Castro admits Communism 'doesnt work'

[BJJ-Blue]

"HAVANA, Cuba — Fidel Castro told a visiting American journalist that Cuba's communist economic model doesn't work, a rare comment on domestic affairs from a man who has conspicuously steered clear of local issues since stepping down four years ago.

The fact that things are not working efficiently on this cash-strapped Caribbean island is hardly news. Fidel's brother Raul, the country's president, has said the same thing repeatedly. But the blunt assessment by the father of Cuba's 1959 revolution is sure to raise eyebrows.

Jeffrey Goldberg, a national correspondent for The Atlantic magazine, asked if Cuba's economic system was still worth exporting to other countries, and Castro replied: "The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore" Goldberg wrote Wednesday in a post on his Atlantic blog."

Full article:
http://www.cleveland.com/world/index.ssf/2010/09/fidel_castro_admits_cubas_comm.html

Here is another article talking aobut Gov't layoffs in Cuba and that Cuba will now allow private sector jobs.

"Our state cannot and should not continue maintaining companies, productive entities and services with inflated payrolls and losses that damage our economy and result counterproductive, create bad habits and distort workers' conduct," the CTC, Cuba's official labor union, said in newspapers.

Full article:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/09/13/cuba.economy/index.html?hpt=T1

So now we have the Communist dictator with the longest reign in history admitting that people like Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and 1bad65 :D were right all of these years. Hopefully Obama will take note. Of course I'm sure some people will still argue over how great Cuba is compared to the US and how socialism will work here if only the right people are put in charge of implementing it.

[sanjuro_ronin]

CUBA's communissm doesn't work, he didn't say commiunissim didn't work.
Fact is, Cuba needs to adapt a more "Chinese" mode:
Capitalist economy that is highly controlled. and regulated by Government.

Then they can, hopefully, progress to a more open and democratic type of governing.

To go from communisim to democracy like they did in the former USSR would be as big a mess as it was there.

Matter of fact, that whole mess was a wake up call for the rest of the communist countries.

[David Jamieson]

If Cuba had not been deliberately cut off from trade with the USA it's communism would work fine.

They have 99% literacy, a pretty good medical system, almost zero unemployment and a good mortality rate.

but because they have to buy light bulbs from 400 miles away instead of 90, they've been deliberately hobbled by the USA and their sanctions against them which have been ongoing for more than 45 years now.

Cuba was an example of how to make communism work. China never practiced communism ever.

They are a totalitarian, authoritarian country that practices a form of collectivism but has a wealthy elite and now abides by a capitalist piece mixed in with their authoritarian regime.

the biggest hurdle to true communism is humanity. we just don't roll like that because we function out of self interest.

it's an ideal. Karl Marx was a fool to think it would work in the real world. lol

[BJJ-Blue]

If Cuba had not been deliberately cut off from trade with the USA it's communism would work fine.

So the Communist country needed the Capitalist country to survive, and you're defending it? :rolleyes:


They have 99% literacy, a pretty good medical system, almost zero unemployment and a good mortality rate.

LMAO! Did you even read the article?


but because they have to buy light bulbs from 400 miles away instead of 90, they've been deliberately hobbled by the USA and their sanctions against them which have been ongoing for more than 45 years now.

Had they been a free market country, they would have learned how to manufacture light bulbs down there decades ago, and for a profit as well.


Cuba was an example of how to make communism work.

Not according to Castro! Really David, can you even admit you were wrong just once? Of course you did manage to prove me right yet again:


Of course I'm sure some people will still argue over how great Cuba is compared to the US and how socialism will work here if only the right people are put in charge of implementing it.

Thanks, buddy. ;)

[BJJ-Blue]

China never practiced communism ever.

Please tell me where you were educated so I can avoid that place like the plague.

[Syn7]

well, cuban communism would have been alot better off had they not had so many external pressures and an embargo thats been dogging them for ever... i wonder how it would have turned out if everyone had just p i s s e d off and let these people sortr out their own revolution...

the so called cuban missile crisis is a perfect example... that silo would never have even been planned had they not needed to buffer themselves out while being caught in the middle of two superpowers at odds... external influence and medling is the reason for that whole debacle... and america was esspecialy p i s s e d off because their puppet was ousted... the elite ruling class minority was hit so hard you could hear the complaints in DC... the fact that fidel nationalized their resources and kicked out american exploitatipon made him an enemy... he had no choice but to pick sides and play ball, to an extent... im not saying he is a wonderful leader who would have created paradise... but i do believe his intentions were right and he never had a fair shake and opportunity to put in place the system he wanted from the beginning... america kept funded anti castro groups and basically forced him to clamp down hard on resistance and then washington stood back and pointed their fingers at his harshness... like they didnt orchestrate the whole thing from the beginning... its an old trick, the greeks even did this...

[BJJ-Blue]

but i do believe his intentions were right and he never had a fair shake and opportunity to put in place the system he wanted from the beginning...

LMFAO! He only had over 50 friggin years!!!!

You liberals are never successful at anything, except blaming others for your failures.

[Syn7]

needing to buy from the states doesnt mean capitalism is better, its a geography thing... america has things cuba doesnt and buys from abroad... just like the states does... importing goods is a huge biz in the states... it simply caosts more to ship things from 1000's of miles away when there is a source within 100 miles...

cuba is a small place, they cant manufacture everything they need and like every other nation on earth, a large part of survival relies on trade... the fact that a major trading partner has cut them off has made everything alot harder and more expensive than it should have been...

and nationalizing the so called free market was a sin to washington... they had alotta interest in cuba, and it wasnt to the benefit of the average cuban as much as it was for the benefit of a very small handful of wealthy families in the states... it wasnt that they dont have a free market for their own people that was the problem, it was that they created a system to make it impossible for american interests to exploit cuban people that made them so angry... these families lobbied in washington and turned an economic issue into a socio-political issue... old tactic... tar and feather your enemy then point and show everyone how dirty they are, then cut them off or even exterminate them for being so un-clean... the small minority ruling elite have been doing this forever... if a tribe was inconvenient to a roman noblemans pocketbook, he lobbied in the assemblies and senate to go to war against the evil tribesman and even enslave them for labor on the land they used to live on fruitfully in order to finance some fat romans debauchery... same old story... and the appologists just keep comming...........

[Syn7]

LMFAO! He only had over 50 friggin years!!!!

You liberals are never successful at anything, except blaming others for your failures.

your lack of understanding is incredible and yoursheeplike conditioning is absolutely staggering... you really dont see how an embargo like that would create challenges for a small nation so close??? you really think funding and arming anti-castro militants was constructive in creating a peaceful solution??? they knew they couldnt invade them so they did the next best thing, they meddled in affairs that werent their own...

[Zenshiite]

well, cuban communism would have been alot better off had they not had so many external pressures and an embargo thats been dogging them for ever... i wonder how it would have turned out if everyone had just p i s s e d off and let these people sortr out their own revolution...

the so called cuban missile crisis is a perfect example... that silo would never have even been planned had they not needed to buffer themselves out while being caught in the middle of two superpowers at odds... external influence and medling is the reason for that whole debacle... and america was esspecialy p i s s e d off because their puppet was ousted... the elite ruling class minority was hit so hard you could hear the complaints in DC... the fact that fidel nationalized their resources and kicked out american exploitatipon made him an enemy... he had no choice but to pick sides and play ball, to an extent... im not saying he is a wonderful leader who would have created paradise... but i do believe his intentions were right and he never had a fair shake and opportunity to put in place the system he wanted from the beginning... america kept funded anti castro groups and basically forced him to clamp down hard on resistance and then washington stood back and pointed their fingers at his harshness... like they didnt orchestrate the whole thing from the beginning... its an old trick, the greeks even did this...

That's pretty much the same problem Iran has faced for 40 years. You do have to wonder how their economy would be doing if America would step off. It was also the elite ruling class that got hit hard in Iran, and the US didn't like that one bit.

[Syn7]

That's pretty much the same problem Iran has faced for 40 years. You do have to wonder how their economy would be doing if America would step off. It was also the elite ruling class that got hit hard in Iran, and the US didn't like that one bit.

yup, the moment they overthrew the american puppet and put their own interests ahead of international capitalist interests they became an enemy... and the tar and feathers commenced...

i mean giving money and weapons to iran and iraq at the same time for their wars wasnt exactly a righteous play... the US armed and backed saddam in order to weaken iran and give america a good jump off point for military action... suadi arabia isnt enough, they needed to be much closer to the big bad wolf...


oh snap, remember ollie north... yeah america has done such good things over there, the US couldnt possibly share any blame for the state of their socio-economic atmosphere....

its also staggering just how many opponents of middle eastern peoples dont even realise persians are a completely seperate race from arabs...

[David Jamieson]

In fact, a liberal democracy is the ideal society that can work.
It includes forms of socialism and it includes forms of capitalism.
It runs on rule of law and continues to refine law in a secular and observant manner that is fair to all.

Appointment instead of election to posts is a problem.
Not hiring to positions that shouldn't be run by a politician is a problem.
Not having individuals accountable for tax dollars to the dime is a problem.
Corruption and a laissez-faire attitude towards it in favour of an economic model over a moral one is a problem.

There are a lot of problems with liberal democracy.

But as a human being, i'd say it's the best form of order out of chaos that can be afforded to humans. So long as fascists can be kept out of seats of power and overt socialism is tempered with common sense. I'm happy to pay taxes for that civilization.

[BJJ-Blue]

your lack of understanding is incredible and yoursheeplike conditioning is absolutely staggering..

Are you seriously calling me "sheeplike" on the basis I have been saying for years that Communism doesn't work and now I post quotes of Fidel Castro agreeing with me?

[BJJ-Blue]

I'm beyond stunned that you guys are defending communism in Cuba when the very guy who brough communism to Cuba and ran the country for ~50 years said it didn't work.

[BJJ-Blue]

needing to buy from the states doesnt mean capitalism is better, its a geography thing... america has things cuba doesnt and buys from abroad... just like the states does... importing goods is a huge biz in the states... it simply caosts more to ship things from 1000's of miles away when there is a source within 100 miles...

cuba is a small place, they cant manufacture everything they need and like every other nation on earth, a large part of survival relies on trade... the fact that a major trading partner has cut them off has made everything alot harder and more expensive than it should have been...

If it's all about geography and an embargo, please explain how Taiwan has faced those exact problems and yet has managed to prosper?

[David Jamieson]

I think it needs to be made clear that in that article:

1.NOWHERE IN THE ARTICLE DOES CASTRO SAY COMMUNISM DOESN'T WORK

2. THIS IS NOT COMING FROM FIDEL CASTRO, IT"S COMING FROM HIS BROTHER RAUL

Once again artificial statements as titles from our resident neo-con/republican troll that obfuscate the truth if not outright lying about it.

You take the cake and we're stunned that you think we're stupid enough to fall for your infantile trolling.

Such a weasel way to make a smarmy little comment about something you know nothing about yet have silly and ungrounded emotional reactions to which in turn compel you to vomit out your inane nonsense for us here, over and over again.

Your reading comprehension is terrible 1bad and thanking yourself from another account is the height of trollery. Troll! Give this man a troll badge!

[BJJ-Blue]

1.NOWHERE IN THE ARTICLE DOES CASTRO SAY COMMUNISM DOESN'T WORK

"Fidel Castro told a visiting American journalist that Cuba's communist economic model doesn't work, a rare comment on domestic affairs from a man who has conspicuously steered clear of local issues since stepping down four years ago."


2. THIS IS NOT COMING FROM FIDEL CASTRO, IT"S COMING FROM HIS BROTHER RAUL

"Fidel Castro told a visiting American journalist that Cuba's communist economic model doesn't work, a rare comment on domestic affairs from a man who has conspicuously steered clear of local issues since stepping down four years ago."


Once again artificial statements as titles from our resident neo-con/republican troll that obfuscate the truth if not outright lying about it.

Once again you either fail to read the article, you fail to comprehend the article, or you refuse to accept the article. Which one is it?


Your reading comprehension is terrible 1bad and thanking yourself from another account is the height of trollery. Troll! Give this man a troll badge!

So says the guy who reads an article quoting Fidel Castro then says Fidel Castro never said it!

[sanjuro_ronin]

Uh dude, Fidel said that CUBA's communisim is no longer effective.
That is not him saying Communism doesn't work.

That is like pointing up the horrific economy in the states and saying capitalisim doesn't work.

[SnowDog]

If it's all about geography and an embargo, please explain how Taiwan has faced those exact problems and yet has managed to prosper?


How can you compaire Taiwan's situation with Cuba's?

Taiwan is what was left of the Western backed Nationalist party that ruled China prior to the '48 Communist take-over. They were already trading partners with some of the wealthiest western powers (USA, UK, France) and they were not isolated by the embargo that China placed on them. They were surrounded by friendly ports to do buisness with (Hong Kong, Japan, SE Asia, Philipenes, Australia, etc......) They never had any issues getting foriegn goods or aid. They had multiple foriegn investors and access to anything they needed that they used to rely on China for. And except for Russia there was really no other weathly country that was upholding China's embargo of them.

Cuba on the other hand was isolated from any foriegn aid or foriegn trade, as any country that was in close proximity to them was also reliant on the US or Western Europe to keep their economies a float, so they were not going to endanger their own financial support from the US to trade with Cuba, and none of these coutnries had any military or economic power to force us to allow them to trade with Cuba. And until Chavez took over Venezuala the only true support they had (USSR) was 1/2 way around the world with virtually ZERO influance in the area surrounding Cuba for 1000s of miles.

This is a seriously bad comparrison.

[BJJ-Blue]

Uh dude, Fidel said that CUBA's communisim is no longer effective.
That is not him saying Communism doesn't work.

That is like pointing up the horrific economy in the states and saying capitalisim doesn't work.

Apparently the problems David has with comprehension has affected you. (Which surprises me, you're generally a pretty bright guy) He clearly said exactly what I said that he said. It's right there in written English guys.

As to our economy, we have our ups and downs. Cuba, on the other hand, has been on a downward slide since the late 50s.

Face it, Margaret Thatcher was correct when she said "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." It looks like it took Castro/Cuba about 50 years to prove her right on that one.

[BJJ-Blue]

How can you compaire Taiwan's situation with Cuba's?

Because they share many similarities.

Both are small island nations.
Both are very close to a world power that has either invaded or threatened to invade them.
Both are/were under embargo by said world power.
Both had free trade with a world power, albeit thousands of miles away.
Both had military aid given them by their allies.

And yet the differences are profound. Taiwan has a high standard of living and businesses flocking to come over there. While Cubans are on food and milk rations and have destroyed their private sector.

Again, I'm still stunned you guys are still arguing over this when Fidel Castro himself is in agreeance with me on this. :rolleyes:

[sanjuro_ronin]

Dude:


Fidel Castro told a visiting American journalist that Cuba's communist economic model doesn't work,

He said CUBA's, he didn't say communisim in of itself.


The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore"

Note, he says it doesn't work for them ANYMORE.


You are being selective in what you want it to say.

Of course Cuba's mode is outdated, it has been since the fall of the USSR.

I know, I've been there and spoken to the people there.
This is old news.

[BJJ-Blue]

He said CUBA's, he didn't say communisim in of itself.

Point taken.

Can you name a country where Communism did work?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Point taken.

Can you name a country where Communism did work?

Not even one, not really.
Like any extremist ideology, it can work for a short stint, perhaps to fix a problem or two, but in the long run it fails because ideologies do not run countries, not matter what anyone wishes to think.
People do.

[David Jamieson]

Point taken.

Can you name a country where Communism did work?

dude, name a country where any economic policy has "worked"

pete's sake, capitalism in your country and the model it is using doesn't work.

but then, you're just a troll. lol

mmmm communism! can you smell the justice of it?

[BJJ-Blue]

dude, name a country where any economic policy has "worked"

pete's sake, capitalism in your country and the model it is using doesn't work.

Capitalism **** sure has worked here. We are a young nation, yet in our short time as a nation we have become the richest nation on Earth. When a country's major health problem is obesety, it's people are doing very, very well.

It's also working in China. Once they allowed free market principles to be implemented, their economy has shot through the roof. And now Cuba is at least smart enough to try it too. Look at the USSR/Russia. Under Communism they had food rationing and long lines for food. Now I'll admit their transition to a free market system has had some issues, but at least the people are now free to eat as they choose and there are no longer long lines for food.

Why you keep sticking up for a recipe that has resulted in failure EVERY SINGLE TIME it is tried is beyond me.

[BJJ-Blue]

Not even one, not really.
Like any extremist ideology, it can work for a short stint, perhaps to fix a problem or two, but in the long run it fails because ideologies do not run countries, not matter what anyone wishes to think.
People do.

Actually one person ran Cuba with a certain ideology and it failed so bad that that guy who ran it for around 50 years now admits it failed.

Communism actually does indeed 'work' for a short period of time, then it inevitably fails. When they first take over a country and steal from those who produce (the minority) and forcefully give it to those who consume (the majority), most all of the people are thrilled. Of course once there is no more wealth created, and thus no new wealth to steal, the whole house of cards comes crashing down. Just like Margaret Thatcher said it would.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Actually one person ran Cuba with a certain ideology and it failed so bad that that guy who ran it for around 50 years now admits it failed.

Communism actually does indeed 'work' for a short period of time, then it inevitably fails. When they first take over a country and steal from those who produce (the minority) and forcefully give it to those who consume (the majority), most all of the people are thrilled. Of course once there is no more wealth created, and thus no new wealth to steal, the whole house of cards comes crashing down. Just like Margaret Thatcher said it would.

Your view of communisim is tainted by your conservative view point, which I can understand, still it is an overly bias view.

[MasterKiller]

Capitalism **** sure has worked here. We are a young nation, yet in our short time as a nation we have become the richest nation on Earth. When a country's major health problem is obesety, it's people are doing very, very well.

It's also working in China. Once they allowed free market principles to be implemented, their economy has shot through the roof. And now Cuba is at least smart enough to try it too. Look at the USSR/Russia. Under Communism they had food rationing and long lines for food. Now I'll admit their transition to a free market system has had some issues, but at least the people are now free to eat as they choose and there are no longer long lines for food.

Yeah, it's been awesome. People are lucky to get 2 weeks off every year to enjoy themselves. We have the most expensive health care in the world yet only run in the middle of the pack for quality, we have the highest infant mortality rate in the civilized world, we don't manufacture anything and our whole economy is based off buying as much as we can and then throwing it away as fast as we can, and corporations spend billions every year to influence our political process in their favor.

All the stuff that's great about America—free education, access to the legal system, superb infrastructure, military power— all just happen to be socialized programs.

[BJJ-Blue]

Your view of communisim is tainted by your conservative view point, which I can understand, still it is an overly bias view.

I fully admit bias (and remember that everyone who has an opinion is biased), but I stand by that statement as 100% true. Is there any part of it you refute?

[BJJ-Blue]

Yeah, it's been awesome. People are lucky to get 2 weeks off every year to enjoy themselves. We have the most expensive health care in the world yet only run in the middle of the pack for quality, we have the highest infant mortality rate in the civilized world, we don't manufacture anything and our whole economy is based off buying as much as we can and then throwing it away as fast as we can, and corporations spend billions every year to influence our political process in their favor.

All the stuff that's great about America—free education, access to the legal system, superb infrastructure, military power— all just happen to be socialized programs.

MK, you're facts are all kinds of wrong. We don't maufacture anything??? Are you high? This country still is the #1 manufacturing country in the world. (Unless China has recently surpassed us, in which case we are still #2).

We feed the world. This also may be news to you. Even while we are running deficits, we give billions to Africa, and expect nothing in return.

As to companies spending billions to influence politicians, I have a simple solution that wil stop that. Keep Gov't out of their business. It's that simple. The only reason they 'buy' politicians is so they won't pass new laws that harm their businesses. If Gov't would just leave them alone, they wouldn't need to 'buy' the politicians. Look at Microsoft in the 1990s. They gave nothing to any politicians or to any political party. They only started giving to politicians AFTER Bill Clinton sued them for being a monopoly. But while the Gov't was leaving them alone, they were not spending anything buying influence.

As to health care, you may not have heard the latest news on Obamacare. New cost analysis studies are now showing the initial cost analysis was off by HALF! Every study being done now is saying that costs are going to go UP under Obamacare, not down. And since Obama said those costs (of which he was off by 1/2) would be paid by him LOWERING unemployment and thus getting millions of new Americans paying income and payroll taxes, unemployment has went UP, and thus we are even futher behind the 8-ball than even people like me thought we would be. I predicited failure, but never did I figure they were off by half on the cost analysis. People should be very, very nervous about this mess, but yet people like you still defend it. I'm gonna honestly hate if the the day comes where I have to come on here and say 'See, I told you so', because if I do the country will be in such horrible shape that it will be of little consolation. Why Obama keeps bulling forward Full Speed Ahead on policies that as we speak are destroying economies is beyond me.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I fully admit bias (and remember that everyone who has an opinion is biased), but I stand by that statement as 100% true. Is there any part of it you refute?

No, except Thatcher was a tool.
But that is my opinion :D

[BJJ-Blue]

But that is my opinion :D

So you are biased then? ;)

[sanjuro_ronin]

So you are biased then? ;)

Only when I am awake.

[Syn7]

we give billions to Africa, and expect nothing in return.

are you serious???
i mean, aside from the fact that africans provided free labour during the most formative years, do you really believe that the US expects nothing in return???

[BJJ-Blue]

are you serious???
i mean, aside from the fact that africans provided free labour during the most formative years, do you really believe that the US expects nothing in return???

I'm completely serious. What do you say we get, or expect, in return?

[MasterKiller]

No, except Thatcher was a tool.
But that is my opinion :D

I met Thatcher in OKC when I was 19.

[Xiao3 Meng4]

I'm completely serious. What do you say we get, or expect, in return?

We help avert one of the many ways in which it can all go down the toilet:

Population Growth. (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth.html)

Plus, we stay relevant to Africa alongside This (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/03/29/f-china-in-africa.html).

Not saying things couldn't be done better, just saying things aren't all about navel-gazing.

[Syn7]

why would they donate money??? to both grease leaders palms aswell as ensure the infastructure needed to do biz in these places...

heres an example:
http://www.justmeans.com/press-releases/Anglo-American-s-Coal-division-in-South-Africa-wins-Global-Business-Coalition-award-for-HIV-AIDS-program/4194.html


and here is an article that gets into the profit motives of this kind of benevolence:
http://www.american.com/archive/2007/january-february-magazine-contents/what-works-in-africa/


then there are things like this:
http://americanfoodexports.com/

International Trading Company Specializing in African Trade
Sell Your Grocery Items in Growing African Markets


Increase the sales of your products by trading in growing African markets. American Food Exports, LLC, sources a variety of products needed by our existing customers in Africa. These products include food, general consumer goods, and industrial raw materials. Backed by 25 years of experience, we have deep, firsthand knowledge of business in Africa. We see the potential in Africa, as it experiences a revival as a strong market with a good economy. Contact our international trading company based in Las Vegas, Nevada, to expand your business through African trade.



there are strong economic ties betwen africa and the states... for ewxample, in s. africa they have this:
http://www.amcham.co.za/


i find it very naive for anyone to believe all tjis aid is simply because its the right thing to do... the motives at the top are very clear when all the facts are known... its hard to rape a continent of its resources while wars famine and disease run rampant... and now that we are going to be competing with china to see who can get the most out of africa, and do it the fastest, its gonna get nasty over there...

[Syn7]

funny how the US is always leading the charge for "positive change" in these far off places... how its so important to free afgan women from barbarian fundamentalists, yet no word on freeing tibet... whos legitimate spiritual and political leader is living in exile... the US cant even find a decent leader for afghanistan, but heres this dalai lama giftwrapped and loved by most who met him m a guy who has a legitimate claim, and not a word from the US... nothing...

these policies have nothing to do with morals... its all business and every cent that leaves this continent has an expected return of some sort or another... like i said before, i think its very naive to believe otherwise...

not to say its all bad... or good... if people are being fed and are healthy and have jobs, that can be a good thing, depends on the particulars...

[BJJ-Blue]

Syn, I agree with you on Tibet.

IMO, none of the big liberal groups focus on Tibet like they should because they are not being 'oppressed' by America, Europeans, Israelis, conservatives, etc. Communist countries often get a pass when compared to other countries because many of the human watch orgs are liberal.

I mean for 6 years we had to listen to these people demand GW Bush be impeached and then tried for war crimes, but not one word from them about Castro, Kim Jong-il, or the Communist Chinese (who have even been caught selling black market organs from executed political prisoners) leaders facing justice for the millions of their own people they have murdered.

And of course the US is really in no position to demand anything from China because they own a large portion of our debt. In terms of Tibet, the best thing we can do is get our house in order by stopping rampant Gov't spending and paying off the Chinese. Then we are in a much stronger position to demand freedom for Tibet and human rights changes in China as well.

[MasterKiller]

I mean for 6 years we had to listen to these people demand GW Bush be impeached and then tried for war crimes, but not one word from them about Castro, Kim Jong-il, or the Communist Chinese (who have even been caught selling black market organs from executed political prisoners) leaders facing justice for the millions of their own people they have murdered.

Why is it our duty to prosecute the criminals from other countries?

[BJJ-Blue]

Why is it our duty to prosecute the criminals from other countries?

It isn't. Nor did I say it was. There were calling for international war crimes tribunals for GW Bush. And they were not calling for international tribunals for human rights violations for the leftists I mentioned.

[MasterKiller]

It isn't. Nor did I say it was. There were calling for international war crimes tribunals for GW Bush. And they were not calling for international tribunals for human rights violations for the leftists I mentioned.

GW Bush is our criminal. The others are not.

[BJJ-Blue]

GW Bush is our criminal. The others are not.

Neither were the Nazis tried at Nuremburg. Are you suggesting we had no business prosecuting them?

And Bush is not a criminal. According to our laws he is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, whether you liberals like it or not.

[MasterKiller]

Neither were the Nazis tried at Nuremburg. Are you suggesting we had no business prosecuting them?

I don't believe we are at war with Castro, Kim Jong-il, or the Communist Chinese.


And Bush is not a criminal. According to our laws he is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, whether you liberals like it or not. He was convicted of crimes by a court of law. ;)

[BJJ-Blue]

I don't believe we are at war with Castro, Kim Jong-il, or the Communist Chinese.

You didn't say that at first.

But my point still remains: Liberal human rights groups were not CALLING for those dictators to be tried, but they were demanding Bush be tried. More hypocracy.


He was convicted of crimes by a court of law. ;)

No, he was not. So stop making up things. And please do not call him a criminal. It's namecalling, which you yourself said is not allowed. Set an example as mod, and don't be a hypocrite, please.

[MasterKiller]

You didn't say that at first. Why do you always move the goal posts? American Liberals have every right to call for the trial of a U.S. criminal. Americans have no business telling other countries how to try and punish their criminals.



No, he was not. So stop making up things. I stand corrected. He pleaded guilty.

[Syn7]

just gonna completely sidestep the africa thing, huh??? :rolleyes:

[BJJ-Blue]

Why do you always move the goal posts? American Liberals have every right to call for the trial of a U.S. criminal. Americans have no business telling other countries how to try and punish their criminals.

You're not getting what I'm pointing out.

You are 100% correct we have no right telling other countries what to do. But my point is that while the human rights groups are demanding Bush be tried in international courts of law, they are not demanding left-wing dictators who actually murder their own people be charged in those same courts. That's hypocracy.


I stand corrected. He pleaded guilty.

No, he did not. Again, please stop making things up.

[Syn7]

No, he was not. So stop making up things. And please do not call him a criminal. It's namecalling, which you yourself said is not allowed. Set an example as mod, and don't be a hypocrite, please.

you really dont know about his criminal history as a younger man???


you act like you are knowing about all these things as you push the typical conservative rhettoric and you make mistakes on very obvious facts...

george bush was so convicted in a court of law, do some homework... 1976 convicted of drunk driving... he has had a handful of charges, most "taken care of" by family and family friends... he admitted to the cocaine thing too...

and then theres the africa thing... something i chose to adress as my own way of showing the holes in your game... and you just stepped right around the whole thing... you know what you said... this is how sound your theories are... you make absolute criticisms and paint all these things black and white and you dont even have a grasp on the issues... the africa thing was just a good way of pointing that out... but i take issue with alot that you say... i just dont bother to adress every detail of your wrongness...

[David Jamieson]

Actually, Castro admitted that Wing Chun doesn't work and that communism will kick wing chuns ass.

there was a problem with translation... :p

[BJJ-Blue]

just gonna completely sidestep the africa thing, huh??? :rolleyes:

Not at all. You just showed we have business interests over there, so I'll adress that.

American businesses have the right to deal with whoever they please, as long as they are not breaking US law concerning things like embargos, etc. But our Government has ZERO business giving out aid. Zero. The Constitution does not say it is our Government's job to make sure other countries can feed their people, provide medical care, etc. It may sound harsh, mean, uncaring, etc, but it is what it is. And to me, the Constitution is what we are supposed to follow.

[MasterKiller]

No, he did not. Again, please stop making things up.

You are denying Bush pleaded guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol in 1976?

[BJJ-Blue]

you really dont know about his criminal history as a younger man???

you act like you are knowing about all these things as you push the typical conservative rhettoric and you make mistakes on very obvious facts...

george bush was so convicted in a court of law, do some homework... 1976 convicted of drunk driving... he has had a handful of charges, most "taken care of" by family and family friends... he admitted to the cocaine thing too...

Let's act like adults here and not get ridiculous.

By that logic, anyone who has had a speeding ticket can be branded a criminal for life. Get real. And we are talking about war crimes and hunamitarian issues, not DWIs. Quit bringing in stuff that is irrelevant.

And no, I am not giving him a pass for drunk driving. It's just not relevant to the topic at hand.


and then theres the africa thing... something i chose to adress as my own way of showing the holes in your game... and you just stepped right around the whole thing... you know what you said... this is how sound your theories are... you make absolute criticisms and paint all these things black and white and you dont even have a grasp on the issues... the africa thing was just a good way of pointing that out... but i take issue with alot that you say... i just dont bother to adress every detail of your wrongness...

You brought business into a discussion on US Gov't policy. Since we were discussing foreign aid (US Gov't policy) and not international business, I left it alone. Once you asked me to address it, I did.

I'm usually not a black or white type person in everyday life. Honest. But right is right and wrong is wrong. And sometimes it really is that simple.

[BJJ-Blue]

You are denying Bush pleaded guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol in 1976?

It's moot. We are not discussing DWIs from the 1970s. You want to discuss that, fine. Start a new thread about it. You want to discuss GW Bush in terms of war crimes, etc, fine. That's the topic at hand.

[MasterKiller]

And Bush is not a criminal. According to our laws he is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, whether you liberals like it or not.

Definition of CRIMINAL
1: relating to, involving, or being a crime <criminal neglect>
2: relating to crime or to the prosecution of suspects in a crime <criminal statistics> <brought criminal action>
3: guilty of crime; also : of or befitting a criminal <a criminal mind>

You said he wasn't a criminal and accused me of making things up. Do you admit he broke the law?

[BJJ-Blue]

You want to discuss GW Bush's driving in the 1970s, start a new thread. This is my last word on that foolishness in this thread.

We can all see what your doing, and I refuse to participate in it.

[MasterKiller]

You want to discuss GW Bush's driving in the 1970s, start a new thread. This is my last word on that foolishness in this thread.

We can all see what your doing, and I refuse to participate in it.

You accused me of lying, so I will not until you answer. Typical 1Blue behaviour to cry foul when you get called out, yet hound everyone else to death when you feel slighted.

[Syn7]

it just speaks to your credability... you say these things then you dance around and bull**** your way through being shown how wrong you were...


you dont see any connection between foreign aid and business??? you just choose not to see, because its obvious... why do they seem to give the most aid to the countries that have the most private american interests??? and every one that says NO to american interests and does not allow american business is an enemy...


did you even read the articles i posted? or did you look at tyhe titles and assume you had the gyst of it all???

[Syn7]

And to me, the Constitution is what we are supposed to follow.


yeah, in the states... its very arrogant to just blindly apply it to any other cultures...

[BJJ-Blue]

you dont see any connection between foreign aid and business??? you just choose not to see, because its obvious... why do they seem to give the most aid to the countries that have the most private american interests???

Of course I see a connection. My point is that our Government is not responsible for other countries welfare. Business is not bound by the Constitution, the government is. Business is free to give, loan, etc any amount of money they want to any foreign Gov't (again, barring embargoes, etc). Of course business is bound by US laws passed Consitutionally, btw.


and every one that says NO to american interests and does not allow american business is an enemy...

Yeah, right. We give tons of 'free' money to countries that routinely vote against us in the UN and whose citizens burn our flag and drag our soldiers bodies through the streets. And that's just wrong on an epic scale.


yeah, in the states... its very arrogant to just blindly apply it to any other cultures...

Yeah, it's so arrogant to try and ask people to follow the blueprint for success that has made us the richest country on Earth.

[MasterKiller]

No, he did not. Again, please stop making things up.


It's moot. We are not discussing DWIs from the 1970s.

So was I making it up, or did Bush plead guilty to being a criminal?

[BJJ-Blue]

Gotta get back to work guys.

It's been fun, and I'll be back soon. ;)

[Syn7]

Yeah, it's so arrogant to try and ask people to follow the blueprint for success that has made us the richest country on Earth.

the exploitation and cheap foreign labor model.. if everyone did it we'd all be rich!!!

we can all get blacks and asians to built our countries for cheap or free... and then everyone can become a middleman... and get rich, ofcourse...

i hate to break it to you but the US economic model is not sustainable and unless major changes occur, its going to right out collapse... and do you notice that all the bandaid solutions that are proping up the US economy are socialist... bailouts, stimulus packages etc etc...

[MasterKiller]

Gotta get back to work guys.

It's been fun, and I'll be back soon. ;)


No, he did not. Again, please stop making things up.


It's moot. We are not discussing DWIs from the 1970s.

So was I making it up, or did Bush plead guilty to being a criminal?

[David Jamieson]

So was I making it up, or did Bush plead guilty to being a criminal?

no, you weren't lying he is a convicted criminal, but he probably pardoned himself along the way. lol because he's a scumbag like that you know.

I hope he doesn't die before he gets arrested again for you know what (insert any crazy ass conspiracy theory about him you like) ;D

[BJJ-Blue]

i hate to break it to you but the US economic model is not sustainable and unless major changes occur, its going to right out collapse... and do you notice that all the bandaid solutions that are proping up the US economy are socialist... bailouts, stimulus packages etc etc...

Of course I noticed it. But did you notice how those "bandaid solutions" are actually making it WORSE? You know, we have higher poverty rates, foreclosures, and unemployment than we had before we implemented the socialist 'solutions'. I still maintain that the only thing that will fix the mess are sound conservative economic principles. Just like in the 1980s.

And the American people see this too. November is shaping up to be even better than I thought it would. It may well make 1994 look good for the Democrats by comparison. ;)

[Syn7]

Of course I noticed it. But did you notice how those "bandaid solutions" are actually making it WORSE? You know, we have higher poverty rates, foreclosures, and unemployment than we had before we implemented the socialist 'solutions'. I still maintain that the only thing that will fix the mess are sound conservative economic principles. Just like in the 1980s.

And the American people see this too. November is shaping up to be even better than I thought it would. It may well make 1994 look good for the Democrats by comparison. ;)

all that shows us is that the bandaid solutions arent enough... any halfhearted type of solution isnt gonna be enough... you cant blame the bandaids for the problems tho...

say i cut my hand, put a bandaid on it but didnt clean it properly or do anything else i should have done... then a while later im infected and sore, is it the bandaids fault??? no, the bandaid would have worked great had i gone all out and used the bandaid properly after cleaning the wound...

the US economy needs to 'clean its wounds' and adress the CAUSES if the bandaids are gonna do anything but cover a festering wound...

[MasterKiller]

Of course I noticed it. But did you notice how those "bandaid solutions" are actually making it WORSE? You know, we have higher poverty rates, foreclosures, and unemployment than we had before we implemented the socialist 'solutions'. I still maintain that the only thing that will fix the mess are sound conservative economic principles. Just like in the 1980s.

And the American people see this too. November is shaping up to be even better than I thought it would. It may well make 1994 look good for the Democrats by comparison. ;)


No, he did not. Again, please stop making things up.


It's moot. We are not discussing DWIs from the 1970s.

So was I making it up, or did Bush plead guilty to being a criminal?

[Syn7]

So was I making it up, or did Bush plead guilty to being a criminal?

so what was ur question again???:D

[BJJ-Blue]

you cant blame the bandaids for the problems tho...

And I did not do that. I did however, blame those socialist policies (ie, bandaids) for making the problem worse. And I'm backed up on that assertion with ALOT of data.


the US economy needs to 'clean its wounds' and adress the CAUSES if the bandaids are gonna do anything but cover a festering wound...

Agreed. Of course it appears we disagree on the causes. I've addressed that in the other current political thread, and I'm hoping we can discuss causes further in that thread.

[MasterKiller]

And I did not do that. I did however, blame those socialist policies (ie, bandaids) for making the problem worse. And I'm backed up on that assertion with ALOT of data.



Agreed. Of course it appears we disagree on the causes. I've addressed that in the other current political thread, and I'm hoping we can discuss causes further in that thread.



No, he did not. Again, please stop making things up.


It's moot. We are not discussing DWIs from the 1970s.

So was I making it up, or did Bush plead guilty to being a criminal?

[Syn7]

So was I making it up, or did Bush plead guilty to being a criminal?

seriously tho... whats your question again???



say it blue... SAY IT!!!

[MasterKiller]

seriously tho... whats your question again???



say it blue... SAY IT!!!

Syn,
I'm just recreating typical 1Blue behavior. When he feels slighted, he stalks people across multiple threads/boards, pasting his position over and over until he gets an apology.

The real question is, will he man up to his own standards and admit he was wrong in less than 400 pages?

[goju]

Yeah, it's been awesome. People are lucky to get 2 weeks off every year to enjoy themselves. We have the most expensive health care in the world yet only run in the middle of the pack for quality, we have the highest infant mortality rate in the civilized world, we don't manufacture anything and our whole economy is based off buying as much as we can and then throwing it away as fast as we can, and corporations spend billions every year to influence our political process in their favor.

All the stuff that's great about America—free education, access to the legal system, superb infrastructure, military power— all just happen to be socialized programs.


who was it that said something to the affect of capitalism isnt very good it is just the best out of all the choices we have? :D

[Syn7]

Syn,
I'm just recreating typical 1Blue behavior. When he feels slighted, he stalks people across multiple threads/boards, pasting his position over and over until he gets an apology.

The real question is, will he man up to his own standards and admit he was wrong in less than 400 pages?

yeah i know... i wanna see him say it too...

where i live, DUI is a very serious offence... people die when drinking and driving mix... its the height of irresponsability and selfish ignorance... it speaks volumes to a persons character... they value their own convenience over other peoples lives... to me thats just pure ignorance... our premier was actually convicted in hawaii on vacation while in office...

and a conviction is a conviction... it means you are a CONVICT in other words, a CRIMINAL... i believe he is the first man to be alected as POTUS with a criminal record...

if a democrat was running for president and had the same past transgressions as bush did, conservatives would never let it go, they would harp on it and beat a dead horse till it was dust... i mean, we're talking about a group who tried to villify obama by emphasising his middle name and the fact that his dad was a muslim... and when they werent doing that, they were pegging him as a radical racist christian ala rev. wright...

so his middle name is top story on fox news, but bushs cocaine use, well, mum on that one...

i was actually pleased with some of the restraint from the obama campaign when having such an easy target in palin...


palins foreign policy experience: "I CAN SEE RUSSIA FROM MY KITCHEN'

[BJJ-Blue]

yeah i know... i wanna see him say it too...

If he starts a new thread about it, I'll show up there. I was very clear on that. Just because MK has a problem with me, he acts like this. When I post in mulitple threads, I "stalk people across multiple threads/boards". But when he does it to me, he is just trying to make me "man up". Honest, I've only ever seen one mod on a forum act more childish.


and a conviction is a conviction... it means you are a CONVICT in other words, a CRIMINAL... i believe he is the first man to be alected as POTUS with a criminal record...

If you're having to dredge into people's friggin driving records, you know you don't have much else to stand on.

If traffic offenses make you a "criminal", I'd bet my bottom dollar Bush is not the "first man to be alected as POTUS with a criminal record".


but bushs cocaine use, well, mum on that one...

The press had to be mum on that issue because Obama openly admitted he used cocaine in the past.

[BJJ-Blue]

Since MK wants to endlessly discuss GW Bush and a DWI from decades ago, yet he can't seem to start a thread on his own, I've started a thread for that topic.

Feel free to contribute.

[MasterKiller]

No, he did not. Again, please stop making things up.


It's moot. We are not discussing DWIs from the 1970s.

So was I making it up, or did Bush plead guilty to being a criminal?

[BJJ-Blue]

So was I making it up, or did Bush plead guilty to being a criminal?

Please tell me you didn't delete the Bush DWI thread. You can't possibly be that petty can you?

Since you're a mod I'll ask you then: Are we just allowed now to completely post off topic in any thread we please? And are we not to start new threads to keep current ones on topic? I'm just trying to get clarification here. :rolleyes:

[MasterKiller]

Please tell me you didn't delete the Bush DWI thread. You can't possibly be that petty can you?

Since you're a mod I'll ask you then: Are we just allowed now to completely post off topic in any thread we please? And are we not to start new threads to keep current ones on topic? I'm just trying to get clarification here. :rolleyes:

I merged it with the relevant thread. Look 4 posts up. No use in cluttering things up. You accused me of lying on this thread. Why can't you answer it on this thread?


No, he did not. Again, please stop making things up.


It's moot. We are not discussing DWIs from the 1970s.

So was I making it up, or did Bush plead guilty to being a criminal?

[BJJ-Blue]

I'm going to take a stand against your continued childish ways.

I've REPEATEDLY said I will discuss GW Bush's driving during the 1970s in the appropriate thread. Repeatedly. This thread is titled "Castro admits Communism doesn't work".

You obviously have some ridiculous point you want to make, or you want to hear me say I was wrong or some other nonsense. Fine. You want those things, act like an adult, do your job and keep threads on topic instead of derealing them yourself, and we can discuss it like adults. Act like this and you won't get your question answered no matter how many thousands of times you post it in the wrong thread. Post it just once in an approriate thread and I'll answer it.

[MasterKiller]

I'm going to take a stand against your continued childish ways.

I've REPEATEDLY said I will discuss GW Bush's driving during the 1970s in the appropriate thread. Repeatedly. This thread is titled "Castro admits Communism doesn't work".

You obviously have some ridiculous point you want to make, or you want to hear me say I was wrong or some other nonsense. Fine. You want those things, act like an adult, do your job and keep threads on topic instead of derealing them yourself, and we can discuss it like adults. Act like this and you won't get your question answered no matter how many thousands of times you post it in the wrong thread. Post it just once in an approriate thread and I'll answer it.

You said this IN THIS THREAD:

No, he was not. So stop making up things. And please do not call him a criminal. It's namecalling, which you yourself said is not allowed. Set an example as mod, and don't be a hypocrite, please.

Which makes this the appropriate thread in which to ask the question....

Was I making it up, or did Bush plead guilty to being a criminal?

[BJJ-Blue]

Which makes this the appropriate thread in which to ask the question....

No, it does not. In discussing Communism, the fact that many communist dictators have committed human rights abuses came up. You then brought up a friggin misdeameanor traffic offense. Not hardly apples vs apples.

But if you want to discuss politicians drunk driving troubles, great, start a new thread on the subject. We can discuss Bush's DWI and Ted Kennedy's killing of Mary Jo Kepechne all in the same thread! ;)

[MasterKiller]

No, it does not. In discussing Communism, the fact that many communist dictators have committed human rights abuses came up. You then brought up a friggin misdeameanor traffic offense. Not hardly apples vs apples. I called Bush "our" criminal, to whch you accused me of "making things up."


No, he did not. Again, please stop making things up.

So was I making it up, or did Bush plead guilty to being a criminal?


We can discuss Bush's DWI and Ted Kennedy's killing of Mary Jo Kepechne all in the same thread! ;) I'm pretty sure he did...too bad he never admitted to it in a court of law, huh?

[David Jamieson]

who was it that said something to the affect of capitalism isnt very good it is just the best out of all the choices we have? :D

capitalism is a singular mechanism that can function within any political model.

so... whoever said that wasn't thinking very much.

There's a lot of different flavours of capitalism.

The one America was/ is using, where wall street basically ripped off the banks of the world by selling them Marvin and Lateisha's worthless mortgage that they acquired in another package of worthless items is not working, didn't work and only served to make a small group of people fairly wealthy from the stealing of wealth elsewhere.


also, trickle down economics was a big joke too. So the problem with american capitalism is that it gives to much respect to greedy thieves and doesn't keep enough of an eye towards keeping the game fair.

american capitalism sucks in other words. It's based on stealing from someone else. In practice that is exactly what it does. In theory I guess you can only bang that drum for so long.

[BJJ-Blue]

The one America was/ is using, where wall street basically ripped off the banks of the world by selling them Marvin and Lateisha's worthless mortgage that they acquired in another package of worthless items is not working, didn't work and only served to make a small group of people fairly wealthy from the stealing of wealth elsewhere.

How did we rip off the banks of the world? They were offered assets at a certain price. They accepted the deal. Those idiots bought junk and then when the junk turned out to indeed be junk they cried foul.


also, trickle down economics was a big joke too. So the problem with american capitalism is that it gives to much respect to greedy thieves and doesn't keep enough of an eye towards keeping the game fair.

Reaganomics did indeed work on ALL tax brackets. As a matter of fact, the lower brackets saw their income go up more than upper brackets, in terms of percentages. Now studies are showing that the poor are suffering worse then the 'rich' or the middle class under Obama.


american capitalism sucks in other words. It's based on stealing from someone else. In practice that is exactly what it does. In theory I guess you can only bang that drum for so long.

So if you have the richest country in the world, that means your system sucks? :confused: I guess the New Orleans Saints and the New York Yankees really must have really sucked last year.

[MasterKiller]

No, he did not. Again, please stop making things up.


It's moot. We are not discussing DWIs from the 1970s.

So was I making it up, or did Bush plead guilty to being a criminal?

[David Jamieson]

How did we rip off the banks of the world? They were offered assets at a certain price. They accepted the deal. Those idiots bought junk and then when the junk turned out to indeed be junk they cried foul.



Reaganomics did indeed work on ALL tax brackets. As a matter of fact, the lower brackets saw their income go up more than upper brackets, in terms of percentages. Now studies are showing that the poor are suffering worse then the 'rich' or the middle class under Obama.



So if you have the richest country in the world, that means your system sucks? :confused: I guess the New Orleans Saints and the New York Yankees really must have really sucked last year.

lol. this is some sort of semi-ok trolling you are doing here. I don't believe you are so monumentally stupid to believe all that drivel you just shat up though. :D

as far as you're concerned fraud is a-ok with you as is Lying, misrepresentation and conning others.

fair enough, I guess we will never do any business of any sort now that I know how you feel about these inequities. :)

[BJJ-Blue]

lol. this is some sort of semi-ok trolling you are doing here. I don't believe you are so monumentally stupid to believe all that drivel you just shat up though. :D

If it's such "drivel", please tell me what part of it is not true instead of hinting that I am "monumentally stupid".


as far as you're concerned fraud is a-ok with you as is Lying, misrepresentation and conning others.

Wrong again. Yet again you failed to read my mind, so I'll just tell you what I think rather than you telling us what I think.

Fraud is not ok, actually it's a crime. Often times it's a felony. The fools who bought the subprime mortgages were not defrauded in any way. They made a business decision (albeit a bad one) to buy those mortgages at a price they felt they could make money off them. They were wrong. And now people are saying they were the victims here. Let me ask you this David; If the morgages they bought had actually been repaid at a higher rate than normal and thus those companies had actually made money, would you be saying they must have defrauded the original holders of the mortgages?


fair enough, I guess we will never do any business of any sort now that I know how you feel about these inequities. :)

Now you know how I feel because I just told you. Next time just ask me how I feel instead of arrogantly thinking you know me better than I know me.

[MasterKiller]

Fraud is not ok, actually it's a crime. Often times it's a felony.

LOL! DUIs can be felonies, too.


No, he did not. Again, please stop making things up.


It's moot. We are not discussing DWIs from the 1970s.

So was I making it up, or did Bush plead guilty to being a criminal?

[David Jamieson]

How did we rip off the banks of the world? They were offered assets at a certain price. They accepted the deal. Those idiots bought junk and then when the junk turned out to indeed be junk they cried foul.



Reaganomics did indeed work on ALL tax brackets. As a matter of fact, the lower brackets saw their income go up more than upper brackets, in terms of percentages. Now studies are showing that the poor are suffering worse then the 'rich' or the middle class under Obama.



So if you have the richest country in the world, that means your system sucks? :confused: I guess the New Orleans Saints and the New York Yankees really must have really sucked last year.

Patent rubbish.
you are a troll. period.

I have no idea why you come here with your neo-con gibberish and trolling, but I'm guessing that you have some sort of "issues" that are as yet unresolved.

You don't practice kung fu, don't study it, haven't made any attempts at finding out about it, and yet you incessantly fill up this particular forum with your right wing garbage and pseudo punditry about washington.

a very strange person indeed.

anyway, backpedal all you like, with that post of your's in quotes it basically is you saying that crime is ok as long as you don't get caught or that the people you prey upon are gullible. That's exactly what you're saying and there it is right there.

the fact that you would even try and backpedal on it further writes in stone that you are a troll.

Fail Troll. lol

[BJJ-Blue]

Since you can't refute any of my "drivel" with facts, just keep on calling names. Par for the course for you liberals on this board.

[BJJ-Blue]

anyway, backpedal all you like, with that post of your's in quotes it basically is you saying that crime is ok as long as you don't get caught or that the people you prey upon are gullible. That's exactly what you're saying and there it is right there.

Can you even read at all???

I never said fraud is/was ok. I actually confirmed it's a crime. But since you keep saying there was fraud, can you please show us where the fraud was committed by those selling the morgages?

[Syn7]

Can you even read at all???

I never said fraud is/was ok. I actually confirmed it's a crime. But since you keep saying there was fraud, can you please show us where the fraud was committed by those selling the morgages?

oh well if you confirmed it then it must be truth... fraud is bad...

dont be bitter, you can pitch but cant catch huh...

[BJJ-Blue]

So now we have two liberals who refuse to debate the facts. :rolleyes:

[BJJ-Blue]

oh well if you confirmed it then it must be truth... fraud is bad...

I was actually confirming what I said since he kept accusing me of saying things I did not say.

Now that we all agree fraud is bad, can either of you guys show me where the banks selling the morgages engaged in any fraud?

[Syn7]

not my thing... sorry...


whats that have to do with castro?

i pretty much said all i feel about the castro situation... their model wasnt given a fair shake because of politics and greed problems when they nationalized... they consistantly funjded anti castro groups to make as much trouble as possible... hampered their trade and went on a smear campaign of epic proportions...

had none of that happened, maybe they would have done better... its hard to make things run properly when there is a giant next to you who keeps interfering in any negative way possible... from cia terror style black ops to funding any psycho willing to cause trouble for castro, regardless of the consequences to inocent people... then when all is said and done they lump everything on castro and show the world how much of a failure he is/... its a joke...

there was a time in the states when you would have fbi at your door if you ordered a brochure about cuba in the mail... they did everything they could to demonize castros administration to the american people... they had to sell it if they wanted to keep stepping on his throat... and the guy actually had the nerve to be defianty... defiant of the US... how dare he, how dare he!!!!

[MasterKiller]

Since you can't refute any of my "drivel" with facts, just keep on calling names. Par for the course for you liberals on this board.

Facts like Bush confessed to driving under the influence in a court of law?

[BJJ-Blue]

their model wasnt given a fair shake because of politics and greed problems when they nationalized...

Yeah, they only had almost 50 years to make it work, yet you say it wasn't given a fair chance. :rolleyes: And the USSR had almost 70 years and yet they failed as well. Yet our system of Government has taken us from a colony to the richest nation on Earth in under 200 years. We survived 2 World Wars and the Great Depression, had our White House burned to the ground, and even had several Presidents assassinated, so don't say we weren't tested.


had none of that happened, maybe they would have done better... its hard to make things run properly when there is a giant next to you who keeps interfering in any negative way possible...

The USSR was the "giant" in their neck of the woods, and yet they still imploded.


there was a time in the states when you would have fbi at your door if you ordered a brochure about cuba in the mail... they did everything they could to demonize castros administration to the american people... they had to sell it if they wanted to keep stepping on his throat... and the guy actually had the nerve to be defianty... defiant of the US... how dare he, how dare he!!!!

When you murder thousands of political opponents and run political prisons, you can't say they are this innocent victim of evil American demonization.

[BJJ-Blue]

Syn,

It speaks volumes you have spent pages upon pages making excuses for why Cuba failed, yet Castro himself didn't even try to make excuses. He has accepted his failure better than American liberals have.

[MasterKiller]

Syn,

It speaks volumes you have spent pages upon pages making excuses for why Cuba failed, yet Castro himself didn't even try to make excuses. He has accepted his failure better than American liberals have.

It speaks volumes you have spent pages upon pages dodging the fact you accused me of making things up when I stated a well-documented fact.

[Xiao3 Meng4]

Out of 1badbj's current post count of 141, 11 are non-political. The rest are all in political threads or locked threads (big surprise.)

That's roughly 8% non-political involvement - and not all of that 8% is MA related either. I bet if we checked 1bad's stats, it would be pretty much the same thing.

Either he's paid to have an agenda; or his personality is retributionally divisive, evasive and inflammatory; or he is ill educated; or all of the above.

In any case, he's quite readily dismissable. Putting him on ignore really does not detract from the rest of the forum - although if he were to mess up again I'd shed no tears over a ban.

[David Jamieson]

Cuba failed? really? Veradero, and Habana are such cool places to go anyway. lol

[sanjuro_ronin]

Communisim doesn't work, but one wonders how well capitalisim would have worked in Cuba under the circumstances.
Perhaps, for the time, it was their only viable option.
Capitalisim has had its share of failures around the world, it just recovers better than most systems.
Of course in an ideal world we would have capitalisim being controlled by people of strong "commune" character.

[BJJ-Blue]

It speaks volumes you have spent pages upon pages dodging the fact you accused me of making things up when I stated a well-documented fact.

I've openly said I'll discuss that in the appropriate thread. But you are some power trip where you want me to have to discuss it in threads where it's off topic.

So for the 825th time, once you act your age and put it in the appropriate thread, I'll discuss it for as long as you want.

[BJJ-Blue]

Either he's paid to have an agenda; or his personality is retributionally divisive, evasive and inflammatory; or he is ill educated; or all of the above.

In any case, he's quite readily dismissable. Putting him on ignore really does not detract from the rest of the forum - although if he were to mess up again I'd shed no tears over a ban.

I may be "ill informed", but not one of you has refuted any of the facts I've backed up with links. Nor have any of you shown where fraud was committed as you allege. Nor have any of you explained how the current recession was caused by GW Bush's economic policies. All you guys have really done in the debate is call names and repeatedly bring up a 1976 driving incident. :rolleyes:

If asked, I'll freely explain why I think Obama's stimulus and other ideas failed, and why they will continue to fail. You may not like me as a person, but not one of you can refute the facts or discuss the topics rationally and on topic.

[BJJ-Blue]

Communisim doesn't work, but one wonders how well capitalisim would have worked in Cuba under the circumstances.
Perhaps, for the time, it was their only viable option.
Capitalisim has had its share of failures around the world, it just recovers better than most systems.
Of course in an ideal world we would have capitalisim being controlled by people of strong "commune" character.

This is true. You are one of the guys I enjoy discussions with Sanjuro.

I'll say this about Cuba pre and post revolution; Before the revolution there was indeed poverty. There was also some very rich people who were the minority of Cuba's population. Now 50 some odd years later, we still have poverty in Cuba, but now its at higher levels than before the revolution. And they still have some very rich people there who are the minority of the popultion. But now the poor are on forced food and milk rations. Pre revolution they were not on forced food rations. So you tell me, did it get better or worse for the poor under Castro?

[Syn7]

he doesnt want to discuss it... he just wants you to say it!!!

[MasterKiller]

I may be "ill informed", but not one of you has refuted any of the facts I've backed up with links.



http://articles.cnn.com/2000-11-02/politics/bush.dui_1_arrest-from-news-reports-george-w-bush-kennebunkport-police?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

[MasterKiller]

I've openly said I'll discuss that in the appropriate thread. But you are some power trip where you want me to have to discuss it in threads where it's off topic.

So for the 825th time, once you act your age and put it in the appropriate thread, I'll discuss it for as long as you want.

How is the thread YOU made the accusation on NOT the appropriate thread?

[BJJ-Blue]

he doesnt want to discuss it... he just wants you to say it!!!

That became obvious days ago. :rolleyes: But at least others see it.

And FYI Syn, I'm conservative. Which means in terms of GW Bush, I do not think he was flawless. I actually voted for Alan Keyes in the 2000 Republican primary.

[MasterKiller]

No, he did not. Again, please stop making things up.


It's moot. We are not discussing DWIs from the 1970s.

So was I making it up, or did Bush plead guilty to being a criminal?

[David Jamieson]

Communisim doesn't work, but one wonders how well capitalisim would have worked in Cuba under the circumstances.
Perhaps, for the time, it was their only viable option.
Capitalisim has had its share of failures around the world, it just recovers better than most systems.
Of course in an ideal world we would have capitalisim being controlled by people of strong "commune" character.

American style capitalism didn't work in Cuba an dthat's how communism rose to power.

You can't oppress and repress a people economically and expect them to take that crap.

The dole corp was a big detriment to Cuba, and so, that ended with the rise of Guevara and Castro.

American sanctions and embargoes combined with the collapse of the soviet union had more to do with Cuba getting into an economic mess than anything else.

there is an entire history of this from both viewpoints available. It is really infantile to try and dust the entirety of Cuba and it's huge successes as a society based on a few sentences.

But then, lol, 1bad65bluejjb there can't get enough of this stuff.

I think he wanks to Hannity. :D

[Syn7]

too funny... lets start a pool... i got thursday...

[David Jamieson]

I will help:

From CNN:

Bush acknowledges 1976 DUI charge

November 2, 2000
Web posted at: 11:00 p.m. EST (0400 GMT)

From staff and wire reports

WEST ALLIS, Wisconsin -- Texas Gov. George W. Bush acknowledged Thursday that in 1976 he was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol near his parents' home in Kennebunkport, Maine.

Bush, who was 30 at the time, pleaded guilty, paid a $150 fine and his driving privileges were temporarily suspended in Maine.


There, satisfied?

George W. Bush, former POTUS, DID PLEAD GUILTY TO DUI.

can we move on to how great Cuba would be if you could use a cell phone there or use actual cash? soon...soon.

[BJJ-Blue]

American style capitalism didn't work in Cuba an dthat's how communism rose to power.

It wasn't capitalism that was the problem down there. Batista was a dictator, and an unpopular one at that. He was just replaced by an (initially) more popular dictator.


You can't oppress and repress a people economically and expect them to take that crap.

Says who? They've been repressed economically for about 50 years now and they havent risen up yet.


The dole corp was a big detriment to Cuba, and so, that ended with the rise of Guevara and Castro.

At least the Dole Corporation was not throwing their detractors into political prisons and murdering them.


American sanctions and embargoes combined with the collapse of the soviet union had more to do with Cuba getting into an economic mess than anything else.

This has some truth to it. But I do believe the Cubans were already on food rationing prior to the USSR imploding.


I think he wanks to Hannity. :D

Not hardly. Unlike Barney Frank, I'm into women.

[BJJ-Blue]

can we move on to how great Cuba would be if you could use a cell phone there or use actual cash? soon...soon.

I believe Raul Castro is allowing cell phones now. Of course the problem is that the costs of cell phones make them almost impossible for the average Cuban to own.

[MasterKiller]

I will help:

From CNN:



There, satisfied?

George W. Bush, former POTUS, DID PLEAD GUILTY TO DUI.

can we move on to how great Cuba would be if you could use a cell phone there or use actual cash? soon...soon.

You didn't accuse me of making it up. 1BadBJJ-Blue did.

He won't man-up, though. He never does.

[BJJ-Blue]

He won't man-up, though. He never does.

If you're so confident in that statement, start a new thread dedicated to driving/DWI/1976 as I asked (and even tried myself) and we shall see. ;)

[MasterKiller]

If you're so confident in that statement, start a new thread dedicated to driving/DWI/1976 as I asked (and even tried myself) and we shall see. ;)

Why? You accused me of making it up IN THIS THREAD.

This is just typical of you. You'll stall and stall because you hate to admit you are wrong about anything, even though you yourself often call people to task when they make mistakes and then stalk them incessantly.

[BJJ-Blue]

then stalk them incessantly.

LMFAO!!!!

Are you really complaining that I do this when you've been the poster child for it the last few days?

[KC Elbows]

Somewhere in an alternate universe there's a 1bad with a goatee who is arguing about kung fu on the off topic section of a politics forum, and complaining bitterly about the unfairness he faces.

[BJJ-Blue]

Somewhere in an alternate universe there's a 1bad with a goatee who is arguing about kung fu on the off topic section of a politics forum, and complaining bitterly about the unfairness he faces.

I've never said a word about "unfairness". Like me or hate me, you gotta give me credit for coming here and taking my lumps while I'm outnumbered. I enjoy discussing politics. Of course I'm not so insecure I'd go on a board that's overwhelmingly conservative and lock or spam threads that the few liberals post in. I like a good discussion, and a challenge. ;) Although lately the discussion has been limited to one side, while namecalling and spamming have been the norm for the other side.

I guess when you can't debate the issues it's time to spam, call names, repeatedly post off-topic, and insult people's religious beliefs.

[BJJ-Blue]

Somewhere in an alternate universe there's a 1bad with a goatee who is arguing about kung fu on the off topic section of a politics forum,

I do admit this part did make me laugh though. ;)

[KC Elbows]

How do you do bjj without a goatee? Do you have an amish beard, instead?

[Hardwork108]

Communisim doesn't work, but one wonders how well capitalisim would have worked in Cuba under the circumstances.
Perhaps, for the time, it was their only viable option.
Capitalisim has had its share of failures around the world, it just recovers better than most systems.
Of course in an ideal world we would have capitalisim being controlled by people of strong "commune" character.

Good post.

I have a read a long time ago that Castro had gone to the US for help and support to overthrow the then Cuban dictatorship, but the world's most powerful "Democracy", the beacon for "fairness Human Rights and justice", refused to support him, because they chose a brutal dictatorship, and Mafia infested economy, instead. So, Castro went to the Soviets, and the rest is history, including the unjust and idiotic 40 year old embargo.

[BJJ-Blue]

How do you do bjj without a goatee? Do you have an amish beard, instead?

No. I do however smoke weed. So I do adhere to that bjj stereotype. ;)

[MasterKiller]

LMFAO!!!!

Are you really complaining that I do this when you've been the poster child for it the last few days?

Just giving you a little bit of your own.

Now....



No, he did not. Again, please stop making things up.


It's moot. We are not discussing DWIs from the 1970s.

So was I making it up, or did Bush plead guilty to being a criminal?

[Syn7]

So was I making it up, or did Bush plead guilty to being a criminal?


So was I making it up, or did Bush plead guilty to being a criminal?


So was I making it up, or did Bush plead guilty to being a criminal?


So was I making it up, or did Bush plead guilty to being a criminal?


So was I making it up, or did Bush plead guilty to being a criminal?

.......................................... :rolleyes:

[BJJ-Blue]

.......................................... :rolleyes:

It really is pathetic when the very guy charged with moderating the forum is the worst spammer on the forum.

[MasterKiller]

It really is pathetic when the very guy charged with moderating the forum is the worst spammer on the forum.

Answer the question. That's all you have to do.

[BJJ-Blue]

Answer the question. That's all you have to do.

Start an appropriate thread. That's all you have to do.

I even started an appropriate thread myself, but you wouldn't allow it. Face it, you're trying to throw your weight around and have things done your way at your sandbox. And I refuse to play your childish games.

[Dragonzbane76]

So was I making it up, or did Bush plead guilty to being a criminal?


So was I making it up, or did Bush plead guilty to being a criminal?


So was I making it up, or did Bush plead guilty to being a criminal?


cracks knuckles... just checking to see if my spam skills are still there.


Yup.... still got it. :D

[MasterKiller]

Start an appropriate thread. That's all you have to do.

The appropriate thread is the one in which you made the accusation.

[BJJ-Blue]

cracks knuckles... just checking to see if my spam skills are still there.


Yup.... still got it. :D

Maybe you can become a mod soon. ;)

[BJJ-Blue]

The appropriate thread is the one in which you made the accusation.

If I brought up Castro's 1976 driving habits here, then fine, I'll discuss Bush's 1976 driving habits here.

All you have to do is show where I discussed Castro's 1976 driving habits on this thread. ;)

[Xiao3 Meng4]

Remember his obsession with waterfowl?

That lasted for freakin' MONTHS.

[Syn7]

It really is pathetic when the very guy charged with moderating the forum is the worst spammer on the forum.

yeah but in this case nobody using this page is bothered coz we all wanna see if you'll cop to it... man up, stop pushing off to the left...



So was I making it up, or did Bush plead guilty to being a criminal?


So was I making it up, or did Bush plead guilty to being a criminal?


So was I making it up, or did Bush plead guilty to being a criminal?\


So was I making it up, or did Bush plead guilty to being a criminal?

[Syn7]

If I brought up Castro's 1976 driving habits here, then fine, I'll discuss Bush's 1976 driving habits here.

All you have to do is show where I discussed Castro's 1976 driving habits on this thread. ;)

???? thats childish!!!!!!


So was I making it up, or did Bush plead guilty to being a criminal?

So was I making it up, or did Bush plead guilty to being a criminal?

So was I making it up, or did Bush plead guilty to being a criminal?

So was I making it up, or did Bush plead guilty to being a criminal?

:o

[BJJ-Blue]

???? thats childish!!!!!!

But spamming is not. :rolleyes:

I've said I'll discuss until HE is done discussing it, but it just has to be in a relevant thread. And I even tried to start a relevant thread myself. Yet I'm the problem. Whatever.

[MasterKiller]

If I brought up Castro's 1976 driving habits here, then fine, I'll discuss Bush's 1976 driving habits here.

All you have to do is show where I discussed Castro's 1976 driving habits on this thread. ;)

I called Bush a criminal in this thread.

You told me to stop making things up in this thread.

What's so difficult?

[BJJ-Blue]

I'm done with this childishness now.

Next time he spams his question, I'll start a new, relevant thread and answer it there. If he bans me, fine. If he decides to move that thread into here so he 'wins', fine. But I'm not going to keep this neverending foolishness up.

[MasterKiller]

I'm done with this childishness now.

Next time he spams his question, I'll start a new, relevant thread and answer it there. If he bans me, fine. If he decides to move that thread into here so he 'wins', fine. But I'm not going to keep this neverending foolishness up.

What is so foolish about answering a question in the same thread about an accusation you made in the same thread?

Did I make it up, or not?

[Drake]

Threads like these make me wonder if we aren't just better letting the world be ruled by some of the hotties SR posts.

[Syn7]

But spamming is not. :rolleyes:

I've said I'll discuss until HE is done discussing it, but it just has to be in a relevant thread. And I even tried to start a relevant thread myself. Yet I'm the problem. Whatever.

it was a joke... we are all being childish... thats why its so funny... now answer the danm question!!!:eek:

[Syn7]

I'm done with this childishness now.

Next time he spams his question, I'll start a new, relevant thread and answer it there. If he bans me, fine. If he decides to move that thread into here so he 'wins', fine. But I'm not going to keep this neverending foolishness up.

then just answer it....??? do you really feel like you are standing on some high ground moral principle by not answering until a different thread is made....??? dont you see how its equally as childish to just not answer the question....??? what you are doing is no less rediculous than what MK is doing....??? its less rediculous in his case, atleast he can say he's doing it to get an answer, but you avoiding it and the reasons why are pretty transparent... at first you either didnt know, or werent willing to admit you wrote without thinking it through... but now i believe you feel you have some principle to uphold here... which is just silly...

you couldve answered him a few pages ago and it wouldve been over way back then... its you that is drawing this out...

[BJJ-Blue]

Syn, you approached this in a mature way, so I'll answer it.


So was I making it up, or did Bush plead guilty to being a criminal?

No, GW Bush did not plead guilty to "being a criminal". President Bush plead guilty to "operating under the influence of intoxicating liquor", a Class D misdemeanor.

One final thing about this. The American Heritage dictionary defines a 'criminal' as "One that has committed or been legally convicted of a crime." As the current President has openly admitted to cocaine use decades ago, he fits the definition of a "criminal". I do not refer to him as such and I would ask that you stop referring to former President Bush as such.

[MasterKiller]

I stand corrected. He pleaded guilty.


No, he did not. Again, please stop making things up.


GW Bush did not plead guilty to "being a criminal". President Bush plead guilty to "operating under the influence of intoxicating liquor", a Class D misdemeanor.


I agree that it's a horrible crime and that as of now the punishments are far too lenient.
We can assume from you own remarks that you feel Bush got off far too easy for this horrible crime.

So did I make it up?

[BJJ-Blue]

We can assume from you own remarks that you feel Bush got off far too easy for this horrible crime.

Yes and no. Yes, he paid a fine and had it on his driving record. And of course a fine for DUI/DWI is lenient (remember this was 1976 and laws are much stricter now). So he did pay the penalty as called for at the time and he did not try and use his family's influence to avoid any punishment. But the most important part is that no matter what legal punishment he paid, he did learn his lesson and did not reoffend. And since our criminal justice system does stress rehabilitation, he was actually a success story in that regard.


So did I make it up?

Just let it go. I did as you have been asking and answered the question here. This should be the end of the sniping.

[MasterKiller]

Just let it go. I did as you have been asking and answered the question here. This should be the end of the sniping. You didn't answer the question I've been asking. I just need a Yes or a No. Did I make it up?

[KC Elbows]

Castro can admit he was wrong, why can't you?:D

[BJJ-Blue]

You didn't answer the question I've been asking. I just need a Yes or a No. Did I make it up?

I'm done with this now. You got what you wanted, I answered your question despite protesting at first. I compromised. Now stop trying to rub my nose in it.

[Syn7]

Syn, you approached this in a mature way, so I'll answer it.



No, GW Bush did not plead guilty to "being a criminal". President Bush plead guilty to "operating under the influence of intoxicating liquor", a Class D misdemeanor.

One final thing about this. The American Heritage dictionary defines a 'criminal' as "One that has committed or been legally convicted of a crime." As the current President has openly admitted to cocaine use decades ago, he fits the definition of a "criminal". I do not refer to him as such and I would ask that you stop referring to former President Bush as such.

i love how you always need to balance these things out with a democratic example... even when its not about any of that...

i never heard obama admit to cocaine use... but realistically, 9 out of 10 politicians have committed a crime, whether its inside trading, shady donations, cutting red tape for friends... all against the law and all very very common... and if everyone had tpo be branded with their college years for life, we'd all look like idiots... but with bush, his idiocy went way further than college...

anyways, to me drug use is the same as drinking, morally... and neither even come close to driving under the influence...

DUI is a total selfish scumbag waste of human skin type of crime... cocaine use, its nothing...

[MasterKiller]

I'm done with this now. You got what you wanted, I answered your question despite protesting at first. I compromised. Now stop trying to rub my nose in it.

I don't remember you compromising when you said I was making it up, so I don't think a compromise is satisfactory in this situation.



Did I make it up?

[BJJ-Blue]

i never heard obama admit to cocaine use... but realistically, 9 out of 10 politicians have committed a crime, whether its inside trading, shady donations, cutting red tape for friends... all against the law and all very very common... and if everyone had tpo be branded with their college years for life, we'd all look like idiots... but with bush, his idiocy went way further than college...

anyways, to me drug use is the same as drinking, morally... and neither even come close to driving under the influence...

As to Bush and his "idiocy", was he an idiot to totally give up alcohol? The man made a big mistake in his youth, and as an adult he made positive changes in his life.

As to branding people for life, do you agree it's ridiculous to bring up a misdemeanor committed in 1976 into a political discussion on current events?


DUI is a total selfish scumbag waste of human skin type of crime... cocaine use, its nothing...

If cocaine use is "nothing", are you against criminally charging people whose babies are born cocaine positive? Using cocaine while pregnant seems very selfish to me.

[MasterKiller]

As to Bush and his "idiocy", was he an idiot to totally give up alcohol? The man made a big mistake in his youth, and as an adult he made positive changes in his life. LOL. He was in his 40s when sobered up!

[MasterKiller]

As to Bush and his "idiocy", was he an idiot to totally give up alcohol? The man made a big mistake in his youth, and as an adult he made positive changes in his life. LOL. He was in his 40s when sobered up!


As to branding people for life, do you agree it's ridiculous to bring up a misdemeanor committed in 1976 into a political discussion on current events?

All I said was he was our criminal in response to your whining about liberals not wanting to prosecute criminals from other countries that have not transgressed on American citizens, to which you accused me of making it up.

So......did I make it up?

[BJJ-Blue]

All I said was he was our criminal in response to your whining about liberals not wanting to prosecute criminals from other countries that have not transgressed on American citizens, to which you accused me of making it up.

If you are going to compare a misdemeanor to war crimes and human rights abuses, it's really a waste of my time to even acknowledge your input into the discussions.

[MasterKiller]

If you are going to compare a misdemeanor to war crimes and human rights abuses, it's really a waste of my time to even acknowledge your input into the discussions.

Did I make it up?

[Syn7]

If cocaine use is "nothing", are you against criminally charging people whose babies are born cocaine positive? Using cocaine while pregnant seems very selfish to me.

ok stop clutching at straws...

i think crack babies are just as bad as babies born with alcahol fetal syndrome or tabaco related deformities or even some fat slob who raises a 400 pound teen... its all the same to me... its ignorance... BUT they are social issues, not criminal issues...

when i say i dont think cocaine is any different than alcahol, im not saying cocaine is good... you see that kind of political reasoning all the time and its retarded...

like people who say stuff like `he doesnt like the war on terror, he hates america... `

idiots...

typical from a people who are satisfied with a two party system and believe its a fair and a great model to push on the rest of the world...

thankfully about half of americans arent like that...

anyways, i didnt say it was a good thing, i just think alcahol is as bad... more people get killed because of alcahol than crack... more people drink and beat their wives and or kids... actual cocaine use may be more adictive and less managable in daily life because of the criminal elements involved, but alcahol does more damage per capita...

but prohibition didnt work, so why keep trying... because people are making enough money they way it is and dont want that to change... with drugs and alcahol...

[BJJ-Blue]

ok stop clutching at straws...

I'm not, I'm just stating facts. Both men (Obama and Bush) fit the American Heritage Dictionary's definition of a 'criminal', and I think using cocaine while pregnant is wrong.


i think crack babies are just as bad as babies born with alcahol fetal syndrome or tabaco related deformities or even some fat slob who raises a 400 pound teen... its all the same to me... its ignorance... BUT they are social issues, not criminal issues...

So you are saying it should not be crime to consume cocaine while pregnant, correct?


typical from a people who are satisfied with a two party system and believe its a fair and a great model to push on the rest of the world...

I myself am not happy with the two party system.


but prohibition didnt work, so why keep trying... because people are making enough money they way it is and dont want that to change... with drugs and alcahol...

Exactly right. Once the Gov't began passing 'Seizure Laws' in violation of the 5th Amendment, I knew legalizing drugs was going to be alot harder now as Gov't was now profitting from a certain criminalized activity and thus it would be counter-productive to them fiscally to legalize that activity.

[Syn7]

I'm not, I'm just stating facts. Both men (Obama and Bush) fit the American Heritage Dictionary's definition of a 'criminal', and I think using cocaine while pregnant is wrong.


So you are saying it should not be crime to consume cocaine while pregnant, correct?

you really dont see how retarded you come across right now do you???

[BJJ-Blue]

you really dont see how retarded you come across right now do you???

Do what? I was confused by your answer and I'm just asking for clarification. No need to talk to me like that.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Nothing gets our blood going like a good debate about politics or religion, LOL !

Guys, you express your opinions and that's great, but guess what, not everyone will agree and they don't have to.

No need for insults, all that means you have no argument to back your view so you resort to name calling.

State your view, defend it as best you can, get on with life.

In the end, like my nephew likes to say, " No one cares".

[MasterKiller]

Nothing gets our blood going like a good debate about politics or religion, LOL !

Guys, you express your opinions and that's great, but guess what, not everyone will agree and they don't have to.

No need for insults, all that means you have no argument to back your view so you resort to name calling.

State your view, defend it as best you can, get on with life.

In the end, like my nephew likes to say, " No one cares".

Stop making things up.

[Syn7]

im not name calling because i have no argument, i just refuse to even conversate with people who do this:

syn says: i dont think cocaine use is any worse than alcahol use...(and for the record, dui is dui regardless of the substance, just a side note)

blue says: So you are saying it should not be crime to consume cocaine while pregnant, correct?


thats when i just throw my hands in the air and start dissing people... not because i dont have an answer... im sure you know by now i have multiple opinions on alot of things and i am very rarely lost for words:D

its just that this guy continually jumps around like that...

i think cocaine use is equal to alcahol use...

to blue that meant i was in support of cocaine... and i didnt think it was bad for pregnant woman to pollute their bodies... like why even bring the babies into this argument at this stage? at best its very premature to get into that before we`ve even established whether its ok for a healthy person to use it... which i had not said one way or the other at that point...

[sanjuro_ronin]

http://cdn1.knowyourmeme.com/i/9988/original/internet_serious_mf_business.jpg?1250726882

[KC Elbows]

I don't think unborn children should do cocaine, I'm just traditional that way. Leave cocaine use the way God intended it, for lawyers and hot chicks with daddy issues.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I don't think unborn children should do cocaine, I'm just traditional that way. Leave cocaine use the way God intended it, for lawyers and hot chicks with daddy issues.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2067/2380013236_a3cd66b9ab.jpg

[BJJ-Blue]

im not name calling because i have no argument, i just refuse to even conversate with people who do this:

syn says: i dont think cocaine use is any worse than alcahol use...(and for the record, dui is dui regardless of the substance, just a side note)

blue says: So you are saying it should not be crime to consume cocaine while pregnant, correct?

I asked my question in reference to this post of yours:


i think crack babies are just as bad as babies born with alcahol fetal syndrome or tabaco related deformities or even some fat slob who raises a 400 pound teen... its all the same to me... its ignorance... BUT they are social issues, not criminal issues...

Based on that post, it sounded as if you felt fetal alcohol syndrome and babies being born cocaine positive were not criminal issues. So I asked that question because I wanted you to clarify your position.


to blue that meant i was in support of cocaine... and i didnt think it was bad for pregnant woman to pollute their bodies... like why even bring the babies into this argument at this stage? at best its very premature to get into that before we`ve even established whether its ok for a healthy person to use it... which i had not said one way or the other at that point...

I brought up babies becuase of this: Both alcohol and cocaine can be used in ways that only affect the user, not innocent 3rd parties (other drivers, unborn children). And they can both be used in ways that can cause bodily injury and even death to a 3rd party. IMO, both substances should be 100% legal as long as the user is not endangering a 3rd party. I just wanted to see if you agreed with that stance is all.

Syn, sometimes I don't communicate as well online as when speaking face to face. Just because I say or ask something that seems odd/foolish/etc, please just ask me for clarification as I did to you instead of immediately using words like "retarded".

[Dragonzbane76]

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll214/theknyte/demotivational-posters-zip-zop-bill.jpg

[Syn7]

well, i feel they need to choose one way or another... zero tolerance or personal responsibility... whichever direction they take, they need to go all the way... its either right or its wrong...

personally, im for personal responsibility and education... but if we did decriminalize all these drugs i think we'd find new problems, maybe short term, but still new problems...

but i doubt anyone will smoke crack just coz its legal...

even tho im for decriminalization, i'd still rather outright prohibition to what we have now... this halfway its ok sometimes but not always type of bull****...

it would take a long time to get into the specifics tho, i have alot of opinions surrounding the issue and its effects... criminal aspects, social aspects etc....


ok, do i think its a crime to smoke crack or drink when a person is pregnant... no, i dont... but not becoz i dont feel its wrong... its just, where do you draw the line as to whats ok and what isnt??? and it goes full circle and ties right back into the whole personal responsibility arguments...

to me its a social issue... and although i feel its wrong, and even criminaly wrong, i dont feel that making it a crime will solve the problem...
this is a tough one to type out... alot of side notes to make and i dont think i can ever fully explain my feelings on all this in a few words on a kungfu site... but thats the gyst of it...

if you dont make any assumptions and have any questions about the above, i'll do my best to clear up any questions you may have about what ive written...

[Syn7]

oh and for the record... i get in convos like this all the time with friends and family... it gets heated argumentative and even resorts to name calling and put downs sometimes but in the end we all still like eachother and get along just fine...


i come from a volitile family... we can call eachother morns then have dinner and enjoy a nice evening...

[BJJ-Blue]

Thanks for the answers Syn.

My stance on drugs is simple. The Founders gave us the right to life, liberty, and the pusuit of happiness. So as long as an activity does not affect a 3rd party's rights (like DWI and usage while pregnant) it should be 100% legal. I also feel prostitution should be legal as well. When you have someone willing to rent out their God given possessions and someone else willing to rent said possessions, there really is no reason for the Gov't to ban that. And no, I've never visited a hooker, nor do I ever plan to.

I'm very fiscally conservative, yet quite socially liberal. I'm basically a very strict Constitutionalist.

[Syn7]

My stance on drugs is simple. The Founders gave us the right to life, liberty, and the pusuit of happiness. So as long as an activity does not affect a 3rd party's rights (like DWI and usage while pregnant) it should be 100% legal. I also feel prostitution should be legal as well. When you have someone willing to rent out their God given possessions and someone else willing to rent said possessions, there really is no reason for the Gov't to ban that. And no, I've never visited a hooker, nor do I ever plan to.

im inclined to agree...


the war on drugs is a business, period... with diff parts of the gov on both sides of the war... lets not forget how and why cocaine got big in the more colorful inner city ghettos of the US... just one more example of the small pox on indian blankets type of warfare and genocide...


i am not a liberal or a conservative... i am neither left nor right... in some ways in very conservative, in others im very liberal... but for the most part i live in the grey area between the two extremes... some in the middle and some on either side depending on the issue at hand... i am not more one than the other when all my beliefs are on the table... alot of folks will brand me liberal left because of my opinions on some of the mojor current issues and how they happen to sometimes coincide with left leaning philosophies...


and on some issues im split...
i believe in a womans right to choose, but i think a woman who gets alot of abortions because shes an irresponsible **** needs to be dealt with somehow... sterilization comes to mind... i personally know women who have had 8, 9 abortions... thats disgustingly rediculous and way out of line...

[BJJ-Blue]

Syn, what's your views on smoking regulations? As in, do you think a city/state/etc should be able to outlaw smoking in private businesses regardless of the property/business owner's wishes?

I'm against them all and think they are unconstitutional.

[Syn7]

im ok with smoking bans in eateries, malls, any public buildings... but i feel banning it at parks or within 100 feet of a bus stop(yes they have that here) is rediculous...

ok so a barmaid who deosnt smoke has a right to work in a smoke free environment... fair enough... but now the liberal hippy tree hugger douche movement acts like even smelling a whiff of smoke is dangerous??? like its worse than standing at a bus stop with traffic going by... theres just as much cancer causing potential there... to be outraged because you must see smoking on the street or heaven forbid get a whiff outside is absolutely rediculous... thats not a safety issue, its pure and simple intolerance... and half these dillholes that chastize smoking are fat and live off deep fried cholesterol... like the rob reiner disses on southpark... so true so true...


anyways, from an american constitutional point of view, i agree... until it infringes on anothers right to a healthy breath of fresh air, it shouldnt be an issue... and simply smelling it for a second isnt a reasonable infringement on ones health... and simply taking a few steps in one direction or another is enough to get away from it... and if smokers are considerate and smoke downwind of the busstop then it shouldnt be an issue at all... again, some will complain just because they have to look at it... but i couldnt care any less about people like that...


where i live its a complete ban in all public buildings and all private business open to the public and ones that have employees(ofcourse if they all smoke im sure they cheat coz nobodies complaining)... its banned at bus stops and withing so and so meters of any doorway to any building where its not allowed... also this year they have a full park and beach ban in effect, and its permanent... that one i have huge issues with... i understand people dont wanna walk in sand full of butts, but thats easilly remedied with proper recepticles every here and there... in hjapan people carry around little pocket ashtray pouches so they dont have to litter... thats good enough for me...

[Drake]

Don't be flippant. Cigarette smoke is dangerous to everyone around it, especially infants and elderly. Here's a deal... people figure out how to smoke while only spewing carcinogenic ash into their own lungs, then I'd be all for letting them do it wherever they want.

It DOES harm others.

[Syn7]

i never said it didnt... i said there is a major difference between smelling it outside briefly and sitting in a room with a smoker... should we ban cars? their exaust can cause cancer and lung disease too... if people inhaled car fumes
as much as a smoker inhaled ciggs what would happen??? nothing good, thats forsure... yet catching a whiff of car fumes and getting angry over its health effects is a bit too anal retentive and is simply a lack of tolerance, imo... but i never said smoking wasnt harmful...

[Drake]

i never said it didnt... i said there is a major difference between smelling it outside briefly and sitting in a room with a smoker... should we ban cars? their exaust can cause cancer and lung disease too... if people inhaled car fumes
as much as a smoker inhaled ciggs what would happen??? nothing good, thats forsure... yet catching a whiff of car fumes and getting angry over its health effects is a bit too anal retentive and is simply a lack of tolerance, imo... but i never said smoking wasnt harmful...

Do you even know the difference in health effects between car fumes and cigarettes?

I'll give you a hint... one is permanent.

Besides, what if, say, five folks want to smoke outside? It's not a whiff anymore, is it? How do you decide the number? And how do you decide who? And how would you justify the act of basically emitting something akin to asbestos basd on your right to poison the air everyone else breathes?

And don't get me started on the combustion engine.

I'm out of this discussion. I'll take it up with folks who actually understand the difference between carcinogens and car exhaust.

[Syn7]

wow... touchy subject for you huh??? its all good on my end... no hard feelings here... lol

ok i do understand the difference... it was a random comparison... but i wasnt comparing the causes of each as much as i was making a point about the hypocracy in hating some but not all harmful recreational substances or any other product that could cause harm to others...

look, lets put it this way... if im on the beach, smoking a joint and somebody comes over to me to complain, all theyre gonna get is the middle... i always make a point to not smoke a joint in peoples faces... unless they wanna hit, if they arent some dirty scrub:D i dont care if its against the rules because i know i make a point to keep it out of other peoples lungs... although they may smell it for a second MAYBE from afar... im not gonna lose sleep over that because i believe it to be respectable proper behavior and anyone who would go out of their way to complain for something they just dislike is going to get no cooperation from me...

as for ciggs, it wouldnt affect me one way or another if they were banned... honestly, i think they should either ban them altogether, or relax on the nazi intolerance campaign... i feel the same way about pot, cocaine, heroin, alcahol... ban em all or decriminalize em all... they are all addictive, harmful, recreational mind altering substances... and lets not get started on pharmagreed... the whole maintenance over cures in the interest of creating lifetime clients and consumers... dont cure aids, make drugs that let you live with aids... get paid get paid get paid...

anyways, smoking ciggs, do you feel like it should be illegal to walk down the street with a smoke lest someone walk by and catch a whiff???

how do you feel about trans fats??? should my tax dollars go to pay for ambulance trips for some fat fukc that ate doritos for lunch and McD!cks for dinner every day??? or smoking, for that matter??? there are alot of other issues intertwined with this issue... there are alot more considerations than we've been talking about here...

i just think we need to go one way or the other... half measures are dumb... and make all bad things wrong, not just some... no exemptions for those big money types who contribute to every politician on earth in order to keep their products legal... tobacco and alcahol particularily... but there are a ton of things i would put on that list...
or decriminalize everything and educate the hell out of the populace...

[Drake]

We never would have to criminalize anything if certain political fatcats didn't destroy our agricultural foundation and propped up big tobacco.

Don't you think there's something at work greater than "morals" or "justice" when tobacco, which is destructive to those using it AND those who are even around it, is allowed to be sold everywhere, while cannabis, which hasn't nearly the amount of dangerous side effects as tobacco, is villainized?

I'm touchy about it because our society has become so backwards that we think it's our right to go out and blow an asbestos-like substance into other peoples' faces because we are somehow entitled to addiction placed upon us by our own government. And it's all over money. You don't smoke because you WANT to. You smoke because you are ADDICTED. And you are lining the pockets of politicians and big tobacco at the same time. There's freedom for ya.

[Syn7]

We never would have to criminalize anything if certain political fatcats didn't destroy our agricultural foundation and propped up big tobacco.

Don't you think there's something at work greater than "morals" or "justice" when tobacco, which is destructive to those using it AND those who are even around it, is allowed to be sold everywhere, while cannabis, which hasn't nearly the amount of dangerous side effects as tobacco, is villainized?


oh without a doubt...

its not so bad here in BC... i smoke weed in public rather openly... nobody really cares because im respectful about it...

[BJJ-Blue]

If we let the property owners decide whether or not smoking is allowed in their establishments, the problems would work themselves out. Customers who dislike smoke for whatever reason can choose not to go there and go to another establishment whose owner bans smoking. Prospective employees could choose to work in a smoke free establishment if they do not want to be exposed to it. It's all about personal choice. We were given that right (and many brave men and women died for it) and now so many people are willing to just let big Gov't, nanny state types take those choices away from them.

Really, who would have thought even 20 years ago the Gov't would ban smoking in public, Gov't would be starting to legislate food choices, and Gov't is legislating what cars our car companies can make and we can buy. It's really scary to think what they might go after next.

[BJJ-Blue]

oh without a doubt...

its not so bad here in BC... i smoke weed in public rather openly... nobody really cares because im respectful about it...

You should come to Marley Fest down here one year. :)

Austin actually has a 'tag and release' policy in regard to weed. If you have an ounce or less, they ticket you and let you go. The ticket is however for a court date, where you will face a trial, judge etc. I myself rarely smoke in public, but I do smoke while driving alot, especially at night with the windows down.

[Syn7]

You should come to Marley Fest down here one year. :)

Austin actually has a 'tag and release' policy in regard to weed. If you have an ounce or less, they ticket you and let you go. The ticket is however for a court date, where you will face a trial, judge etc. I myself rarely smoke in public, but I do smoke while driving alot, especially at night with the windows down.

they have the same thing here.... its called a PTA, promise to appear... just a money saver when identifying the perp isnt an issue and the charge is minor...


as for weed, they rarely charge anyone who is caught with a personal bag... within reason...

ive even had them let me keep my bag if i promise to pi$s off and not see my face again that day etc etc... they just dont really care anymore... we are so close to decriminalization... the conservative federal government is our only big hurdle... but its been to the table so many times now, it will pass soon enough... there already are exemptions...

[Drake]

If we let the property owners decide whether or not smoking is allowed in their establishments, the problems would work themselves out. Customers who dislike smoke for whatever reason can choose not to go there and go to another establishment whose owner bans smoking. Prospective employees could choose to work in a smoke free establishment if they do not want to be exposed to it. It's all about personal choice. We were given that right (and many brave men and women died for it) and now so many people are willing to just let big Gov't, nanny state types take those choices away from them.

Really, who would have thought even 20 years ago the Gov't would ban smoking in public, Gov't would be starting to legislate food choices, and Gov't is legislating what cars our car companies can make and we can buy. It's really scary to think what they might go after next.

Because you are screwing over everyone else, both with smoking and the obesity epidemic. If people behaved like responsible adults, this would be a nonissue. But as long as we have fatasses eating too much and bogging down medical care, and as long as we have people who seem to think it's their right to poison others, we'll see government intervention. Because *******es act like children and want to blame everyone but their own stupid selves. Same crap happened to Leopold and Catherine.

[sanjuro_ronin]

We have smoking bans in Ontario for many years now, businesses are fine.
Most saw increases, typically bars, from people that stopped going BECAUSE of smoke.
Take it outside if you smoke.

[BJJ-Blue]

we are so close to decriminalization... the conservative federal government is our only big hurdle... but its been to the table so many times now, it will pass soon enough... there already are exemptions...

If our country was ran the way the Founders intended, it would be legal here by now, at least in a few states. IMO, it should be up to each indicidual State to legalize or criminalize drugs, not the Federal Government.

[BJJ-Blue]

Because you are screwing over everyone else, both with smoking and the obesity epidemic. If people behaved like responsible adults, this would be a nonissue. But as long as we have fatasses eating too much and bogging down medical care, and as long as we have people who seem to think it's their right to poison others, we'll see government intervention. Because *******es act like children and want to blame everyone but their own stupid selves. Same crap happened to Leopold and Catherine.

But screwing over the rights of smokers, fat people, and private property owners is ok in your book?

And this may be news to you Drake, but our Constitution gives people the right to make stupid choices. We can argue about smoking, but if someone wants to eat Big Macs all day that's their business. Not mine, not yours, and not the Government's. I cannot believe that some people in America think it's ok to legislate food choices to others. That's against everything this country was founded on. If I can't make my own decisions on what food I eat, you can't tell me with a straight face I have the freedoms the Founders intended every American to have.

It really says something when one Party here says it's ok to murder an unborn child because it's the woman's body and thus her right, but that we are not free to eat what we choose. I guess we are allowed to have reproductive rights, but not digestive rights.

[MasterKiller]

It really says something when one Party here says it's ok to murder an unborn child because it's the woman's body and thus her right, but that we are not free to eat what we choose. I guess we are allowed to have reproductive rights, but not digestive rights.

You forgot to say you should be free to choose who you marry.

[Drake]

But screwing over the rights of smokers, fat people, and private property owners is ok in your book?

And this may be news to you Drake, but our Constitution gives people the right to make stupid choices. We can argue about smoking, but if someone wants to eat Big Macs all day that's their business. Not mine, not yours, and not the Government's. I cannot believe that some people in America think it's ok to legislate food choices to others. That's against everything this country was founded on. If I can't make my own decisions on what food I eat, you can't tell me with a straight face I have the freedoms the Founders intended every American to have.

It really says something when one Party here says it's ok to murder an unborn child because it's the woman's body and thus her right, but that we are not free to eat what we choose. I guess we are allowed to have reproductive rights, but not digestive rights.

If they are bringing others harm by their irresponsibility, then they aren't being screwed over, now are they? KEY POINT - THEY AREN'T JUST HURTING THEMSELVES. That's like syaing we are screwing over bank robbers by stopping them from robbing banks.

[BJJ-Blue]

You forgot to say you should be free to choose who you marry.

If the Government got out of marriage, it would be a non-issue. But since Gov't has decided married couples are taxed differently than non-married couples, it's a political issue when it should not be.

Me, I'm morally and religiously against ****sexuality. Honestly, I'm also disgusted by it. But it's a personal choice. If they want to live that way, it's their business. Not yours, not mine, and not the Governments. I am consistant here. I'm also against sodomy laws. What people do in their own bedrooms is their business.

[BJJ-Blue]

If they are bringing others harm by their irresponsibility, then they aren't being screwed over, now are they? KEY POINT - THEY AREN'T JUST HURTING THEMSELVES. That's like syaing we are screwing over bank robbers by stopping them from robbing banks.

How is someone getting fat hurting others?

We can debate about smoking and car emissions, yes. But please tell me how some pig who chooses to eat garbage all day is hurting others.

[Drake]

How is someone getting fat hurting others?

We can debate about smoking and car emissions, yes. But please tell me how some pig who chooses to eat garbage all day is hurting others.

Dude... you really can't figure this one out? REALLY?

[BJJ-Blue]

Dude... you really can't figure this one out? REALLY?

I have a feeling I know what you will say, but please, answer it for me as I can't read your mind.

[Drake]

I have a feeling I know what you will say, but please, answer it for me as I can't read your mind.

I already said it. Why am I going to retype it?

[SanHeChuan]

:cool:;):p:D

[SanHeChuan]

:cool::p;):D

[Syn7]

If the Government got out of marriage, it would be a non-issue. But since Gov't has decided married couples are taxed differently than non-married couples, it's a political issue when it should not be.

Me, I'm morally and religiously against ****sexuality. Honestly, I'm also disgusted by it. But it's a personal choice. If they want to live that way, it's their business. Not yours, not mine, and not the Governments. I am consistant here. I'm also against sodomy laws. What people do in their own bedrooms is their business.

oh good... coz i was seriously considering comming down there and sodomizing you!!!!:eek:

:D

[BJJ-Blue]

I already said it. Why am I going to retype it?

You said it hurts others, then compared it to robbing banks. So I'm still not sure how someone being a fat slob hurts others in your book. Can you just please explain it?

[BJJ-Blue]

oh good... coz i was seriously considering comming down there and sodomizing you!!!!:eek:

I'm going to have to take a pass on that.

[Syn7]

How is someone getting fat hurting others?

We can debate about smoking and car emissions, yes. But please tell me how some pig who chooses to eat garbage all day is hurting others.

because your health care system is a complete joke regardless of which model you choose, left or right... why??? because no health care system is sustainable when the population spends most of their time recreating in the most self damaging ways...

aside from mexico, the US is the fattest nation on earth... 28% of US is morbidly obese... you know what the rate is in say japan or norway??? both under 10%... is it a coincidence that their healthcare systems rum more smoothly???

highest:

mexico 30%
US 28%
new zealand 27%
OZ, UK 25%
canada is 24%

lowest:

japan 4%
korea 4%
italy, sweden 10%

[BJJ-Blue]

San, if you actually added up all the liberal backed entitlement programs and not just one of them, you'd see who has the bigger price tag by far.

And this may be news for you, but there are people who are against the wars and against socialized medicine as well.

[BJJ-Blue]

So Syn, if the Government only got involved in issues the Constitution says it should, fat people would be a non-issue, right? Since we would all be 100% responsible for our own actions, it would work itself out. As it is now, fat people are indeed making the rest of us suffer financially. Of course the liberal solution is more laws and thus less freedom. While the conservative solution is less laws and thus more freedom. And the conservative way would cost billions less as well.

I honestly cannot fathom why some people are for less freedoms as the solution to almost every single problem. It's very depressing to me.

[Syn7]

So Syn, if the Government only got involved in issues the Constitution says it should, fat people would be a non-issue, right? Since we would all be 100% responsible for our own actions, it would work itself out.

if you say so:rolleyes:


I honestly cannot fathom why some people are for less freedoms as the solution to almost every single problem. It's very depressing to me.

if people want absolute freedom they should leave communal areas... in being part of a community one must sometimes give up personal rights and freedoms for the benefit of the collective...

every man for himself is not only selfish but its not realistic because hitory has shown us time and time again that without government intervention the most wealthy and powerful will do anything they can to make sure they stay on top... and to do that they must ensure some people never make it to the top... for one glass to stay full, another glass must be reletively empty... theres only so much wealth to go around in a monetary based system... when we start to create wealth out of nothing we get financial collapse like we've seen this last few years... a reasource based system is, IMO, a much more realistic model... and it would also be a more "free" system...

[Syn7]

How is someone getting fat hurting others?

you know, another real problem is that disgustingly obese people marry or get fat with disgustingly obese people and they eat disgustingly obese food, never exercise... in alot of cases CANT exercise... well, thats bullsh!t actually, you can always do something... but they dont.... they usually have serious emotional issues and they raise kids to be just like them... they eat poor foods, they make excuses for not exercising(oh i cant becoz my back is bad... or my knees are bad... yeah whatever!!! :rolleyes: )... i know some cases have legit reasons to not jog or whatever... but all can do SOMETHING... ANYTHING... go to a pool and just wade thru the water... walk from one end of shallow end to the other 30 times... anything... but alot of times they are self concious and insecure... they feel uncomfterable in the grocery line, like everyone is looking at their food choices, and in alot of cases its true... its a real sickness that is spreading thru america and the alot of the western world in general...

allowing any company to sell anything as food and to even promote it as healthy in some cases is killing us... allowing anyone to go to the store and choose these foods is killing us...

whats the answer??? complete deregulation of harmful foods and a massive increase in education and rehabilitation programs(uuum... both socialist) to all???

or how about massive regulatory reform and a serious crackdown on bad foods... and a focus on buying "homegrown" foods and manufacturing food items in country...


or how about we have half messures and nowhere near enough staff to even enforce the existing weak laws... allow any company to skew any information to the public for profit aslong as they are technically correct and add fine print... oh right, thats not working out...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NEW DORITOS ONEHUNDRED CALORIES*

*per chip

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
and people are stupid enough, uneducated enough, weak minded enough to fall into the very intelligent and very sophisticated consumer trap... and with foods, its just straight up dangerous and costly... Mcdonalds, BK, wendys, doritos, cadburies, hamburger helper, mccain, chef boyardee yadda yadda... get wealthier beyond imagination while leaving a devastating trail of healthcare related costs payed by the very people theyve indoctrinated... and the real icing on the FUKC YOU cake is that they pay a smaller percentage of their income than you do...

i can go on for days...

[SanHeChuan]

:D:cool:;):p

[Drake]

Tee hee

....

[RenDaHai]

Personally I think we need both more government control AND more freedom of choice. When you think it through it should be relatively easy.

Healthcare should be free for everyone. As a moral society we have a duty to help all people, no matter the foolish choices they may have made. They are as much a member of our society as anyone else is. Who is there who can judge all the events in a mans life.... Say who is worthy and who is not.

Fat people spend a lot more on food. This extra tax can pay for their healthcare. Plus there are probably many public features they don't use because they are too fat, so in the end it all balances. Smokers pay a huge amount in Cigarette tax, that pays for their lung cancer healthcare. Alcoholics pay a lot extra.... without special alcohol tax a bottle of Jack would be a whole lot cheaper. If the healthcare system is failing because of fat people just raise the tax on Mcdonalds meals.

In England they banned Supersize after only a year or so. This way you still have the freedom to buy two meals.... but you feel ashamed to. So you have the freedom to, you just don't want to. They should apply a similar principle to drugs and legalize them. Just educate people more on the evils of drug use. So they have the freedom to, they just don't want to. THe ban on smoking in public worked great, you are still free to smoke, but less people want to. Its a good principle.

I believe it is possible to have more freedoms and more government control at the same time.

A society should spend all its money improving the quality of life of the people in it. All of them. Thats the point.

[BJJ-Blue]

if you say so:rolleyes:

Can you be more specific as to why you disagree with my statement you quoted?



if people want absolute freedom they should leave communal areas... in being part of a community one must sometimes give up personal rights and freedoms for the benefit of the collective...

Nowhere in our Constitution does it say that.


every man for himself is not only selfish but its not realistic because hitory has shown us time and time again that without government intervention the most wealthy and powerful will do anything they can to make sure they stay on top... and to do that they must ensure some people never make it to the top... for one glass to stay full, another glass must be reletively empty... theres only so much wealth to go around in a monetary based system... when we start to create wealth out of nothing we get financial collapse like we've seen this last few years... a reasource based system is, IMO, a much more realistic model... and it would also be a more "free" system...

Syn, you are so wrong here.

Our nation did not get to be the richest country on Earth in under 200 years by massive gov't intervention. We did it by the sweat of our backs and the great ideas from our minds. No beaurocrat made us great. No gov't program made us great.

As for their being "only so much wealth", you've fallen for the socialist "zero sum game" rhetoric. Wealth is CREATED when capitallism is allowed to flourish. And again, our current recession was not caused by 'creating wealth out of nothing', it was created because we tried to legislate home ownership for everyone, even people who could not afford to own homes.

[Drake]

The massive disparity between the rich and poor was largely created by capitalism. I don't think socialism is the answer, but we really need to tighten up our shot group when it comes to regulating markets.

Problem isn't the rich in itself. The problem lies in the rich exploiting the poor.

[BJJ-Blue]

Personally I think we need both more government control AND more freedom of choice. When you think it through it should be relatively easy.

It's like saying you can eat Big Macs all day every day and be thin and in great shape. It's not possible. It may sound good in theory, but it can never be successful in practice.


Healthcare should be free for everyone. As a moral society we have a duty to help all people, no matter the foolish choices they may have made. They are as much a member of our society as anyone else is. Who is there who can judge all the events in a mans life.... Say who is worthy and who is not.

LMFAO! Free??? You do know what "free" means, right? So that would mean that the doctors work for free, the nurses work for free, the machines in the hospital are free, the electricity to power those machines are free, the buidings are free, and on and on. Are you crazy?

As to judging who is worthy, in my way no one judges anyone. You live your life and I live mine. And if one of us exercises regularly and eats right and the other eats garbage and sits around all day, it will work itself out with no one judging who is more valuable. It's so simple, but some of you guys apparently cannot fathom personal choice.


Fat people spend a lot more on food. This extra tax can pay for their healthcare.

Why would they have to pay for something that you said should be free?


In England they banned Supersize after only a year or so. This way you still have the freedom to buy two meals.... but you feel ashamed to.

Are you really saying that by Gov't taking away choice, the people there have freedom? I'm completely lost on that one. :confused:


So you have the freedom to, you just don't want to. They should apply a similar principle to drugs and legalize them. Just educate people more on the evils of drug use. So they have the freedom to, they just don't want to. THe ban on smoking in public worked great, you are still free to smoke, but less people want to. Its a good principle.

Now you are really taking both sides of the fence. So drugs should be legal and we just have educate people on the dangers of drug use? Isn't this exactly how we are handling the obesety/food issue that you say we are handling all wrong and need more laws to fix? Once again your stance is very confusing.

[BJJ-Blue]

The massive disparity between the rich and poor was largely created by capitalism. I don't think socialism is the answer, but we really need to tighten up our shot group when it comes to regulating markets.

Problem isn't the rich in itself. The problem lies in the rich exploiting the poor.

You want to see a bigger disparity between rich and poor than we have here? Go to Cuba. Or North Korea. Or China. Go anywhere where the socialistic policies Obama believes in have had decades to work their magic. You see no middle class in those countries. It's the dirt poor people on food rations and the rich political class with Swiss bank accounts, and not much in between.

[MasterKiller]

Our nation did not get to be the richest country on Earth in under 200 years by massive gov't intervention. We did it by the sweat of our backs and the great ideas from our minds. No beaurocrat made us great. No gov't program made us great. .

Except, of course, that the military is a form of government intervention.

[BJJ-Blue]

Except, of course, that the military is a form of government intervention.

No it is not. The military is called for in the US Consititution. And it is barred specifically from doing many things that are left to police/LE. It's covered under the Posse Comitatus Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

[MasterKiller]

No it is not. The military is called for in the US Consititution. And it is barred specifically from doing many things that are left to police/LE. It's covered under the Posse Comitatus Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

How is the government, formed by the Constitution, using the military to wage war, called for in the Constitution, not government intervention?


The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States...

:rolleyes:

[BJJ-Blue]

How is the government, formed by the Constitution, using the military to wage war, called for in the Constitution, not government intervention?

I'm talking about intervention in domestic issues, more specifically the economy.

Of course I agree when we use the military, it is intervening where it is sent. But the military, it's role in our Gov't/society, who leads it, and who funds it are specified in our Constitution and our laws.

[Syn7]

Can you be more specific as to why you disagree with my statement you quoted?

maybe later...




Nowhere in our Constitution does it say that.

never said it did... its just a fact of life... communal areas are just that, communal... as in the root of the word communism... its a socialist ideal when people band together for the greater good... constitution or not, thats just how it is... if you wanna live around other people, your freedoms cant ride over the freedoms of others or the COMMUNITY as a whole...


Syn, you are so wrong here.

Our nation did not get to be the richest country on Earth in under 200 years by massive gov't intervention. We did it by the sweat of our backs and the great ideas from our minds. No beaurocrat made us great. No gov't program made us great.

As for their being "only so much wealth", you've fallen for the socialist "zero sum game" rhetoric. Wealth is CREATED when capitallism is allowed to flourish. And again, our current recession was not caused by 'creating wealth out of nothing', it was created because we tried to legislate home ownership for everyone, even people who could not afford to own homes.

i disagree, i think the credit problems have everything to do with the fact that they lent more money than they have... they only have to have 10% of what they loan in reserve... so that means that with a 100 dollar loan, they are potentially creating 90 dollars out of thin air... and then all these loans default at once and the loaner cant cover them...

and your nation got to be the richest country in the world because they exploited immigrants and used slave labour to essentially build the country... not to mention that the majority of the original infastructure was sponsored and/or created by other nations like france britain spain portugal etc... all the US did was take it over and inject free labour into the market in absolutely astonishingly horrible numbers...


its one thing to create wealth with hard work, its a whole other thing when you maintain wealth created by the blood sweat and tears of an enslaved people... the roots are immoral and rotten, how does one expect the tree to be any different...

your founding fathers had an admirable goal... i love the US as much as i hate it... but these men were not the most shining examples of moral upright behaviour... most were hypocrites and wealthy men looking to build their fortunes... for every one or two guys who were righteous and genuine, there was another 2000 men who had less than admirable qualities...