from the Al Queda, has not lessened due to the Iraq war, and the immediate postwar plan is generally considered poor by moderates on both sides.

The president himself is the one who got the media looking at these topics in the first place, and that they kept looking after it no longer suited administration goals is how it sometimes works for presidents of either party. The president traditionally uses the media with caution for fear they will, in turn, use the president. The media rolled over and was non-critical during the early phases, and were greeted with press conferences with nothing to report from them in return. A president can have the press in his pocket without giving away the whole game, but Bush fumbled them, and will ultimately pay the price, because he fumbled someone who already did him a favor. His father made the same errors, for different reasons, and a democrat with a checkered past spanked him in the elections.

It just seems to me that the media is the second part of a relation that ties in to your post, and that the administration is the first part. What the media is doing now is based in what the administration already did. They are showing the president that "If you give us nothing, we will follow the somethings you gave us two years ago, but now wish to forget".

If the president has an underling say something, that something may be something the president does not wish to be the one to say, or be held culpable for later, but if a president says something, he expects the press to report on it, and Bush most certainly put the onus on WMD's by the simple fact that he was the most important person in the whole equation, and that's what he took press time for without serious clarification by question and answer sessions.

Which is the problem with having a President without speaking skills in this country during difficult times. If he cannot manage the press while they report on him, nothing will go smoothly in the end. The solution to that problem isn't a compliant press, but a president that can survive real press conferences.

The Al Queda need to be made obsolete. Not only has their leader maintained his freedom, but other leaders have popped up to fill his shoes if he dies. In Guerilla Warfare, T.E. Lawrence points out that victory cannot be achieved by irregular forces by simply attacking the enemy's center, but that "the virtue of irregulars lay in depth, not in face...". A fine example of this would be the Al Queda. After the war in Afghanistan, they had lost much of their old territory, but it was hard territory to hold, and so they chose abandonment of much of that territory. Now, having persisted, they, among others, have the capacity to maintain a presence in Iraq as well in a way they could not before. Depth, in this sense, means that, while man to man they can not stand before our armies, they can threaten us across a great wide swath of the world. They are in our allies borders, they are in our enemies border, and they have been in ours.

The point of this being that an administration that can't handle the press already lost us one war against guerillas in Viet Nam, and our forces were pretty **** bad ass at that point. Now's not a good time to push for number two. Blaming the press for the cries of WMD is less productive than just seeking leadership that can handle the press. The obvious way the present leadership could manage the press is by limiting their powers, which is largely unconstitutional, whereas better leaders have schmoozing potential.

If the problem is the press, the simplest solution is to change admins. We cannot vote the press out, but the admin that has excluded the free press from participation in the system can be very easily squeezed out, and since we know that the guerilla's greatest friend is a president who can't manage the press and thus loses connection with his people, I'd say it's the best choise of them all.

When leadership is strong, more people will support the war. More support means more chance for victory. People who really want quick victory won't stick by party lines, but by those things that will most offer victory. And again, a president with an increasingly hostile press does not offer such things.

Unless you have a simpler solution. Curb the rights of the free press now that the admin is done using them to get the war moving?

Feel free to tear apart my post, Chris, I'm looking forward to your response, hopefully there's less fallacies than I might've once posted, but possibly more(no humanities yet). I just think that the idea of the "liberal media" is the most thoroughly sold piece of propoganda of the last thirty years, and totally ignores the fact that it's largely conservative owned. I think the whole core issue of your post has to do with the politics between presidents and the press, and that it works close to fine the way it is, equally impugning Carter, Clinton, Bush I and II, Reagan, all the while hailing them. If you really pay attention to the news over a long span of time, you see that they cannot avoid looking at the dirt of each party member and persona and exposing it, because otherwise, the bottom line gets hit. Since Bush pushed WMD's with all his heart, he gets to look naive and/or manipulative, just as Clinton got to look like a lech, Bush senior an old boy's club member, Reagon unaware, Carter without influence, Ford incompetent, Nixon crooked, Johnson, et al. That's one of the great things about the US. They're just presidents, not kings. They're there for the deconstruction. Don't like 'em? Vote them out.

As such, I think our present president and some of his old boys are lame ducks who create more problems in Iraq simply by their being involved, including their problems with the press. Blame the press all you like, but it's the presses right to treat with hostility a hostile administration, whereas it's not the administration's right to alienate the press while there's american lives on the line.

Must stop typing.

omarthefish

06-03-2004, 04:10 PM

KC you rock.

I never bother with posts that long but this one went down easy.

KC Elbows

06-03-2004, 04:20 PM

Thanks.

EDIT- I just tend to be bothered with the tendency to place more than the appropriate blame on the press, and less on the government. The press is, in many ways, more responsible for our freedoms than any branch of the government. The nation was designed that way.

SECOND EDIT- I also happen to enjoy occasionally exposing my ides to folk like Christopher, highly educated, highly critical people. I find it's a good way to find where my own thinking is strongest and weakest. However, for the most part, Chris can utterly destroy me in debate. C'est la vie.

rubthebuddha

06-03-2004, 11:20 PM

aye -- chris is a pretty **** smeller ... er pretty smart feller. about the only time i beat him in an argument is when he admits that i'm right when i say keeping things simple is the best way to go.

scotty1

06-04-2004, 06:06 AM

Good post from the Elbows!

Christopher M

06-04-2004, 06:39 AM

KC - I understand that you have been told WMD was the most important, the pivotal, or the only issue in the President's argument for war with Iraq. Here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html) are the exact words he used when he gave that argument. You can determine for yourself whether what you have heard regarding the prominence of WMD is true, and then conclude for yourself what implication this has for our conception of the media.

KC Elbows

06-04-2004, 06:59 AM

Originally posted by Christopher M
KC - I understand that you have been told WMD was the most important, the pivotal, or the only issue in the President's argument for war with Iraq. Here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html) are the exact words he used when he gave that argument. You can determine for yourself whether what you have heard regarding the prominence of WMD is true, and then conclude for yourself what implication this has for our conception of the media.

I'll read and reply a little later. Thanks for the link, btw. And don't worry, I've got no vested interest in being right in these kinds of discussions anymore- I seem to learn a lot more being wrong.

TaiChiBob

06-04-2004, 07:19 AM

Greetings..

It is likely that we will never fully comprehend the fundamental reasons that the Bush administration chose to engage Iraq in armed conflict.. but, it is reasonable and prudent to assume that there are layers of deal-making and deception on all sides.. i not only support a free press, i sense that it is the last defense from a "Matrix"-like existence where certain governmental alliances of the world manipulate our perspectives and actions in a grand orchestration of self-serving puppet shows (we being the puppets).. love 'em or hate 'em, the press (free press) asks the hard questions.. of course there is the puppet press, deals for scoops, etc.. that is a functioning arm of the gov't script for a productive society, but they exist on our propensity for laziness, our lack of demanding accountability from our leaders..

This is our time on this planet, shouldn't it at least be lived sincerely and shouldn't we be afforded the truth of what our leaders do on our behalf? when you understand the almost unbelievable capabilities of our espionage technology it is ludicrous to assume that this administration didn't know the details WMD or any other aspect of the conflict.. the only variable is the degrees of indoctrination between opposing ideologies..

Any time you think the administration is wringing its hands and contemplating the best interests of its citizens.. beg for a reality check.. the Gov't functions to assure the survivability of its ideology, and we are the tools of that effort.

Be well..

KC Elbows

06-04-2004, 07:46 AM

A quick response after a perusing of that speech, I'll do more later.

Speeches and posts aren't that different. When we post threads, more often than not, people reply to what they focus on in the material, even when that was not our original point. Sometimes, that can even improve one of our less inspired posts. Sometimes not.

You are correct, that speech contains much more than simply comments about WMDs. However, for the American listener, quotes like this:

"Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year."

trump quotes like this:

"To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear, to him and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations."

Provocative statements have effects that submerge less provocative ones. In that text, imo, he seems to put forward a hypothetical that the sanctions(and bombings) were insufficient to containing the Iraqi threat, and were failing to such an extent that the king of all WMD's was within Hussein's immediate grasp.

I understand that the president is not privvy to perfect knowledge of events, but traditionally, the president is responsible for seriously imperfect intelligence, at least in the eyes of the press and the people, unless a convincing scapegoat is found.

This gets back to your earlier comments about finding an approach where intent is not the focus, but results. The result of that speech, because of provocative statements like the one above and others I'll post later, was a perception that the President knew that Iraq had capabilities that subsequent reality cast in serious doubt, and those capabilities were the most pressing reason listed, from a purely selfish and thus truly politically viable standpoint, to change from containment of Iraq, to following the UN rules to the letter, rules that are often somewhat soft, including toward the US.

True, atrocities occured under Saddam, but politically, involvement of the world's people hinged on how it affected them. To get them to move took convincing, and WMD's were an important element of that convincing. That's the politics of it. However, by using that argument, or any tenuous argument, the president ran the risk of a backlash should those capabilities be untrue. That is the effect, and will always be the effect, of similar actions.

So now that every reasonable recourse has been taken and nothing very similar to the view Bush gave of Hussein's WMD capabilities is appearing, the media does not bear the burden of proof and the repercussions of failing to support that burden, but Bush does.

Which returns us to my original point. Bush used those provocative statements for a specific effect, which worked. However, the effect of those statements went beyond that immediate effect, as he undoudtedly well knew it might. Then, Bush made the mistake of treating the press in a hands off manner, using press secretaries who gave no useful info and treated the press like children. For a while, the press allowed it. But they were aware that they largely supported Bush's early approach; Bush should also have been aware of this.

By treating them hands off, Bush nearly guaranteed that this topic would come back and bite him in the arse. He did not have to give away all the info, he simply had to make the press friendly, that was the effect he absolutely needed to succeed, and he made only one serious attempt, the meet the press interview, and that, while an improvement on his past question and answer sessions, clearly did not suffice in making the press friendly to him.

This is not a case of a lib media hitting a conservative President. This is a case of the direct effect of a President losing the media by his own actions during a crucial time. He failed to adequately use a growingly conservative media to ensure that his past statements would not become weights around his neck, and he made certain that those reporting directly to the media from his administration were unpleasant towards the media.

What I'm saying is that I think you are correct, other statements are in there, but that for this argument, those other statements are nowhere near as provocative, influential, or pertinent to the WMD argument, which exists solely because Bush made those statements, put people who could not answer unpleasant answers with a smile in PR positions in his admin, and then treated the press in a way the press has always considered disrespectful.

So, conservatives blaming the press achieves nothing but maintaining an air of hostility between the media and the admin, possibly into a second term, all at the exact time when the military cannot afford such a rift. If closure in Iraq is to be productive, this seems counter to that, at least to me.

Christopher M

06-04-2004, 08:06 AM

My only claim was that Bush's argument for war in Iraq didn't hinge on WMD.

Having given that argument in primary source, you can either agree or disagree with me.

I'm not sure what relation your other remarks here have to anything I've said, so I really don't know what to say to them.

MasterKiller

06-04-2004, 08:09 AM

CM is fond of the 2002 speech. I like the 2003 State of the Union better:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Of course, we all know how "accurate" that claim was....

The entire last 1/3 of that speech is about WMDs, and our case that he had excess quantities. I guess the press is to blame for that one, too.

Chang Style Novice

06-04-2004, 08:10 AM

I think that you are making an error in only focussing on the rhetoric of the actual request for a declaration of war and ignoring the rhetoric that for months led up to that declaration.

Many, many justifications were spun out in an attempt to drum up support for the war and only one stuck, so they went with that.

Christopher M

06-04-2004, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by MasterKiller
CM is fond of the 2002 speech.

I'm "fond" of it when the issue of concern is what Bush said when he was making an argument for war. The reason for my fondness in that regard is because that is where he made the argument for war. It's not an arbitrary choice.

Chang Style Novice

06-04-2004, 09:05 AM

To be more accurate, that is one place among dozens or hundreds where he (or other administration representatives) made the argument for war, and the argument changed greatly among those many occassions.

Christopher M

06-04-2004, 09:14 AM

I'm sure he mentioned the war lots of times. That particular speech was the occasion of an explicit and formal presentation of his thoughts on war in Iraq executed for the purpose of advocating war there.

KC Elbows

06-04-2004, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by Christopher M
My only claim was that Bush's argument for war in Iraq didn't hinge on WMD.

Having given that argument in primary source, you can either agree or disagree with me.

I'm not sure what relation your other remarks here have to anything I've said, so I really don't know what to say to them.

Sorry Chis, I'm not trying to pin you down on an argument here, just interested in your thoughts, because I respect them. I'm a little margaritaed out right now, post business meeting, so forgive me if my subsequent post is not particularly good.

My subjective view is that the attempt made in that speech did hinge on WMD's, and more specifically, nuclear weapons, but that is my subjective view. He did include more material than that, but the money shot, imo, was suggesting that the nuclear capability was as little as a year away. It's very difficult, imo(again), arguing a speech, because while the information listed is one thing, presidential speeches are more than fact finding addresses. Presidents must search for the "day of infamy" part of their address, the part that resonates forever. The part that influences.

For the record, I am sticking to discussing that one speech and how it relates to now.

I am not looking for you to change your view, I'm mostly curious on what you think the end result needs to be, from a perspective that the media is working at a purposefully cross purpose to the admin, to see positive results from it all.

Again, sorry if I seemed argumentative, I'm genuinely interested in your viewpoint of this all. I agree, the media has its own approach. That being said, what do you view as a likely rational solution to the conundrum?

For the rest, I'm not "taking on" Christopher here. I respect him almost more than any other member, especially on religion and politics. I just wish to know his perspective, because he knows more than I do about this, and I have no problems admitting that.

Someday, though, I swear I'll out debate that *******!:D

Though I may have to kidnap and gag him first. I'm not squeemish about cheating.:D

Xebsball

06-04-2004, 03:52 PM

cos you complained ratm was too 90s, this is more new:

http://www.zackdelarocha.com/

get the mp3 and the lyrics
if the link of mp3 not work, get it with a fileshare program

look for both March of Death
and Center of the Storm

Unmatchable

06-05-2004, 04:01 PM

My thoughts:

If you are afraid you'll be injured or beaten in a street fight, then you probably should be. A mans man would never fear this. Do you get punked or taken in the real world and before you started training? Then u will once you fight and evena fter u train. The strong survive and the weak are expoited....much like real life. The new cats are more at risk, and yeah, there are lots of queens that give it up b/c they like it... hard streetfighters have nothing to lose and so they adapt to their envirnmt. Plus men get crazy fighting. Like that post about that CO, even the biggest get took though. PRofile in the wrong block/house and get a train run on you. MOst people dont mess with that BS though, and if youre str8, make some decent friends/allies, and stay outta trouble while keeping your honor, you dont have any probs.

cerebus

06-05-2004, 04:46 PM

Gee Unmatchable, sounds like you're a real, um......."man's man"! ROFLMAO!!!! :p :p :p :p

Mr Punch

06-05-2004, 06:20 PM

Unmentionabull,

what the **** are you talking about?

Do you even know what this thread is about?

Shouldn't you be in Iraq?

Kickboxer

06-05-2004, 09:08 PM

that was a good snicker, and the use of quotes, although completely non-sequitur, gave me a few more chuckles.

Christopher M

06-06-2004, 06:19 AM

Originally posted by KC Elbows
just interested in your thoughts

My thoughts generally are: there exists a number of more-or-less discrete parties in the American government whose motivations for this action, or any other, vary. But, generally, the motivation for invading Iraq was to improve stability in the region generally and to depose the Hussein regime specifically. I think that they were generally comfortable doing this based on existing international precident, but were encouraged by Blair to solidify UN approval. And I think it is in this that the WMD issue first surfaced, insofar as it is in the context of WMD that Iraqi violation of UN mandate is best illustrated, and through such violation that UN approval best sought. I think that, in this regard, the issue of finding further WMD in Iraq is a moot point, because the UN already found Iraq in material breech (UN Resolution 1441). I think WMD was still presented as one issue among many (see 1441 and the previously cited address by Bush to the UN).

I think that the American public and media bilaterally (that is, both as a means to hang and as a means to bolster the Bush Administration) focused on WMD as a central issue. I think the Adminstration observed this and catered to this interest. And I think they are gravely to fault for this act of politics.

I think the state tries to use the media to say things it is constrained against saying, and this creates a certain give and take between the two. And I think that one way of avoiding the distorting effects of this dynamic is focussing on state proclamations in primary rather than secondary source. This arises from a distrust rather than preference for the state (although, in lack of this background, I can see how the opposite may be concluded).

I think that people should worry alot less about guessing the motivations of state officials and worry alot more about asking whether or not the right things is being done on an objective level. Insofar as deposing the Hussein regime has reduced human suffering and death I believe it was objectively the right thing to do. Insofar as that goes, I don't care whether it was done as part of a religious war or out of the belief that it would make elephants love mice and Mars turn blue.

As far as the administrations handling of the discourse surrounding the war, I've noted before but will further emphasize that I think they failed outrageously at allowing and endorsing it's focus on WMD rather than the humanitarian issues. But, to be complicated, I'll emphasize again my interest in objective actions over discourse-in-itself.

As far as the war itself goes, although its hard to argue with the results, I think Frank' tactics were unnecessarily destructive and he should have listened to British advice on this matter.

As far as the post-war goes, I advocate a quick American exit leaving a mixed Iraqi government, maintaining Kurdish autonomy on the north; and a quick emphasis on securing and rebuilding the oil infrastructure. While often lambasted, this second point is absolutely essential to the overall war plan, as one of the unique things that made Iraq a suitable candidate for military intervention is that it possessed it's own source of wealth it can use to rebuild an autonomous culture.

Whether they've actually done this is tough to say at this point. I think that they fumbled in the early days of the war by losing the northern front when they were refused use of Turkish ports. This cost them the intimate involvement of the Kurds, which was part of a plan to more widely involve Iraqi cultural elements in the offensive and aftermath. I think this fumble had repercussions throughout the aftermath which made it much worse than it should have been, and which were never resolved in any adequate manner.

As far as the mid-term future goes, I'm overwhelmingly dubious of the neoconservative agenda who openly advocate a) permanent American military occupation of the middle east, and b) that immediate supplantation of democracy anywhere in the world will improve that place. I overwhelmingly oppose both of these ideas, and hope the neoconservatives are not given the opportunity to see them out as they'd like to.

As far as the long-term future goes, I'm mostly concerned about how to make that happen. I think the main issue in this regard is the public's ability to critically absorb polticial/social/economic information - which I am, again, overwhelmingly dubious of. In other words, I think this is the highest priority in terms of things we can actually focus on to make a difference. I fear that in "opposing the neoconservatives" people are only going to flee to the interventionist, supernationalist, authoritarian socialism from which the neoconservatives were born, rather than towards an isolationist, libertarian, grass-roots liberal democracy like they should. Out of the frying pan into the fire won't help anyone.

MasterKiller

06-11-2004, 08:12 AM

Christopher M

06-11-2004, 08:23 AM

And?

MasterKiller

06-11-2004, 08:29 AM

Just pointing out who told the media that the WMDs were the pivotal issue of the Iraqi invasion.

Christopher M

06-11-2004, 08:49 AM

Internet flash movies trump official transcripts of UN presentations when it comes to accuracy and objectivity?

MasterKiller

06-11-2004, 09:09 AM

In case you didn't notice, those were quotes from Bush, Cheney, Powell, Fleischer, and Rumsfeld, given directly to the media, in which they stated that WMDs were the reason for the invasion.

You claim the media made up the hype surrounding the WMDs. I'm merely suggesting the media was towing the party line.

Christopher M

06-11-2004, 09:21 AM

In fact they don't say anywhere there that "WMD was the most important, the pivotal, or the only issue in the President's argument for war with Iraq."

That piece does outright lie to us though; for instance, when it claims that no WMD have been found.

Kind of supports my position about misrepresentation, rather than refuting it.

MasterKiller

06-11-2004, 09:25 AM

Cheney says "We are resting our case on the fact that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction."

Fleisher says "He has Weapons of Mass Destruction. That is what this war was about."

That piece does outright lie to us though; for instance, when it claims that no WMD have been found. Yeah, I think you pointed out they found a few grams of something in 1998.:rolleyes:

http://www.angelfire.com/co/COMMONSENSE/lies.html

Christopher M

06-11-2004, 09:36 AM

Indeed. "Their case" refers to "it is in the context of WMD that Iraqi violation of UN mandate is best illustrated, and through such violation that UN approval best sought," as I described in my post. It doesn't cover the reasons for invading Iraq (which were outlined in full when this context was explained, in documents I have already cited). Moreover, this statement is entirely accurate and reasonable, and was unanimously agreed to in UN Resolution 1441 (which I also already cited).

If you got your information from sources which didn't cite out of context, manipulate, and outright lie, this would be plainly clear. Since you didn't, I can only (and already have) direct you to the original documents in question so the mediation of one media source or another is not an issue.

Moreover, why would you personally trust, let alone sincerely offer in a debate an account laced with outright falsehood? Doesn't it bother you that these people are willing to plainly lie to you? Or are lies ok so long as they're for the right cause?

Christopher M

06-11-2004, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by MasterKiller
Yeah, I think you pointed out they found a few grams of something in 1998.

As I recall the conversation, you asked for a citation for discovery of WMD. I offered one. You demanded to see the same article on CNN. I supplied that. You asked for another. I supplied another. Then you said none of it counted.

The approach you took there should be plainly absurd. I'll say now what I said then: make clear whatever standard of evidence is convincing, and I'll supply that standard. The tactic you've used so far isn't reasonable.

Moreover, it's unclear why people believe this issue of Iraqi violation is under debate to begin with. What higher or more clear standard is there than the series of unanimous UN resolutions to this effect? I've yet to this even acknowledged, let alone addressed, by those of you calling this into question. Can you address it?

YinYangDagger

06-11-2004, 02:36 PM

:o

who cares about WMD? only the liberals who need something to cry about as the elections close in...

Hussein needed ousted, GWB ousted him, end of story

someone needed to say it, so there ya go

flame away, of course remember you will never change my mind of this view; go on, waste your breath, time and energy coming up with an argument, I don't care :D

TaiChiBob

06-13-2004, 07:00 AM

Greetings..

flame away, of course remember you will never change my mind of this view; go on, waste your breath, time and energy coming up with an argument, I don't care

Excellent.. another indoctrinated cog in the machine.. especially the "I don't care " part.. that's what got us in this mess.. "I don't care " is what Gov'ts depend on to manipulate the masses.. of course you don't care, you're sitting behind your computer in your air-conditioned comfort.. try scraping a life out of the desert, better yet.. try to comprehend the intracacies of nationalistic policies.. the policies that set this in motion, US policies.. it's easy to set back and applaud as people die, it's much more difficult to investigate and understand world politics.. and more difficult to stand up for that which benefits all mankind, not just your personal or national best interests

Saddam Hussein may have indeed needed to be removed.. but not by GWB waking up one morning and yellin' "hey, i gotta cool idea!!!".. Public deception, poor planning, unilateral action and cover-ups cannot instill faith in the US as a desirable world leader.. The US and its allies must live the example they preach before they can expect the faith and trust of the world community..

Be well..

Stacey

06-13-2004, 08:27 AM

very well said TCBob,

My Dad is a conservative. His only news source he gets on tv is Fox news. He's behind Bush, but can't say why. He also thinks gays are jerks for wanting government grants on aids research. He has an excuse though HES CRAZY. Thats right, clinically insane. Psycologists can't even DSMIV Him.

Whats your excuse?

YinYangDagger

06-13-2004, 10:55 AM

I'm behind Bush, well, because I want to be, and support the Conservative way.

You see, liberals are so against all the "civilians and kids" that get killed during war time, yet support the mass slaughter known as abortion. Liberals are the first to cry about the First Amendment, yet are sooo cool when they try everything in their power to destroy the Second Amendment. Then we see them whine about the Big Tobacco companies yet a lot of them support the legalization of pot. Maybe not all liberals support these views, but when it comes down to it, you gotta choose a side.

Then there's the welfare idea. Liberals have a tendency to support the lazy a$$ folks that don't want to work. Real conversation I had when I was a manager, talking to an employee last year:

Me: Hey, Takeisha, I really need to get you to sign on for more hours for the new project next week. You're only working 10 hours per week, can you bump it up to full-time?

Takeisha: No I can't do that. If I sign up for more work, then they'll cut my check I get every month. With the new baby on the way, they're even going to increase the amount I get and I don't want to lose out on that money.

She had 3 kids to start with.

And as far as Fox News goes, it's about time someone got it right. It's so funny that most of the libs out there are younger folks. I too used to be a liberal, then I grew up.

I'm Pro-Gun, Pro-Christian, and Pro-American. I'm anti-abortion and anti-f@ggot. If that causes alarm to you and gets your panties in a wad, so be it.

Stacey - nice dis to your own Father. Goes to show the libs will do anything at any cost to try and get their own views across. It really doesn't surprise me, by the way.

I'm not going to sit here and argue and spend vast amounts of time going back and forth. I've aired my opinions and proudly support them. You do the same thing, it's a free country for now.

The Willow Sword

06-13-2004, 11:26 AM

You see, liberals are so against all the "civilians and kids" that get killed during war time, yet support the mass slaughter known as abortion.

Pro-choice is not necesarily pro-abortion, you talk about right to life,,but what about a right to a DECENT life?(but i guess it doesnt talk about that in the bible now does it?). not the church's or the governments buisness WHAT a woman chooses to do with her body(i dont necessarily like it, but i am not going to force the issue, nor am i going to firebomb a planned parenthood clinic and call myself riteous and christian)

Liberals are the first to cry about the First Amendment, yet are sooo cool when they try everything in their power to destroy the Second Amendment.

yeah guns dont kill people, people do right? uhh the gun helps doesnt it?;) and its the 1st amendment that gives ME the right to speak my mind. So dont put down those that excersise that right YYD, be they liberal or not. remember columbine high and paducah KY? thats why people speak out against the rampant gun usage in this country, or does that not affect you like it does say, the citizens of those communities whose children are DEAD because of that 2nd amendment.

Then we see them whine about the Big Tobacco companies yet a lot of them support the legalization of pot

Well for one thing POT doesnt cause cancer or emphysema or any of the illnesses that tobacco does and as far as POT being a statistic for death and disease in this country, its got a big fat Goose egg for a number. and besides i know plenty of good ole boys who are proud of thier bow and rifle and love to fight and like to smoke a doober ever now and then, hurts no-one and booze and tobacco are far more corruptable for our youth and those "drugs" are a commodity and legal to abuse when you turn 18/21.

Then there's the welfare idea. Liberals have a tendency to support the lazy a$$ folks that don't want to work.

The FACT is that these "lazy a$$" folks DO want to work. And workin at the burger king doesnt help them to take care of their responsabilities. And when corporations out source thier work to INDIA to cut costs and labor wages, rather than provide the work HERE for our citizens just because some rich a$$hole wants to pay the least amount of money for his wireless base station, you get people taking whatever they can get because of the current economic situation and i think maybe that you need to show a bit of comapssion for those who do have big families but that live in urban areas and do what they can to survive, YOU would do the same thing in their position.

I'm Pro-Gun, Pro-Christian, and Pro-American. I'm anti-abortion and anti-f@ggot. If that causes alarm to you and gets your panties in a wad, so be it.

i am Anti-NRA, I am Anti-bush ,Anti-organized religion(but not anti-religion), Pro-choice AND pro-America, and I dont give a sh!t what sexuality you are, and IF THAT gets YOUR bvd's in a bunch,,then SO BE IT :p

PEACE,,,TWS

Stacey

06-13-2004, 12:01 PM

Point 1. For welfare, I have never heard any representative of the republican party give anything but a case example that welfare doesn't work. It does work when Its mandatory that welfare recipients are getting educated so they can get a job and contribute to society.

Point 2. Many conservative don't want there kids going to college because they fear the influence of liberal professors. Basically they fear thinking bilaterally. If your doing more than pulling a party line and thinking about useless things like philosophy you might ask, "If its moral for the US to torture and kill, then why can't I?" "If I am afraid because my neighbor has a gun, can I launch a first strike by tossing a grenade into his living room?" Those in power don't want the populace thinking, which is why they discredit liberals and liberal colleges with there liberal professors. Very Orwellian.

Point 3. What do values mean? Whos values? Christian values? Such as torture and imperialism? The early Church was communist, the idea of selling all you had and giving it to the poor is another christian value. Conservative values means nothing. So you want to kill born people instead of the unborn? Personally I'm against abortion as I am against aggresive expansionism. What I can't stand is the incongruency in thought by those that tout "VALUES" these people need to take a class in basic logic to see that their "value" make a very select people wealthy and that this does not include them and even if it did, It would still go directly against there "VALUES"

"Its a free country for now" Except with Bush saying things like "There ought to be limits to freedom" and Ashcroft's Patriot act, its not long before the unwitting populace that love Bush religious fervor and "values" are feared into a decreasing civil liberties.

Point 4. I love my Father, but my first obediance is to truth and sanity, because I grew up with an insane person, I can see when the country is going insane. Its the same languid logic and rigidly living in someone elses fantasy land.

Point 5. I like guns, they are fun, I like target shooting and because I'm a country boy, we shoot and butcher cattle. Many of my friends are good hunters. Guns are good, technology is good, we don't need to get rid of tools, we need to educate people.

Christopher M

06-13-2004, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by The Willow Sword
Pro-choice is not necesarily pro-abortion

Yes it is. The role of legislation is not to indicate how cool or uncool a certain action is - it is simply to indicate which actions are not permissible. The pro-choice versus pro-life debate occurs in the context of legislation: so the issue at stake is whether or not abortion is a permissible action. There is no thing that "pro-abortion" could mean in this context other than that it is a permissible action, which is precisely what "pro-choice" means. Thus, they are synonymous.

but what about a right to a DECENT life?

What about it?

[it is] not the church's or the governments buisness WHAT a woman chooses to do with her body

I agree with you. However, this is not a logically consistent position unless things like drug use and euthanasia are made legal. Moreover, this is not in any case a reasonable position on abortion because abortion concerns what a woman chooses to do with someone else's body, not her own.

i dont necessarily like it, but i am not going to force the issue

Let us hope this is not the universal attitude towards injustices.

And when corporations out source thier work to INDIA to cut costs and labor wages, rather than provide the work HERE for our citizens

Are you are an advocate for America making India and the rest of the world poorer in order to make Americans richer? This seems to be your position here.

Christopher M

06-13-2004, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by Stacey
[welfare] does work when Its mandatory that welfare recipients are getting educated so they can get a job and contribute to society.

This is not welfare. This is like "workfare" or "unemployment insurance" - financial supplements offered over a short-term in order to transition someone from unemployment to employment, and/or in exchange for productivity.

Many conservative don't want there kids going to college because they fear the influence of liberal professors. Basically they fear thinking bilaterally.

Your logic does not follow here. If the professors are liberal, it's partisan, not bipartisan.

The early Church was communist

I do not think it was. What gives you this idea? In any case, when Americans speak of Christian values, they tend to be referring to the values of the Reformation rather than the early church.

Stacey

06-13-2004, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by Christopher M
This is not welfare. This is like "workfare" or "unemployment insurance" - financial supplements offered over a short-term in order to transition someone from unemployment to employment, and/or in exchange for productivity.

In that case I'm for workfare and not for welfare.

I don't believe that the professors are neccesarilly liberal or conservative, but colleges tend to inspire thought which doesn't go well with obedience.

Having at one time memorized Luther's Catechism, I don't remember anything about it that remotely follows Bush's decisions.
There were sections in Luthers Catechism such as explanation of the 10 commandments that did require dharma. IE...Honor thy father and mother, What does this mean? Whether you are a father, mother, son daughter, slave, manservant or maidservant or whatever is your charge........etc.

So there is mention of slavery, this is a conservative value. Lincoln abolished slavery, but at that time the republican party was liberal.

Why do conservative who tend to lean toward small governenment still think Bush is so great when he is expanding the government and being outrageously liberal with our money?

Christopher M

06-13-2004, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by Stacey
In that case I'm for workfare and not for welfare.

Me too.

I don't believe that the professors are neccesarilly liberal or conservative, but colleges tend to inspire thought which doesn't go well with obedience.

I think, and study suggests, that there is a disproportional liberal bias. In any case, I think 'not going well with obedience' is definitely a good thing - but not one that in itself biases one to either liberalism or conservatism, in their political senses.

Having at one time memorized Luther's Catechism, I don't remember anything about it that remotely follows Bush's decisions.

Well, you could debate whether Bush has been loyal to the 'Christian Right', and you could debate whether the 'Christian Right' is itself loyal to its principles; but the fact remains that, as fundamentalists, their thought is traced to Reformation currents rather than early church currents. Of course, Luther had alot of scathing things to say about the church.

Why do conservative who tend to lean toward small governenment still think Bush is so great

They tend not to, actually. The paleoconservative and libertarian factions of American politics have been extremely critical of Bush since the beginning.

They may nonetheless appear to be favoring Bush in light of: their disfavor of the liberal criticisms of him, the doubt that the alternatives are any better, and the great desire to have seen the Hussein regime deposed.

YinYangDagger

06-13-2004, 05:09 PM

Hey WS, that's why this is a free country, we can speak our minds. I could go on and on and argue your viewpoints along with everyone elses regarding the issues you brought up. But, I won't simply because I don't like to get caught up in all this arguing over a forum crap. Too much time wasted. I could be doing something more productive like going out to gun shows and buying up all the guns WITHOUT paperwork so the government doesn't know what I have. Or go over to some ghey forums and do a little bashing.

:D

Stacey

06-13-2004, 05:34 PM

Chris: Thanks for the clarification.

Now that the Hussein regime is gone and we have Halliburton in there fixing pipelines.

1. Do we at least get cheaper gas prices for conquering Iraq?
2. Do you think invading Iraq has made the US safer?
3. Do you think Kerries plan to give tax cuts to those making under 200,000 is a wise continuation of Bush's tax cut theory?

It seems like like kerry doesn't have the balls to just do away with it. I don't trust Kerry any ****her than I can throw him, but I think that Bush is foolhardy and destructive. To much wood energy to use chinese philosophy.

Christopher M

06-13-2004, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by Stacey
Do we at least get cheaper gas prices for conquering Iraq?

I've got no idea. Doesn't seem like it, so far. I think the issue with gas prices did not concern any immediate reduction. Rather, it is tied to stability generally in the middle east. There is a fear that instability could result in a middle-east-wide meltdown, one of whose effects would be an oil crisis. If stability is increased, the chances of this have decreased, but this offers no reduction of our current gas prices.

Do you think invading Iraq has made the US safer?

Not really. Maybe in the long term, resulting from potential related changes in the futures of North Korea, etc..

Do you think Kerries plan to give tax cuts to those making under 200,000 is a wise continuation of Bush's tax cut theory?

I think every citizen should be taxed equally in proportion, regardless of what that proportion is, and would support any plan to that effect. As a different issue, I think taxes and government should be kept small, and so tend to be supportive of cuts in general.

Christopher M

06-13-2004, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by Stacey
Why do conservative who tend to lean toward small governenment still think Bush is so great

Concerning this, you may be interested in reading Justin Raimondo (http://antiwar.com/justin/) at antiwar.com, Deroy Murdock (http://nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402240953.asp) at National Review, Pat Buchanan (http://www.amconmag.com/2004_03_01/cover.html) at The American Conservative, and Murray Rothbard (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard-arch.html) at Lew Rockwell's page. This gives a wide spectrum of critical views from minarchists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism). Except for National Review, which is a very prominent publication in mainstream American conservativism, the other authors at these sites will offer similar views (I've just listed the primary author in each case).

The Willow Sword

06-13-2004, 06:48 PM

The Willow Sword

06-13-2004, 07:07 PM

christopher M originally quoted this.

Are you are an advocate for America making India and the rest of the world poorer in order to make Americans richer? This seems to be your position here.

I could care less about the economic situation in INDIA bro( i care about what is happening HERE in the USA), and i for one am not an advocate of America trying to police and solve the world of its problems. re read my statement ,,,Keep the manufactoring basin HERE in THIS country where it BELONGS.
i dont care if i have to pay a little extra for things that are made here in this country. you seem to fail to realize that corporations slave labor in poor oppressed countries and these countries see little if no benefit at ALL from it.
as far as your replies to my pro-choice statements,,,i am not even going to go there with you on it, suffice it to say that as men you or i dont have any say in what a woman chooses for herself(its up to HER not YOU or Bush or Jesus) 'nuff said.

PEace,,,TWS

YinYangDagger

06-13-2004, 07:34 PM

"I could care less about the economic situation in INDIA bro( i care about what is happening HERE in the USA), and i for one am not an advocate of America trying to police and solve the world of its problems. re read my statement ,,,Keep the manufactoring basin HERE in THIS country where it BELONGS."

I couldn't agree more, WS. I believe that a message HAD to be sent to let the world know that we will not condone any more 9/11's. Me personally IF I were President I believe it could have been something more devastating, like testing some underground nukes in the caves where Bin Laden had been hiding. Of course do this before we made the initial assaults in Afghanistan, I believe the nukes could have "caught" Bin Laden, whiped out most of his terrorist, and sent a firmer message to the rest of the terrorist operating in the world: If you come and kill our civilians we will nuke your a$$, so stay away. Of course, then Greenpeace would have stepped in and found some type of endangered sand lizard and condemned the nuking action. WEll, d@mn, you just can't please everyone ;)

God Bless you WS :)

Christopher M

06-13-2004, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by The Willow Sword
I could care less about the economic situation in INDIA bro

Ok. So long as you're being logically consistent. Personally, I recognize that people in India and much of the non-American world are starving to death and helping them is a serious humanitarian concern. I think contributing to this problem simply to improve your own lot is morally repugnant.

you seem to fail to realize that corporations slave labor in poor oppressed countries and these countries see little if no benefit at ALL from it.

I don't "fail to realize" this, I explicitly disagree with it. Giving jobs to people who need jobs and money to people who need money seems to me like a rather obvious and significant benefit.

you or i dont have any say in what a woman chooses for herself

Absolutely. But I do not see what this has to do with abortion, as abortion concerns what a woman chooses for someone else, as opposed to for herself.

The Willow Sword

06-13-2004, 08:30 PM

Quoted by christopherM

Ok. So long as you're being logically consistent. Personally, I recognize that people in India and much of the non-American world are starving to death and helping them is a serious humanitarian concern. I think contributing to this problem simply to improve your own lot is morally repugnant.

you are missing what i am saying dipsh!it,,i am talking about outsourcing Jobs to other countries so that we can save a buck or two on some tech device and at the same time creates unemployment for our own citizens, destroys job security for factory workers and those who actually go to a trade or tech school,,get a degree and get a job that pertains to their degree and then to have that job taken away from them and sent to places like India and indonesia where the corporations can pay slave wages and get past child labour laws, they do nothing for these countries that would save them from thier turmoil,,we turn these countries in to indentured servants and you wonder why they rise up against us and ram planes into our WORLD TRADE centers. We build factories over there because " it is too expensive" for us to build more here when actually that extra added expense takes away from the ceo's golf trips and excursions to wherever.
i am all for feeding the starving nations of the world,,we produce enough edible grain in this country to feed the world over but we reserve it for our cattle and livestock,,we feed North Korea and they crap on us every chance they get(well as long as carter is still alive we will continue to feed the koreans)
i am all for our humanitarian efforts,,,but you have to understand that we have our own problems and economic decay as well as a poor and starving unemployed people in our own country,,,,when you can pull your head out of your a$$ and realize that what i am saying is not some anti-other country propaganda you will then realize that i am for our common folks here in this country. we have to be able to take care of our own and be stable with in our own borders before we can go galabanting in to the wild blue yonder trying to rescue everyone else of thier BS. America was NOT founded on the principle that we suffer ourselves whilst we wipe the a$$ of some other country.

Peace,,,TWS

Christopher M

06-13-2004, 08:48 PM

I recognize that moving jobs and money out of America reduces the jobs and money in America.

What I'm unclear on is why you imagine that moving jobs and money into (eg.) India doesn't increase the jobs and money in India. This just seems plainly silly.

Moreover, except in the short-term, none of this requires American suffering at all. Following the economic tenet of "comparative advantage", this sort of restructuring will be beneficial to America as well as (eg.) India, in the long-term. Let me know if you are unclear on what comparative advantage is.

Chang Style Novice

06-14-2004, 02:38 AM

Originally posted by Christopher M
Moreover, except in the short-term, none of this requires American suffering at all. Sadly, we gotta make it through the short term to get to the long term.

TaiChiBob

06-14-2004, 05:01 AM

Greetings..

A recurring them is "them vs. us".. we fail to see the planet as a global community.. as long as we harbour nationalistic/isolationist policies we will fuel the wars and strife on a global scale..

Regarding abortion.. firstly, we, as a country, have no business "requiring" a woman to bear unwanted children.. the state already supports too many unwanted children.. the news is rife with reports of foster-home abuses, should we require the bearing of unwanted children to further burden this failing system?.. what quality of life can an unwanted child reasonably expect?.. how many of the right to lifers are willing to adopt an unwanted child? i notice that the right to life people when given the right to choose, choose to deny that right to others.. Secondly, and i know i will be flamed for this, but.. until a fetus is viable (able to exist outside the womb), it is essentially a parasite and subject to the beliefs of its host.. these are just some observations, my personal perspective may differ.. i may not choose abortion, but.. i will defend the rights of others to choose for themselves..

America was NOT founded on the principle that we suffer ourselves whilst we wipe the a$$ of some other country. .. No, it was founded on the principle that ALL men (and women) are created equal.. that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness).. those principles apply to all mankind not a select few, we can't disperse it based on favoritisms..

I could care less about the economic situation in INDIA bro( i care about what is happening HERE in the USA) ..
What's happening here (in the USA) is affected by the economic conditions around the world.. perhaps if there were better economic conditions elsewhere there wouldn't be the frustrations and desperations that motivate others to assault innocent people in order to be heard or noticed.. the above quote resembles feudal thinking in a technologically advanced era..

What i suggest is that as a world community we share the world's burdens.. without some self-serving ulterior motive or "puppet-strings".. just simple acts of compassion..

Be well..

Christopher M

06-14-2004, 07:18 AM

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
Sadly, we gotta make it through the short term to get to the long term.

No: sadly, the whole world needs to make it through the short term. And you guys aren't top priority for aid here.

Christopher M

06-14-2004, 07:24 AM

Originally posted by TaiChiBob
as long as we harbour nationalistic/isolationist policies we will fuel the wars and strife on a global scale

Isolationist tends to refer to a non-interventionist foreign policy. It seems like this is what you're advocating here, rather than disapproving of. Nationalism is the belief that the benefit to your country warrants the detriment of all others, and is what should be opposed.

we, as a country, have no business "requiring" a woman to bear unwanted children

Surely we have a business "requiring" people not to kill other people they "don't want"?

should we require the bearing of unwanted children to further burden this failing system?

Should we kill the people who don't fit into our socioeconomic model? This sounds like eugenics, and sounds pretty abhorrent.

until a fetus is viable, it is essentially a parasite and subject to the beliefs of its host

Even if this is true, it's still an argument against abortion of viable fetuses - in other words, it's a pro-life, not a pro-choice argument. The pro-choice faction does not want any change to the permissive environment for abortion: and the current standard is that until the umbilical cord is cut, the child can be killed. This is far, far, far past the time a fetus is viable. Most pro-life arguments advocate nothing other than the enforcement of the standard you have explained here.

Chang Style Novice

06-14-2004, 07:41 AM

My "we" is bigger than a lot of other "wes."

YinYangDagger

06-14-2004, 07:49 AM

Gee Tai Chi Bob, you sound like a spokesman for the New World Order....

Fu(k the rest of the world bro. America needs to maintain it's sovereignty at ALL cost.

"firstly, we, as a country, have no business "requiring" a woman to bear unwanted children.. "

Then the s l u t needs to stop fu(king everything in sight or use birth control - it's a little thing called "responsibility". The problem with this country is it's always easier to forget about that word and whatever happens, happens. Oops, pregnant again, let's just go on down to the clinic...what the fu(k ever happened to the other word, "consequences". You know, something produced by a cause or necessarily following from a set of conditions.

".. No, it was founded on the principle that ALL men (and women) are created equal.. that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness).. those principles apply to all mankind not a select few, we can't disperse it based on favoritisms.."

Favoritism? Oh, so it was just handed to us as America because we were someones favorite. Bull$hit. I believe we fought long and hard to gain independence and set these conditions for ourselves as the victor. So everyone deserves it? Then I suggest they get off their a$$, form a militia, and fight for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Again, this hand-out mentality makes me sick. Besides sending food to North Korea, as the people starve and the Kim's get fatter, we should be dropping crates of assault rifles and ammo to the people so they can handle their own.

".. these are just some observations, my personal perspective may differ.. i may not choose abortion, but.. i will defend the rights of others to choose for themselves.."

We have that right because we are a sovereign and free nation.

"What i suggest is that as a world community we share the world's burdens.. without some self-serving ulterior motive or "puppet-strings".. just simple acts of compassion.."

Yeah, so they can come along in the future and sh!t on us at every chance they get. I'm sorry, but this was a good "idea", but the people we help usually have a tendency to turn on us at a drop of the hat.

MILLIONS and MILLIONS of dollars are sent to Africa to help prevent the spread of HIV while kids here in America go hungry or have no medical insurance. I would be willing to bet if all this foreign aid would cease and desist we could cure the problems we have here very quickly. As far as Africa, if they would stop breeding like animals then I bet the epidemic would die down on it's own, again we have the word "consequences".

TaiChiBob

06-14-2004, 08:18 AM

Greetings..

Isolationist tends to refer to a non-interventionist foreign policy. It seems like this is what you're advocating here, rather than disapproving of. Nationalism is the belief that the benefit to your country warrants the detriment of all others, and is what should be opposed. Isolationism doesn't work in harmony with others and is therefore detrimental to society as a whole.. What i advocate is a world community, where it is "all for one and one for all".. to the degree any one culture raises itself above others there will be resentment and conflict..

Surely we have a business "requiring" people not to kill other people they "don't want"?
Going back to my definition of "viable" and your agreed concept of such, it is misleading to phrase it as though i advocate the killing of "people".. aside from that, i agree that we should not "kill other people they "don't want"?

Should we kill the people who don't fit into our socioeconomic model? This sounds like eugenics, and sounds pretty abhorrent. LOL.. if you twist the phrase and add your own deceptive phrasing it does sound abhorrent.. but, if you apply reason, compassion and common-sense, it seems less abhorrent and more like the direction of a conscientious society with its civil liberties intact. Do you advocate burdening the already struggling system with even more unwanted births, considering that the choice to abort is prior to viability.. ? Is it a state responsibility to force a pregnancy to term when the parent(s) would choose otherwise?

Even if this is true, it's still an argument against abortion of viable fetuses - in other words, it's a pro-life, not a pro-choice argument. Ahem, again, the pro-life faction asserts that there is no valid reason to abort a pregnency.. i do not advocate the abortion of a viable fetus.. i advocate a parent(s)' right to choose prior to viability.. call it whatever, but i have been in too many debates with pro-lifers to expect reason from that camp..

In short, the state is ever increasingly eroding personal freedoms, the state, under the leadership of GWB, would take much more if they thought they could (such has been stated from this administration).. in the name of "Homeland Security" this administration has moved dangerously close to a "democratic dictatorship", where once elected the leader abdicates any responsibility to the electorate's consensus of opinion..no longer a government "of the people, for the people, and by the people".. this administration most closely resembles a "corporate republic"..

Be well.. and assert your freedoms.. "those that would sacrifice liberties for the promise of security deserve nor receive either"..

TaiChiBob

06-14-2004, 08:35 AM

Greetings..

I'm so sorry you feel that way.. to address each of your comments would be too depressing. But...
Fu(k the rest of the world bro. America needs to maintain it's sovereignty at ALL cost.
Then the s l u t needs to stop fu(king everything in sight
we should be dropping crates of assault rifles and ammo
As far as Africa, if they would stop breeding like animals
And we wonder why the rest of the world turns on us.. if this is the perception the rest of the world sees as American, no wonder.. The "ugly American" is alive and well..

GLW

06-14-2004, 09:20 AM

"Then the s l u t needs to stop fu(king everything in sight or use birth control "

And where is the S L U T male that was part of the pregnancy process? Takes TWO last I checked. The female is the only one being held accountable here.

Grow up a bit and stop allowing that it is OK for males to litter children everywhere. Deadbeat dads, guys who run, - can you spell SCUM.

"Then I suggest they get off their a$$, form a militia, and fight for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Again, this hand-out mentality makes me sick."

The Bill of Rights IS DESIGNED TO BE A HANDOUT TO EVERY CITIZEN OF THE US...PERIOD.

Of course if you doubt that, there are plenty of banana republics you can live in.

The pity is that I DO believe in the Bill of Rights and WOULD fight to defend your right to voice such racist and sexist drivel.

I simply hope that others are wise enough to recognize it for what it is.

YinYangDagger

06-14-2004, 09:34 AM

you call it: Ugly American

I call it: the truth hurts, huh?

If you expect political correctness from me, wrong. I simply state the facts as is, no sugar-coating.

How can you negate what I say? Does sexx not equal birth? Does sexx not equal HIV? OH GOSH, could DISCIPLINE actually stop some of the abortion/HIV problems??? Did we not fight for independence? And when is it wrong for the people to turn against their country that treats them like human waste?

The world turns on us for one reason: They hate the fact that we are an independent and wealthy nation, and just like sports today (unless it's the home team), everyone wants to see the current champion fall.

Call me what you will, it's easy on a forum to do so. If saying I'm an Ugly American means I believe in consequences of your actions, taking responsiblilty for your own actions, and having a little discipline and control in your life, then so be it.

YinYangDagger

06-14-2004, 09:40 AM

GLW- What the he!! are you talking about?

Indeed, sorry I didn't state it, but the fathers of those children are just as much RESPONSIBLE as the female.

"The Bill of Rights IS DESIGNED TO BE A HANDOUT TO EVERY CITIZEN OF THE US...PERIOD."

Read my post again, I was stating it referring to OTHER countries. I whole-heartedly agree about the Bill of Rights here in the states. And if OTHER countries want them, they should fight for them like we did, not just stand there with their hands out.

And while you WOULD fight for the Bill of Rights, I've already done so.

YinYangDagger

06-14-2004, 10:16 AM

Further GLW, as far as this comment is concerned: your right to voice such racist and sexist drivel.

You can take your racist card you're so ready to pull out, carress it, kiss it, love it, smell it, then shove it up your candy a$$.

1. My second wife was African American.

2. My best buddy in the world, we used to ride around in rural Arkansas in the back of an old Chevy truck, shooting signs, deer, squirrels, and anything else we could find alive with our .30-30 rifles, was BLACK. Of course this makes him I suppose an Uncle Tom in your book, although I'd bet my meager yearly salary you wouldn't say it to his face.

TaiChiBob

06-14-2004, 11:29 AM

Greetings..

Although you addressed it to GLW..

And while you WOULD fight for the Bill of Rights, I've already done so. Just to be clear, so did i .. not by choice, i was drafted in 1969.. That was another fine example of politics gone wrong.. And, it was not a fight about the bill of rights.. War is not the answer, while it may be inevitable from time to time.. it is not the answer..
If you expect political correctness from me, wrong. I simply state the facts as is, no sugar-coating. No, what you state is your opinion of what you "believe" to be facts.. history is littered with disproven "facts"..
How can you negate what I say? Does sexx not equal birth? Does sexx not equal HIV? OH GOSH, could DISCIPLINE actually stop some of the abortion/HIV problems??? Oh, and blood tranfusions cause aids.. and, sex does not always equal birth.. invitro fertilization causes birth without sex and so on....

The world turns on us for one reason: They hate the fact that we are an independent and wealthy nation We are definately wealthy but hardly independent.. so may foreign interests that they could easily shut us down, yet we maintain this arrogance you so accurately display..

the truth hurts, huh? Your words are far from the "truth".. truth is made known to the one having the experience according to whatever value-system one has developed.. Truth is the experience itself, not the words, labels and descriptions of it.. a hungry child is a hungry child, regardless of any other judgments you might make..

And when is it wrong for the people to turn against their country that treats them like human waste? And when is it right to kick Iraq's behind and negotiate with North Korea? When it serves our best interests, disregarding the plight of the civilians..
I believe in consequences of your actions, taking responsiblilty for your own actions, and having a little discipline and control in your life, then so be it. Good, so do i.. i simply don't limit it to those whom i favor ot those that can benefit my particular cause.. what's good for one is good for all..
I whole-heartedly agree about the Bill of Rights here in the states. And if OTHER countries want them, they should fight for them like we did, not just stand there with their hands out. Hmm.. it seem that we are willing to help some acquire their "Bill of Rights", and not others..

This arrogance and bravado regarding US supremacy is laughable in light of the historical foundation it's built upon.. our ancestors drove the native inhabitants nearly to extinction to secure their own "freedom".. we have abandoned our allies in war time (Viet Nam, Somalia, Iraq round 1 and likely Iraq round 2, Cuba (Bay of Pigs), and others less notable.. The USA record of treaty violation is staggering.. but, regardless.. i do enjoy the freedom to voice my opinion, i did answer the call to arms as payment for those "rights".. and, no, i am not proud of what i did in that "conflict", but.. i did not run..

Blind USA isolationistic nationalism is naive and suggestive of a regressive society.. we are One people on One planet, "united we stand, divided we fall"..

Be well..

TaiChiBob

06-14-2004, 11:35 AM

Greetings..

Sadly, i didn't see the post before my last.. if i had, i would have not posted at all.. this is simply a sad commentary on our society..

You can take your racist card you're so ready to pull out, carress it, kiss it, love it, smell it, then shove it up your candy a$$.
we used to ride around in rural Arkansas in the back of an old Chevy truck, shooting signs, deer, squirrels, and anything else we could find alive with our .30-30 rifles

I think that pretty much sums up the issues.. i don't look in the hog-pen for clean laundry..

Be well..

Christopher M

06-14-2004, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by Christopher M
Moreover, except in the short-term, none of this requires American suffering at all.

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
Sadly, we gotta make it through the short term to get to the long term.

Originally posted by Christopher M
No: sadly, the whole world needs to make it through the short term.

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
My "we" is bigger than a lot of other "wes."

Ok. Then your original remark doesn't seem to follow. Unless you quoted me by accident and were replying to something else, "Americans" are the only candidate for the "we" in your response.

Christopher M

06-14-2004, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by TaiChiBob
Isolationism doesn't work in harmony with others and is therefore detrimental to society as a whole

I'm not sure if you're using this word in a vague sense, or according to the specific meaning it has in politics. Isolationism specifically means non-interventionist foreign policy. While some people certainly advocate the contrary, there's no reason a priori why a non-interventionist foreign policy "doesn't work in harmony with others." (and indeed, you seem to be advocating a non-interventionist foreign policy, so it would be peculiar if you believed that)

What i advocate is a world community

Me too.

Going back to my definition of "viable" and your agreed concept of such, it is misleading to phrase it as though i advocate the killing of "people"

Please note I did not agree that viability was the measure of personhood. I simply demonstrated that even if I agreed to that position, your (the pro-choice) argument still wouldn't follow.

Similarly, if we are to accept viability as the measure of personhood, then indeed it is not misleading for me to characterize abortion as "the killing of people", because viable children are aborted.

if you twist the phrase and add your own deceptive phrasing it does sound abhorrent

Unless I changed the meaning of what you wrote when I rephrased it, the abhorrence was merely clarified by my rephrasing, not created.

if you apply reason, compassion and common-sense, it seems less abhorrent

I disagree. Giving the state the power to murder people who do not fit into its socioeconomic model is abhorrent no matter how great the "reason, compassion and common-sense" you imagine the state will use in this endeavor.

Do you advocate burdening the already struggling system with even more unwanted births, considering that the choice to abort is prior to viability.. ?

Yes. I have not met many people who sincerely wished they had never lived, even though I have met a great many people who both resulted from "unwanted pregnancies" and who "burdened the state." No one has the right to kill those people: their right to life trumps someone else's economic and personal burdens.

Is it a state responsibility to force a pregnancy to term when the parent(s) would choose otherwise?

This isn't a possibility: pregnancies aren't "forced to term", they progress pretty good on their own. The possible intervention a state can make is to kill the child. And indeed I oppose that.

the pro-life faction asserts that there is no valid reason to abort a pregnency

You're laboring under a misapprehension. Consider the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003", greatly endorsed by the pro-life and opposed by the pro-choice factions - completely and only concerns the issue of viable fetuses.

i do not advocate the abortion of a viable fetus

If you oppose the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003" and other pro-life initiatives, ie. if you support the pro-choice faction, then clearly you do. Perhaps you were simply not aware of how the two factions actually approached the issue of viability? If so, then I sincerely hope you will hold to this claim and become pro-life. :) All that is necessary for evil to succeed is
that good men do nothing, eh?

Akhilleus

06-14-2004, 12:18 PM

My argument:

A bunch of nonsense

+

The words micro and macro

+

Saying that I have studied econ 201,202, and 204

=

I win

Seriously that seems to be the way it worked at my college guys would say stuff that made no sense but then say "micro" or "macro" and they thought they were making such a great point

TaiChiBob

06-14-2004, 01:10 PM

Greetings..

I believe all life to be sacred.. and that includes the lives of young men sent to die for political ideologies..

I believe that the parent(s) have the right to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy full term only until the fetus is viable.. upon viability, we have another being, prior to that we have potential..

Similarly, if we are to accept viability as the measure of personhood, then indeed it is not misleading for me to characterize abortion as "the killing of people", because viable children are aborted.
You may be correct in the characterization that viable children are aborted, but that was not what i communicated.. i do not intend to abort viable beings (non-viable as well).. but i whole-heartedly support someone,s right to choose prior to viability..

Isolation policies divide, i advocate unity..

I disagree. Giving the state the power to murder people who do not fit into its socioeconomic model is abhorrent no matter how great the "reason, compassion and common-sense" you imagine the state will use in this endeavor. i do not advocate "State Choice", i advocate personal choice..

Chris.. i have been in this debate for decades, and i assure you that the "right to lifers" are a greater risk to to society that pro-choice people.. the blind adherence to doctrine trumps common-sense.. i have been personally entwined in this issue and searched my soul to arrive at my "truth".. abortion is sometimes necessary for many reasons, and the fundamentalists i have encountered would eliminate that choice completely.. my "compassion" goes both ways.. for the potential parents and for the fetus.. i feel it's a choice made in the souls of those involved.. the only restriction being that of viability, and.. to the best of my knowledge, it is the plan of pro-lifers to chip away at abortion until it is no longer an option.. beginning with their appearance of accepting viability, only to denounce it later and seek more constraints on the options..

This isn't a possibility: pregnancies aren't "forced to term", they progress pretty good on their own. The possible intervention a state can make is to kill the child. And indeed I oppose that. C'mon.. the state can intervene in someone's choices.. someone's right to choose.. if someone is denied the right to choose by law, then the state forces the the term.. that was not your best shot...

If you oppose the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003" and other pro-life initiatives, ie. if you support the pro-choice faction, then clearly you do. LOL.. no, i speak my position regardless of the fine print.. i think i have been clear, so "clearly" i support choice until viability.. and i fear the right to life faction has a more devious agenda than they assert..

i suggest that we set viability as the standard and let every one choose.. pro-choice and pro-life can each exercise their personal choices without interfering with the other..

I think we are closer than we appear to be, philosophically..

Be well..

GLW

06-14-2004, 01:50 PM

"Then the s l u t needs to stop fu(king everything in sight or use birth control ....." ... "The problem with this country "

S L U T - a derogatory term aimed at women...No mention made of men and their promiscuous behavior. A term that I doubt anyone would like to have applied to their MOTHER or SISTER...and the way in which you used it was insulting to women and revealed a MAJOR tone of sexism.

"As far as Africa, if they would stop breeding like animals then I bet the epidemic would die down on it's own"

Why Africa ? Why the use of a terms equating ANYONE's breeding to ANIMALS. Sorry, this entire set of statements reveals a major undercurrent of racist attitudes. I doubt that you would be able to get away with such a statement ANYWHERE. In fact, if you were one of my employees and used such a statement, I would have you in a closed door meeting and you MIGHT lose your job due to company policy.

The issue of the Bill of Rights was brought up in YOUR quote and you went off on why that could never apply to another country.

While I DO agree that you cannot win someone's freedom for them, to even suggest that anyone anywhere in the world does NOT have the same rights as put forth in the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence is to NOT understand what those words say about humankind.

According to our founding principles, while we may not go and fight for someone else to win freedom, we must support their struggle and recognize it if we truly follow the core and foundation of what the US was built on.

Your words do not do this and if anything, denigrate humans that are NOT within the US.

As for the race of anyone that you have ever been associated with, ---TOTALLY UNIMPORTANT. Your words revealed a lot about your attitudes.

Christopher M

06-14-2004, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by TaiChiBob
but i whole-heartedly support someone,s right to choose prior to viability

Ok, but do you support their right to choose after viability? If you support the pro-choice camp and oppose the pro-life camp then, in actuality, you do. If you mean not to, then you should alter your "allegiances"; and otherwise, you must find some other argument than viability in order to defend your position.

Isolation policies divide, i advocate unity

I think you're getting hung up on the colloquial meaning of the term rather than it's specific use in politics. This can be a serious fault if it informs your opinions about people who are using the word in the specific sense.

i assure you that the "right to lifers" are a greater risk to to society that pro-choice people

You'll understand if I hold sound logic in higher regard than your blind assurances.

the blind adherence to doctrine trumps common-sense

Is only one side of the debate guilty of this? I don't think so.

the fundamentalists i have encountered would eliminate that choice completely

I think this is another misconception you are laboring under. I will cite again the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003" which explicitly makes exceptions in the case of the health of the mother.

it is the plan of pro-lifers to chip away at abortion until it is no longer an option

It is the plan of pro-lifers to chip away at it. They vary in how far they want that to go. In my experience, pro-choicers are dramatically more blinded by ideological rhetoric. I await your clarification about post-viability abortions before I use you as an example of this muddled thinking. :)

the state can intervene in someone's choices.. someone's right to choose.. if someone is denied the right to choose by law, then the state forces the the term

This is absurd. Is the state intervening in my choices when it says I can't shoot you in the head for being a pro-choicer? Are you being "forced to age" by this unacceptable state intervention?

I think we are closer than we appear to be, philosophically

Excellent! So long as other people's views are discarded "because they are the bad guy", there will be no moral progress in the world.

YinYangDagger

06-14-2004, 10:49 PM

GLW - I mentioned Africa you idiot because you name ONE other place we are sending vasts amount of money to curb the HIV virus...I'll be waiting for that reply....

And OF COURSE you don't care who I've associated with, that MAY prove you to be wrong about a member of a forum whom you've never actually met but are so ready to talk down to...and I suppose the term s l u t I used must have really hit home - I wonder why :p

YinYangDagger

06-14-2004, 10:52 PM

"In fact, if you were one of my employees and used such a statement, I would have you in a closed door meeting and you MIGHT lose your job due to company policy."

Dream on bi-atch. If I had a boss like you I'd probably just slap the he!! out of you and walk on out the door anyway LOL

what an idiot

TaiChiBob

06-15-2004, 05:05 AM

Greetings..

If you mean not to, then you should alter your "allegiances"
I do not support anyone's right to abort after viability, except in the case of the health of the mother.. and, i should choose my own allegiances, which by preference is pro-choice.. pro-choice leaves you the right to choose your preference within the viability constraints.. pro-life would eliminate choice except by their very narrow definitions..

think you're getting hung up on the colloquial meaning of the term rather than it's specific use in politics. This can be a serious fault if it informs your opinions about people who are using the word in the specific sense. I think i say what i mean, isolationist policies divide.. they set apart peoples in geo-political boundaries.. that's is my statement, intended to express my personal understanding of certain situations.. not intended to conform to your, or anyone else's, directives of narration..

You'll understand if I hold sound logic in higher regard than your blind assurances. LOL.. my assurances aren't "blind", they are born of decades of involvement in these issues, beginning with a college debate season where abortion pro/con was the topic (1969).. beginning with being raised in reformist Christian home, beginning with seeing the abhorrent conditions so many unwanted children are forced to live in.. beginning with watching "right to lifers" spew their rhetoric about right to life as they bomb clinics, as the pious and self-righteous insist that these unwanted children be brought into this world but refuse to adopt or support the same.. Pro-lifers offer the right to life but fail miserably in the quality of life that is offered.. create a welcoming environment for unwanted children and you might get my attention..

Is only one side of the debate guilty of this? I don't think so Pro-choice has no "doctrine", just the right to choose.. pro-life entangles religion, science, ethics, politics, and radical enforcement of their beliefs.. so, i suggest that it is much more likely that pro-lifers will blindly adhere to doctrine(s)..

I think this is another misconception you are laboring under. I will cite again the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003" which explicitly makes exceptions in the case of the health of the mother. Whew, "explicitly makes exceptions" that's not choice.. that's a ban with a loop-hole for a specific situation (and, that's no misconception).. i advocate choice prior to viability and no choice after viability except in the case of the mothers health..

I await your clarification about post-viability abortions before I use you as an example of this muddled thinking. I have clarified my position on post-viability.. you may assert whatever "muddled thinking" arguement you wish.. but, i am resolute in my position, clear in my beliefs, and content with athought process that has served me well for my tenure on this planet.. you cannot produce an arguement i haven't heard before, you can add smoke and adjust your mirrors.. but, i still wish to leave you with your right to choose not to abort.. just as i wish to maintain my right to choose otherwise (within the context of viability)..

This is absurd. Is the state intervening in my choices when it says I can't shoot you in the head for being a pro-choicer? Are you being "forced to age" by this unacceptable state intervention?
Smoke and mirrors.. stay on topic, the issue is, specifically, abortion.. not the killing of a post-viable adult.. The example i gave is valid within the topic.. i understand the attempt at "logic", but fail to see the relevance of your example as it relates to the issue..

Excellent! So long as other people's views are discarded "because they are the bad guy", there will be no moral progress in the world.
I try to understand other peoples' points of view.. but, introducing "morals" (a subjective standard based on largely on cultural traditions and beliefs which are subject to change) is not relevant.. you and i may have very different morals and each may be supported by our cultural environment.. however, i do enjoy the dialogue..

Be well..

GLW

06-15-2004, 05:33 AM

Dagger - my last post to you as you are obviously VERY young....

1. In case you didn't know it, there are laws about making a workplace hostile...as in using racist or sexist language. THAT would get you fired. Your posts here display that attitude and would not be tolerated in better than 95% of all companies.

2. Assuming you could b!tch slap anyone, to do so would get you : fired, arrested, and with a criminal record in EVERY company I have ever worked for...and mean that you would have a HARD time finding a new job in anything but the most menial capacities.

3. Your example of who your ex was is so much like "And many of my best friends are black" that is typically used by "enlightened well off liberal types" to explain why they wouldn't have someone of "Those types of people" (fill in your own ethnic, religion, etc... that you wish to discriminate against) as examples of how they are NOT racist. Having a person of X race or religion as someone close to you never means you are NOT still having a problem with prejudice.

4. Having followed your posts for a while, virtually every one of them is insulting to someone. They speak of anger, hatred, and often sexism and prejudice. Strange thing is, I actually support your right to do this....out of prinicple and not out of agreement.

5. As for HIV funding, unbelievably, I have SOME level of agreement, but NOT on the Africa thing...but on sending money to combat HIV outside of the US while ignoring the problem here. However, I recognize that move from bush for what it was - a political ploy to send aid and influence to someplace they wanted to infiltrate...while getting good press. I don't agree with it but at least the aid is in medical and food stuffs...and NOT bullets or subversion....but then again, maybe it is.

I take issue with you tone and choice of words. They ARE offensive to most people. Your ideas WILL be ignored by most people as well as long as you first offend them.

You want your ideas to be taken seriously by others? Learn to avoid the vitriol and hatred. Stick to a point and make your ideas based upon reason and not anger and hate.

Who knows, you might actually have a point or two. No one will ever get that far if they have to wade through things like S L U T or "Breeding like animals"

And NO...the term S L U T doesn't affect me...unless you were to aim it at my wife or daughter. ..and even then, they are rantings that mean little...but show a lot about where you are coming from.

Christopher M

06-15-2004, 06:17 AM

Originally posted by TaiChiBob
I do not support anyone's right to abort after viability, except in the case of the health of the mother.. and, i should choose my own allegiances, which by preference is pro-choice.. pro-choice leaves you the right to choose your preference within the viability constraints.. pro-life would eliminate choice except by their very narrow definitions..

Thank you for clarifying. This is what I expected: here we exactly see how muddled the pro-choice rhetoric has made your thinking (as I suggested previously).

Let us again take the case of the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003." We have noted that it a) was endorsed by the pro-life, b) opposed by the pro-choice, and c) only effected choice after viability.

If you sincerely "do not support anyone's right to abort after viability" you must support this act: you would be in agreement with the pro-life faction and in disagreement with the pro-choice faction. Yet you find yourself doing the exact opposite: your actions do not corrospond with your stated principles.

How could this be the case? The pro-choice rhetoric has conditioned you to react immediately and negatively to the "image" of "pro-life," such that you come to oppose in action something you claim to endorse in principle.

You have spoken previously about the need to rid oneself of "us versus them thinking," yet this is precisely the mode which corrupts your own reasoning. Examine your own remarks on the matter: you have clearly been taught to think of "pro-life" as "fundamentalists", "extremists", "dangerous to society", "will chip away at our rights until they are all gone." Hmm...!

Let us turn, by analogy, to socioeconomic models. If someone endorses an increase in social programs, like public health and so on, they are "liberals," "progressives," "socialists," or something similar. It is, of course, the case that some liberals want to increase government size in this manner by a moderate amount, and others want to increase it by an extreme amount (eg. to a communist model).

To counter this mode of thinking, a meme has evolved in America (although it seems to be passing) that tries to condition people to remark that any such action is "communist", that it is "extreme", "dangerous to society", "will chip away at our liberty until it is all gone." Hmm...!

This method of conditioning is extraordinarily common: it is an "us versus them" approach which conditions us to identify any difference from us as being "wholly other," and thus opposed to our fundamental principles.

In actual fact, many Americans who react in this manner would actually favor an increase in public programs if they simply understood the nature of the change and were liberated from this conditioning.

Leaving the analogy: we see this precise behavior with you here. "Pro-life" wants to reduce access to abortion, "pro-choice" wants to maintain it. Currently access to abortion includes access to post-viability abortion. You claim to oppose post-viability abortion, which would be a reduction in access to abortion, which would make you pro-life. But that has been conditioned away.

In all of reality, you ought to be placed in the pro-life faction: following the analysis of actual events as I have already offered concerning the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003." This conditioning makes you ignore reality in preference for rhetoric: these people are "fundamentalists" and you wouldn't want to associate yourself with that, now would you?

I think i say what i mean, isolationist policies divide

Isolationism says "we should not invade Iraq to set up democracy there because we do not have the right to dictate the political environment of other countries; moreover, the situation in other countries is often different from our own, and thus we may expect it to benefit most from a political environment different than ours." The converse says "human problems are universal, so human solutions are universal. Our political environment is clearly superior to that of Iraq, and thus we have a mandate to enforce our political model upon Iraq and the rest of the world in order to benefit it."

I would have suspected you favored the former.

my assurances aren't "blind"

I think you have misunderstood. My understanding is that "blind assurances" does not indicate your assurances are blind for you, but rather that they are blind to the reader. Your biography doesn't gives your words any more authority than my biography gives mine, and thus we must both defend our words with reason if we wish them to be other than blind assurances to our readers.

Pro-choice has no "doctrine"

I ask you to clear your mind for a moment and think clearly about this statement. Of course, this is exactly what the rabid pro-lifers you despise would say about you, right? How do we know which one of you is right? Remember our previous remarks about the necessity of not seeing other views as "the bad guy"? It seems like this is what you've done here. 'The other side is wrong cos they're dumb, we're right cos we're smart' should raise those red warning flags that you've been successfully conditioned.

i advocate choice prior to viability and no choice after viability except in the case of the mothers health

Then you support the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003." Except that I bet you don't, do you? Muddled.

Smoke and mirrors.. stay on topic, the issue is, specifically, abortion.. not the killing of a post-viable adult

I'm on topic. You're the one who gave viability as the measure for personhood. If this is the case, then a post-viable fetus and a post-viable adult are analogs, and my example is entirely relevent.

introducing "morals" is not relevant

I was using "morals" in a vague way, which I suppose is unfair after chiding you for doing the same with "isolationism." I merely meant to indicate "humanitarian progress" as opposed to, say, "technological progress", which it seems will continue in any case.

TaiChiBob

06-15-2004, 08:40 AM

Greetings..

You mis-state, imply and infer my communications as necessary to support your own perspective... unfortunately, my left hand hit a link while typing a lengthy response to your last post and i lost it..
So, here is the greatly condensed version, you cannot reasonably expect me buy into your situational characterizations that add inuendo and unintended commentary to my clearly stated positions.. you have cleverly been indoctrinated with excellent recruitment tactics, but.. reason supercedes.. i cannot accept the "act" due to the stated intention of its supporters to further curtail abortion rights.. to insist that i support the act, its supporters and their philosophy due to my acceptance of a similar situation, with conditions and limitations.. is not reasonable..

If you sincerely "do not support anyone's right to abort after viability" you must support this act: you would be in agreement with the pro-life faction and in disagreement with the pro-choice faction. Yet you find yourself doing the exact opposite: your actions do not corrospond with your stated principles. Please refrain from dictating what i "must" do.. i can sincerely state my position and yet not buy into yours, completely.. i can state that certain statements you make have merit.. without agreeing in totality..

You speak of "us-them"
You have spoken previously about the need to rid oneself of "us versus them thinking," yet this is precisely the mode which corrupts your own reasoning. Examine your own remarks on the matter: you have clearly been taught to think of "pro-life" as "fundamentalists", "extremists", "dangerous to society", "will chip away at our rights until they are all gone." Hmm...! Yet, you fall into the same category.. if anything, i bridge both camps.. you insist that yours is the prefered and find fault in my position.. and, your use of "clearly" is flawed, "clearly" implies an irrefutable position, and such is not the case.. i was "taught" by experience, not dissertation..

I will sum this up.. i desire the right for ALL potential mothers (parents) to choose their options up to the point of viability, beyond which only the health of the mother can be a factor.. i do not accept that position as supporting anything other than my opinion.. i do not wish that you count me as a Pro-life supporter, their stated goals are contrary to my own.. simply because i agree with certain situations that they assert, does mean that agree with ALL they assert.. i support your right to choose "pro-life" for your personal situation(s).. please support my right to choose accordingly..

Be well..