# Political discussion



## Sinister South Paw (Feb 8, 2008)

Okay everyone has seen the craziness of the upcoming election. It's pretty hard to miss. Now I want to start an open discussion about it. I just want to open a place for discussion about who your voting for, why, and what you like or dislike about a candidate. 

I'll start with Clinton. I'm scared out of my mind that she's going to get into office. It would be horrible, consorship would take a front seat, and she would be an entertainment industry nazi, as well as a horrible influence on the war in Iraq I really don't think she has what it takes. 
   However I really don't think that any of the others are much better, it seems this election is going to be simply chosing the lesser of many evils. What are your thoughts?


----------



## capthavoc123 (Feb 8, 2008)

I don't see how Obama counts as an evil. He's actually pushing for bipartisanship.

I think he's gonna push past Clinton. I'm shocked and delighted to feel that we might actually have a good president for the first time in twelve years.


----------



## Rilvor (Feb 8, 2008)

I sincerely hope for anyone but Clinton (I wanted to type Cliton :lol: ), purely because I think it is Bill running for president again, using his wife as a pawn. I personally dislike both Clinton and Obama, but it appears to be either one, and I'll take Obama over Clinton.


Also, Clinton wants to ban our VIDYA GAMEZ, so she needs to be stopped.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 8, 2008)

Rilvor said:
			
		

> I sincerely hope for anyone but Clinton (I wanted to type Cliton :lol: ), purely because I think it is Bill running for president again, using his wife as a pawn. *I personally dislike* both Clinton and *Obama*, but it appears to be either one, and I'll take Obama over Clinton.



Is there a reason for this?  I don't think I've ever heard a substantive criticism of Obama, unless you just disagree on the issues.  He's running a clean campaign on a platform of bipartisanship and refuses to take lobbyist and PAC donations.  He's also the only candidate I've seen speak in favor of net neutrality.


----------



## Emil (Feb 8, 2008)

Rilvor said:
			
		

> I sincerely hope for anyone but Clinton (I wanted to type Cliton :lol: ), purely because I think it is Bill running for president again, using his wife as a pawn. I personally dislike both Clinton and Obama, but it appears to be either one, and I'll take Obama over Clinton.



I actually have a similar idea, but the other way around. I figure she was already president through Bill, just using him as a figure head type deal that she manipulated :lol:


----------



## amtrack88 (Feb 8, 2008)

I'll take McCain over Clinton. Least he's finally backing off on his Amnesty ideas in order to get more conservative support from Romney supporters. (I included)


----------



## Rilvor (Feb 8, 2008)

Lobar said:
			
		

> Rilvor said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As I've said before, any politician who will participate in Mud Slinging is not trust worthy. If they'll screw over one person to get ahead, they'll screw over anyone if it meets their desires.


----------



## Aden (Feb 8, 2008)

I actually haven't heard any mudslinging from Obama. Clinton's been doing the majority of it. It's interesting to point out how many times Clinton brings up the fact that she's a woman (most noticeable after she's said that the race is about the issues only), yet Obama rarely emphasizes his race.


----------



## Acorndeer (Feb 8, 2008)

Rilvor said:
			
		

> -CLIP MOFO!-
> 
> As I've said before, any politician who will participate in Mud Slinging is not trust worthy. If they'll screw over one person to get ahead, they'll screw over anyone if it meets their desires.



In America mud slinging is like baby kissing. Nobody gives a shit about it _until the other candidate does it_ And then they expect it from the other too, if polit-drama is not offered on both sides they are dumbfucks enough to think that the mud-slingery side just didn't find anything so the asshole who slung the shit must be perfect. So they vote the asshole.

And this makes sense if you think the American majority as uneducated, barely literate if even that morons who are easily manipulated by the sweetest lies with most money behind them. (As that is what they are )


----------



## Lobar (Feb 9, 2008)

Rilvor said:
			
		

> Lobar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And Obama is the one candidate that has not done so.  Clean politics is a huge part of his change platform that he's been running on since the beginning and is a big part of why he's achieved such popularity.

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=Xe0sbdyh6QE[/youtube]

Here he speaks out against negative attacks.  This commitment to clean campaigning has been consistant since his campaign's inception.


----------



## Rilvor (Feb 9, 2008)

If I do recall correctly, I do remember him also making disparaging remarks despite his attempt to keep things clean. Mayhap not on the level where Clinton is doing so (much to the level of a monkey throwing its own feces really), but none the less, I myself will be wary :|


----------



## theg90 (Feb 9, 2008)

Thiis thread reminds me of a quick discussion we had in one of my classes today.  We were talking about miracles, I go to a private school thank you very much, and about how they are things that could never happen.  I happily raised my hand and blurted, and I mean BLURTED, "Like Hillary Clinton winning the election?"  My classmates laughed, the stupid kids laughed, the smart kids laughed, heck even the teacher laughed.  I was actually quite surprised that they would do that, being the lot of Obama/Hillary people they are.  That day, half the school eas missing for an Obama rally, I took it as an opertunity for teh lulz.  So you could say I had a good day today?  No?


----------



## Vore Writer (Feb 9, 2008)

When it comes to Obama and Clinton, I hope people vote for for them based on what they say and not what they are. Sadly, I don't really see that happening.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 9, 2008)

Rilvor said:
			
		

> If I do recall correctly, I do remember him also making disparaging remarks despite his attempt to keep things clean. Mayhap not on the level where Clinton is doing so (much to the level of a monkey throwing its own feces really), but none the less, I myself will be wary :|



You might be thinking of a couple unfortunate incidents of unendorsed remarks by some of his higher-level staffers, which did happen and he dealt with them, but he himself has kept clean and has always tried to keep those  under him from "going negative."  I've followed the presidential race fairly closely, and if I had seen any indication of mudslinging from him I wouldn't support him as strongly as I do.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 9, 2008)

And Obama with the hat trick tonight, taking LA, NE, and WA by huge margins.

YES WE CAN! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





e: also the Virgin Islands by *ten* to one over Clinton


----------



## Sinister South Paw (Feb 9, 2008)

This race is a real eye opener to me. I've really come to grasp how much rides on this election. It's monstrous. I whole heartedly think that if the nation goes republican again that its going to sink even lower then lame duck George Bush has pushed it. However if Clinton is elected....I just see censorship all over the place, possibly even a kind of spin off Orwellian society coming into place. It's not the video games, its total left field you missed what the youth of the nation were telling you with the Columbine era. Music, movies, games, tv, internet, every things will eventually be censored and strained of content thought to be violent or not perfect white picket fence society. 
   So to me this is a race within an race. We need a good balance of liberal and conservative democrate to take charge. He's not perfect but Obama seem like the best choice so far to me. I really pitty him though, inheriting a nation on the decay, people will of course blame him for the long reaching action of Bush, just like he's blaming Clinton for the state of the nation now. It's all a great big cluster fuck right now.


----------



## Mayfurr (Feb 10, 2008)

I'm actually rather heartened that at the moment NOTHING about this election so far is a foregone conclusion, and that everyone's vote WILL count for something as it's all so close.

I'm hoping Obama gets to be president, I'm heartened that he's talking about engagement with the rest of the world on issues rather than the typical "we know best and sod the rest of you" attitude of the last eight years. If Clinton gets in, you've effectively set up a two-family monarchy of sorts after two previous Bushes and one previous Clinton.

But if Obama doesn't get to be president, McCain _might_ be okay instead, if for nothing else that he is forthright about torture being unacceptable, and doesn't try and weasel out of it by saying "America doesn't torture because we've redefined torture to not be torture if Americans do it." 
On the other hand, I've read McCain may have a bit of the "Bomb the bastards!" attitude, and god knows the rest of us on the planet have already had to live through eight years of the _last_ president with that attitude...


----------



## Lobar (Feb 10, 2008)

McCain said:
			
		

> You know that old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran?  "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran..."


----------



## capthavoc123 (Feb 10, 2008)

Rilvor said:
			
		

> If I do recall correctly, I do remember him also making disparaging remarks despite his attempt to keep things clean.



You can't not make disparaging remarks in a political campaign, or else everyone would tie for president.

Making negative comments and mudslinging are not the same thing.

Example:

Negative Comment: "If you'll look at my opponent's record, I think you'll find that he/she is soft on crime."

Mudslinging: "My opponent is a liberal pinko commie who wants child rapists to be free and allowed to live in school zones."


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Feb 10, 2008)

Lobar said:
			
		

> And Obama with the hat trick tonight, taking LA, NE, and WA by huge margins.
> 
> YES WE CAN!
> 
> ...



I'm crossing my fingers for the upcoming 10th and 12th primaries. If he has a strong enough showing (lord knows he's getting the money) he should have a good shot at oiling up Texas. I can already say that Ohio should be his.


----------



## KazukiFerret (Feb 10, 2008)

I don't like Obama or Clinton. I like McCain because he's more in the middle on alot of issues which to me means he's more open to compromises and such. But I'm a Republican so my McCain support shouldn't be a surprize to anyone. But if I had to choose a Democrat for president I think I'd vote independant, to litterally throw my vote away.


----------



## imnohbody (Feb 10, 2008)

I suspect I'll regret this, but...

I don't really consider myself a Republican, but by and large I find their positions more palatable than those of the Democratic Party. (Mind you, this is talking more about theory than practice.)

Obviously, with the above said, I don't care for either of the Democratic Party front-runners. Mrs. Clinton seems, to me, to be in it more for power than anything else (yes, all candidates are looking for power [why bother with the process if they weren't?], but that's not usually _all_ they're after), and wanting to implement policies that would do far more harm to the country, I think, than even the wildest accusations of rabid Bush Jr haters.

As for Obama? He talks a good game, at least in regards to the _style_ of his rhetoric (the _content_ isn't really all that different from that of Mrs. Clinton, once you set aside quibbles about the fine details), but is there anything more to him? I mean, he's virtually a blank as far as policy is concerned. He talks a lot about "change", but change to/of what? The US going from a troubled but still relatively strong economy to a 3rd world [*excrement*]hole does, after all, technically qualify as "change".

Now, on to the Republican side.

McCain: I don't like him, personality- or policy-wise. To me, he's the epitomy of the acronym RINO (Republican In Name Only), often reaching across the aisle to the Democrats so that fellow Republicans get his armpit shoved in their face. About the only real positive thing about him I can think of, without digging deep into all of his positions, is that he's not for just up and pulling out of Iraq to leave the Iraqis dangling in the breeze, without cleaning up the aftermath first.

Huckabee: Ugh. Carter Lite with an overlay of fundie. Yuck. Quite possibly a stand in for Heinlein's Nehemiah Scudder, in a way that Bush Jr et al couldn't even hope of matching, in spite of numerous attempts from the left to try to imply it.

The rest? Varying degrees of "meh" or "maybe", but they're so far from any even remote chance of success (whether by not having any traction or having pulled out already) they're not worth going into detail about.

Ultimately, odds are high I'll be holding my nose and voting for McCain, should he get the nomination for the Republican Party candidate (pretty likely, but not absolute), and dependent on his chosen VP. The one I would have wanted to become the candidate, Fred Thompson, pulled out a few days after I voted for him in the SC GOP primary, so unless McCain chooses him to try to shore up conservative support (both choosing Fred and shoring up conservative support strikes me as being unlikely) he's no longer an issue.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 11, 2008)

imnohbody said:
			
		

> As for Obama? He talks a good game, at least in regards to the _style_ of his rhetoric (the _content_ isn't really all that different from that of Mrs. Clinton, once you set aside quibbles about the fine details), but is there anything more to him? I mean, he's virtually a blank as far as policy is concerned. He talks a lot about "change", but change to/of what? The US going from a troubled but still relatively strong economy to a 3rd world [*excrement*]hole does, after all, technically qualify as "change".



His message of "change" mainly refers to his commitment to ending the bed-sharing of politicians and lobbyists as well as the bitter divide between the parties and the apathy of those that have given up on the government.  Of course, there's always been fierce opposition on either side to the other's ideas, but never has the divide been so deep and mean-spirited as it has under the Bush administration.

The message of change has often stolen the spotlight from his policies, but he does have clear positions.  You can read or download the Blueprint for Change at http://www.barackobama.com/issues/.  Of course, being a Democrat, his policies aren't too distant from Hillary's, but there are some differences.  Obama has a stronger anti-war stance, having opposed the Iraq war since its inception and having a hard commitment to withdrawing from Iraq within a year.  His health care plan isn't punitive of those that don't buy coverage like Hillary's.  And most notably, he is pushing for transparency in government with an online, searchable, public-access database of who is taking lobbyist contributions from whom, and who is pushing earmarks and pork barrel spending, to make government accounting to the people it claims to stand for again.

e: also only candidate for net neutrality


----------



## M. LeRenard (Feb 11, 2008)

Well, since I'm a citizen of NE technically, I've already voted for Obama.  I was going to vote for Kucinich, but he dropped out.  I suppose the only reason I voted for Barack is that he's a fresh face in the political game, and he does seem to be trying hard to keep himself clean and honest, and I appreciate that.
With regards to the previous comment, this election scares me a lot less than the last one.  With the way things are looking now, it might end up being Barack vs. McCain, and, honestly, both candidates have really good points about them.  I don't like McCain's pro-war stance, but at least he has a good reason for wanting to stay.  Barack seems a little naive at times, but that doesn't have to be a bad thing, so long as he's clever, too.  If it was those two, I'd actually feel safe living in the U.S. again.  They both seem to want to be president for some noble reasons, which is a breath of fresh air from the past who knows how many years.
In any case, as long as Karl Rove doesn't have anything to do with this election, I think it'll turn out all right.


----------



## Yggd (Feb 15, 2008)

Obama all the way. I agree with most things he has to say, so why not? He's certainly a lot better than Ron Paul, that's for sure. Against gay adoption? For the teaching of creationism in school? No thanks, I'll stick with Obama.


----------



## Get-dancing (Feb 16, 2008)

A friend of mine was said I was the saddest person he knew because I talk about politics on MSN.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 16, 2008)

Get-dancing said:
			
		

> A friend of mine was said I was the saddest person he knew because I talk about politics on MSN.



He must have seen some of your posts.


----------



## Sinister South Paw (Feb 17, 2008)

Well if discussing issues of everyday life make you a loser, then why does this friend have MSN in the first place. But I digress, lets not degenerate into chaotic drama.


----------



## Greeb (Feb 25, 2008)

Sorry russian myself here, but if I was an american citizen I would probably vote for Ron Paul (if he is in count), sorry if I let my opinion disturbe you, just votes here and there and we all want that our future leaders would be with smart and bright head, that would think and lead the nation or the world to a peace loving community.

Why Ron Paul? Well 1-st I like the guy, second I see him as a smart politic, he promise so much good stuff, also doing it from heart...

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=FG2PUZoukfA he actualy know what he is doing and what americans need, like stop the war in Iraq the all that blood spilling thing, split the Texas with Mexico and stop the conflickt, those are great things, and  economy will grow with him, ok why do i talking about USA future president, because I am russian who lives in Latvia (Europe country and also in NATO), so we are based on USA and our hope that USA will get better and provide our safety and of course economics and smart leader is all what USA needs, do not make the same mistake like with Bush,  http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=P7N93xJgEqY .

I bring deep apologies, if I said something wrong but USA is also hope of Europe and we are also with you all along...


----------



## Paul Revere (Feb 25, 2008)

Hillary vs. Obama

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqOHquOkpaU[/youtube]


----------



## Greeb (Feb 25, 2008)

Hillary about the war with Iran.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=5BoXVLFVCG0
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2StQsXTy19c&feature=related

Obama about the war with Iran.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RyHJZxNm-Cg

And what Ron Paul have to say about it?
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=9RBBV-_Uudk

Who got the strong point in your opinion, who is more honest?


----------



## Lobar (Feb 25, 2008)

Greeb said:
			
		

> Hillary about the war with Iran.
> 
> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=5BoXVLFVCG0
> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2StQsXTy19c&feature=related
> ...



Obama's plenty strong and honest in his opinion as far as I can tell. v:smile:v

Also, Ron Paul's candidacy is now all but a mathematical impossibility.  Out of the remaining 937 delegates, Paul would need to get 900 more of them than McCain does, and even if he took all 937 he wouldn't have a true majority and would need to make a deal with Romney or Huckabee for their delegates.  In short:







It's time for any remaining Paulsies to jump ship and start supporting Obama, who can actually put the support to good use and was probably the candidate they should have supported in the first place.


----------



## Greeb (Feb 25, 2008)

Something from youtube comments.

"Obama wants to ban our guns.
Hillary wants America to be ran by two elite families.
McCain wants to start more wars.
Rudy wants us to live in fear and give up our guns.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who doesn't have a clustefuck-catch-22 if he gets elected. Ron Paul 2008."

Also remember threat to a Iran might live to their agrresion and also remember that Russia will be on Iran's side...[/align]


----------



## Lobar (Feb 25, 2008)

Greeb said:
			
		

> Something from youtube comments.
> 
> "Obama wants to ban our guns.
> Hillary wants America to be ran by two elite families.
> ...



Ron Paul is _finished_, YouTube comments are and will always be retarded, and the ass-backwards gold standard Paul loves would be one hell of a catch-22.


----------



## Greeb (Feb 25, 2008)

But be carefull this time with your choice, as we all don't wanna new continuation of Bush ministry and organization.
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1008770/


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Feb 25, 2008)

Greeb said:
			
		

> But be carefull this time with your choice, as we all don't wanna new continuation of Bush ministry and organization.
> http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1008770/



Thanks dad.


----------



## Digitalpotato (Feb 25, 2008)

I'm more likely to vote third party since I see people who don't resort to mudslinging and lying and backstabbing and sucking-up as unfit for making this country look good to a world full of people who hate us for what we do have and who we are. 

People who lie, mudsling, and backstab never win Reality TV shows unless they're against someone who's worse - why should they win a race that matters?


----------



## Lobar (Feb 25, 2008)

Digitalpotato said:
			
		

> I'm more likely to vote third party since I see people who don't resort to mudslinging and lying and backstabbing and sucking-up as unfit for making this country look good to a world full of people who hate us for what we do have and who we are.
> 
> People who lie, mudsling, and backstab never win Reality TV shows unless they're against someone who's worse - why should they win a race that matters?



I wholeheartedly regret endorsing the Libertarian Party four years ago.  Just something to keep in mind.

And take a closer look at Obama, he is _committed_ to reforming politics to something respectable again.  Hillary has essentially gone off her meds at this point and has adapted a scorched earth-like attack strategy, tag-teaming with the Republican candidate to sink her _own party_, and Obama is still rising above it, and _winning_.


----------



## Digitalpotato (Feb 25, 2008)

There're other third-party candidates besides the Libertarians, btw. Obama's likely to be the one who you'll see only once or twice a generation.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 25, 2008)

Digitalpotato said:
			
		

> There're other third-party candidates besides the Libertarians, btw. Obama's likely to be the one who you'll see only once or twice a generation.



I'm just saying make sure you're really behind a party's stances and record, and not just their general principles.  The LP's general principles are "social liberal, economic conservative," but their record is pretty much "fuck taxes."  I didn't look closely enough at how pervasive that extremism was in the LP.  There tend to be no moderates in third parties.

Obama is a rarity, but I'm hoping he lays the groundwork so it doesn't stay that way.  And if he can get shit done while under attack by the rhetorical equivalent of the nuclear option as President as well as he is in his campaign, I have high hopes.

Can you imagine having politics that reflect the best interests of the people it represents again?


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Feb 25, 2008)

I think both Hillary and Obama are going to be too expensive for us. I finally went to Obama's site and read some of his ideas. Some are good, but many would be too expensive and end in more social programs (which I'm against). I'll have to vote for McCain even though I disagree with him on a few things.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 26, 2008)

Rostam The Grey said:
			
		

> I think both Hillary and Obama are going to be too expensive for us. I finally went to Obama's site and read some of his ideas. Some are good, but many would be too expensive and end in more social programs (which I'm against). I'll have to vote for McCain even though I disagree with him on a few things.



The days of small government and tight spending as a conservative ideal are over.  The choice is now between social programs or corporate welfare and no-bid contracts.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Feb 26, 2008)

Lobar said:
			
		

> Can you imagine having politics that reflect the best interests of the people it represents again?



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

ps. (not directed at quote)

NO YOU'RE DIVIDING THE PARTY!
NO U
NO UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Feb 26, 2008)

Lobar said:
			
		

> Rostam The Grey said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I disagree here. I think the social programs are part of the problem.


----------



## Paul Revere (Feb 28, 2008)

Lobar said:
			
		

> The days of small government and tight spending as a conservative ideal are over.  The choice is now between social programs or corporate welfare and no-bid contracts.



*[size=x-large]BY GEORGE, I THINK HE'S GOT IT![/size]*

EDIT:



			
				Rostam The Grey said:
			
		

> I disagree here. I think the social programs are part of the problem.



Yes, but would you prefer Huge Gynormous Problem A or Huge Gynormous Problem B??


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Feb 28, 2008)

Paul Revere said:
			
		

> Yes, but would you prefer Huge Gynormous Problem A or Huge Gynormous Problem B??



The one were my government and economy isn't being destroyed by the cost social programs both monetarily and mentally.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Feb 28, 2008)

I love how Rostam The Grey thinks the Democrats will be too expensive for _"us"_ when the "us" he's talking about is likely the tax bracket he's in, who they've promised to take some of the burden off of _at the expense_ of the upper crust. Of course, they could turn out to abandon that promise just as the Republicans failed to fulfill any promise that wasn't part of their culture wars, but I can't help but think he's stuck in the "better the devil you know" mindset. Either that or he still buys the rhetoric the Right has been spouting off since forever equating social *programs* with social*ism*, which aside from the broader cultural war is the only thing they've got going for them at this point. And everything lately seems to indicate more people are, at least for now, okay with having a _little_ communism and a _little_ of Teh Gay in their drinking water if it makes even _a little_ difference in the lives of someone other than the wealthy and well-connected.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 28, 2008)

Rostam The Grey said:
			
		

> Lobar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So wait, we've got the Dems wanting to institute a universal health care plan beyond wait until life threanening-go to ER-declare bankruptcy, but you think that money would be better spent as a handout to Halliburton?

Because if you think it just shouldn't be spent in the first place you're pretty S.O.L.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Feb 28, 2008)

Wolf-Bone said:
			
		

> I love how Rostam The Grey thinks the Democrats will be too expensive for _"us"_ when the "us" he's talking about is likely the tax bracket he's in, who they've promised to take some of the burden off of _at the expense_ of the upper crust. Of course, they could turn out to abandon that promise just as the Republicans failed to fulfill any promise that wasn't part of their culture wars, but I can't help but think he's stuck in the "better the devil you know" mindset. Either that or he still buys the rhetoric the Right has been spouting off since forever equating social *programs* with social*ism*, which aside from the broader cultural war is the only thing they've got going for them at this point. And everything lately seems to indicate more people are, at least for now, okay with having a _little_ communism and a _little_ of Teh Gay in their drinking water if it makes even _a little_ difference in the lives of someone other than the wealthy and well-connected.



The "us" I'm referring to is the people that live in my country. We already have, what? 4 trillion in debt.... Why do you think the dollar is soo weak? Countries are starting to worry that we wont be able to pay back our debts. It's like a pyramid scheme. Eventually someone is going to loose, it's just a matter of whether it's our generation or the next... And I honestly don't care whether a person is right or left or anything else. I want to hear solutions. To be honest, Ron Paul had the best economic solutions that I heard, but he sucked on everything else. And if I were concerned with 'removing the burden' from my tax bracket, I'd be voting for Obama or Hillary, which I'm not. And no, I don't buy into the whole 'social programs are a conspiracy to socialism' BS.... I think our dependence on social programs is like a drug. We get something for free, and then we feel that something else should be free, or there's something more important that should have been free first. The simple fact of the matter is *Nothing should be free!*.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Feb 28, 2008)

Lobar said:
			
		

> So wait, we've got the Dems wanting to institute a universal health care plan beyond wait until life threanening-go to ER-declare bankruptcy, but you think that money would be better spent as a handout to Halliburton?
> 
> Because if you think it just shouldn't be spent in the first place you're pretty S.O.L.



Then purchase your own health care. Or just wait until something happens and pay. Or wait and don't pay... I didn't say give the money away. The simple fact is *The money isn't there!* It doesn't exist. The government can't afford to give Universal Healthcare. They'd have to raise taxes on the poor and the rich. And that just means more people without jobs. Which means more people the government has to support and fully cover on health insurance. Which means more taxes. Which means more people without jobs... Not to mention the problems you can easily see in the existing UHC systems around the world.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Feb 29, 2008)

Rostam The Grey said:
			
		

> I think our dependence on social programs is like a drug. We get something for free, and then we feel that something else should be free, or there's something more important that should have been free first. The simple fact of the matter is *Nothing should be free!*.



No, the simple fact of the matter is nothing is free _as it is_. It comes down to a choice between the cost being "social programs" for middle to lower classes or tax breaks for the wealthy. It's not a "drug" to recognize that some people other than those elites could use a break right now and try to do something to help them out, _especially_ when the dollar is weak. _They_ are the larger segments of the population, _they_ are the ones who need to be doing the spending to stimulate the economy, and _they_ won't be too inclined to do that if they're struggling to get by as it is. I don't understand how in some threads you can be all "PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY TRUMPS ALL!!! HOOAH! HOOAH! HOOAH!!!!" and then in this thread be all concerned about financial "drug addiction" as if people have no free will to elevate themselves above government dependency once it finally cuts them some slack.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Feb 29, 2008)

Wolf-Bone said:
			
		

> No, the simple fact of the matter is nothing is free _as it is_. It comes down to a choice between the cost being "social programs" for middle to lower classes or tax breaks for the wealthy.



But it's not a choice. We can't afford either one. We need to quit giving tax cuts and stop social programs and start paying off our debts.



			
				Wolf-Bone said:
			
		

> It's not a "drug" to recognize that some people other than those elites could use a break right now and try to do something to help them out, _especially_ when the dollar is weak. _They_ are the larger segments of the population, _they_ are the ones who need to be doing the spending to stimulate the economy, and _they_ won't be too inclined to do that if they're struggling to get by as it is. I don't understand how in some threads you can be all "PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY TRUMPS ALL!!! HOOAH! HOOAH! HOOAH!!!!" and then in this thread be all concerned about financial "drug addiction" as if people have no free will to elevate themselves above government dependency once it finally cuts them some slack.



Because some people dont. I've seen it. I know many people who have no motivation to do anything but live off of the government. Because the government will support them. And for every thing they get for free, they expect something else. I realize people have rough times, and have no problem helping them through it. But there should be limits. And I don't see the difference between personal responsibility and paying your own way?


----------



## Azure (Feb 29, 2008)

disregard, see complete post below.


----------



## Azure (Feb 29, 2008)

The way I see it, America is in big trouble no matter who we elect.  The Democrats are more hardcore socialist than they've been in a long time, and the Republicans have lost all auspices of their small government name, and have become just as fiscally irresponsible as the Democrats.  I'm sick of hearing about how UHC is going to be the savior of the nations uninsured(at the expense of people who can actually afford it), sick of hearing about how were going to win this war on Terrorism(at the expense of my personal privacy), and sick of hearing people clamor for amnesty for illegal immigrants, people who thumb their nose at the system and mock our laws(at the expense of every naturalized american).  If I were to have an IDEAL candidate, they would have the following policies.  For starters, protect our fucking borders.  Ive seen those wispy jokes of a fence all over the news, that wouldn't stop a dog, much less a determined illegal.  Heck, protecting the border might even help our National Security, and it might even cut down the drug traffic and lower crime rates because.  Stop pissing around and build the American version of the Berlin wall, except this one keeps assholes out and not in, and while your at it, build one for Canada too, just for the hell of it, cause you never know what those fuckers are up to either, they're just so quiet.
   To continue, I would love to see a candidate attempt to implement the Fair Tax, and abolish the IRS.  For more info, go to FairTax.org, but the gist is, you only get taxed on what you spend, and if you spend above your income level, you get a rebate at the end of every month.  I like the idea of that, putting more control over taxes into the hands of the people and not the government.  It would help to strengthen the economy as well, since people will have more money, they just might go out and spend more.
   Another desired trait would be to end this shitty war a little bit quicker, and I don't want to hear any of those blood for oil responses, or that we should never have went in the first place, what done is done, and now we have to find a solution on how to end it with minimal nuclear missile droppage.  I am by no means intolerant of the fact that our country is at war, because I doubt that there are any others even equipped for the task of nation rebuilding, but enough is enough.  George Bush had a marginally good idea in sending 20,000 troops in a surge, but 200,000 would have been better.  Our Armed forces are fucking huge, and its only one damn country, and I seem to remember an article from years back that spelled out the number of troops that would be needed to effectively end resistance in a country the size of Iraq, and it hovered at about 400,000.  We have what, 138,000ish last I heard.  Fuck that, send the whole kit and kaboodle and end this damn thing.  I get so tired of turning on CNN or FOX, and all I hear is how 1 more soldier died today, from a roadside bomb or a suicide bomber, or a damn helicopter crash.  Grow some balls America, and hit those bitches like you mean it.
  Gee, it sure is fun to dream, but when I wake up, the only choices I get are John McCain, a Democrat in republican clothing, or Obama/Clinton, who I view as the closest Marx and Lenin of our time.  Maybe it's time to start digging my bunker, cause if thing continue the way they are, the bombs might not be too far away.


----------



## shiftyfox (Mar 1, 2008)

As angry as that was I gotta agree.  Im just tired of seeing all these stories about illegals being deported on the news trying to gain my sympathy.  What about the story of working taxpaying AMERICAN who looses their job to an undocumented migrant worker?   And what about the story of the LEGAL immigrant who spent all their money to become a citizen but now has to compete with other immigrants who came in illegally?    
I also cant stand it when I see an illegal describing how evil America is and how they are only illegal because we "forced them to be." Don't get me wrong, I have worked with plenty of illegals, and most of them are good people with a understandable situations.  My blame goes towards the joke of a government south of the border that spends more time encouraging its citizens to enter the states illegally instead of fixing their own infrastructure.  Why is there such little protest against that?


----------



## Lobar (Mar 1, 2008)

AzurePhoenix said:
			
		

> To continue, I would love to see a candidate attempt to implement the Fair Tax, and abolish the IRS.  For more info, go to FairTax.org, but the gist is, you only get taxed on what you spend, and if you spend above your income level, you get a rebate at the end of every month.  I like the idea of that, putting more control over taxes into the hands of the people and not the government.  It would help to strengthen the economy as well, since people will have more money, they just might go out and spend more.



It's pretty easy to explain why FairTax sucks.

What is the difference between taxing income and taxing spending?  Income - spending = savings, so the difference is FairTax does not tax any money that is saved.

Now, who can afford to save the most?  The rich.  When they run out of things to buy, they stop being taxed.

So at a certain point among the earning spectrum, earning increases, but spending does not, or at least earning greatly outpaces spending.  FairTax is essentially a fixed tax after that point.  The percentage of income taxed with a fixed tax diminishes as income increases.  For the rich, FairTax is a *regressive* tax, disguised as some great new deal by being progressive for the poor.  The end result is some bizarre parabolic tax that shifts the tax burden from the rich to the middle class, the people that can afford all their wants and needs but ultimately save relatively little.  FairTax will therefore only worsen the economic disparity in America.


----------



## Azure (Mar 1, 2008)

To the above, read the website, and you'll see why the Fair Tax not regressive.  Since when have rich people run out of things to buy?  They're buying new stuff all the time.  On the contrary, it is aim of the Fair Tax to bring more taxes out of the rich, as the very rich pay accountants to arrange their assets so they are taxed at a minimal rate, on average about 15%.  The Fair Tax circumvents this, and taxes them on their expenditures, at 23%.  And at what point of the spectrum does earning increase but spending does not?  I would imagine that if a person were to move up to a better job, or get a raise at their current one, they would be prone to a bit of spending, and its pretty usual for the average American to spend just a bit above their means, more so when their income goes up.  The same would go for the rich man who just hit big on his stocks.  And in what universe was the tax burden ever on the rich and not on the middle class?  That said, the current tax system is stodgy and out dated, and prone to 10 billion little loopholes that are exploited by the rich and wealthy people and corporations of this country, who often contribute to the people who help get these obscure codes put in place.  Ever read the tax legislation bills that go through congress every year, often 1000s of pages long with minute little details that only people with full staffs of accountants and lawyers can interpret.  I would have an end of all that, no more bribes, no more handouts, no more squeaky wheels getting grease.  Just honest, straightforward taxes.
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV  And why would that be???


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Mar 1, 2008)

Fair Tax is probably one of the worst ideas I've ever heard of.


----------



## Oni (Mar 1, 2008)

I read something interesting in today's newspaper. 

Supposedly, Barack Obama wishes to offcially and personally speak with foreign ememies of the United States. Obama claims that we must show that we are strong enough to confront our enemies with official political discussions. Said discussions would include Cuba and Iran. 

Hillary Clinton also believes that United States should open negotiations if Cuba's new regime is willing to make change. 

However, 

George Bush and Bill Clinton have criticized Obama's ideals by claiming that if the U.S. opens specific sorts of offcial international negotiations with said countries  we would be showing weakness. Republicans state that renegade nations must meet certain "benchmarks" or standards before official U.S. responses are given. 

The strong cold shoulder until reform is made? 

Or 

A more open approach which may show weakness and grant renegade countries reconition which isn't deserved? 

-----


Raul Castro, the brother of Fidel Castro who was former president and commander-in-chief of cuba, is now the commander in chief and president of Cuba. Raul Castro is the person who met with the Soviets during the Cuban missile crisis. Raul Castro and the Soviets were planning to transport missiles to Cuba. Those missiles would and could have been used againt the United States, and that would have most likely started a nuclear war.


----------



## Azure (Mar 1, 2008)

I don't doubt that Cuba will be seen to by it's own revolution in the next 10 years, as Castro's brother isn't half the despot.  They will never again threaten us the way they did in the missile crisis now that the Soviet Bloc has fallen, and when things change there, I don't doubt they will become a good neighbor.  But as for negotiation with countries that are aggressive towards, especially countries that harbor terrorists, I think its a joke.  Look at how pathetic the EU sounds when it tries to wheedle Iran into stopping its uranium enrichment programs.  Did they stop, NO, not even when we managed to impose sanctions on them through the UN.  Like my father says, talk is cheap, and the last thing America can afford now is showing weakness.


----------



## Oni (Mar 1, 2008)

AzurePhoenix said:
			
		

> I don't doubt that Cuba will be seen to by it's own revolution in the next 10 years, as Castro's brother isn't half the despot.  They will never again threaten us the way they did in the missile crisis now that the Soviet Bloc has fallen, and when things change there, I don't doubt they will become a good neighbor.  But as for negotiation with countries that are aggressive towards, especially countries that harbor terrorists, I think its a joke.  Look at how pathetic the EU sounds when it tries to wheedle Iran into stopping its uranium enrichment programs.  Did they stop, NO, not even when we managed to impose sanctions on them through the UN.


Interesting.



			
				AzurePhoenix said:
			
		

> Like my father says, talk is cheap, and the last thing America can afford now is showing weakness.


I think that I agree with that.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Mar 1, 2008)

Form what I've read and heard about the fair tax it sounds like an excellent idea. Not only would it reduce government cost by removing an entire branch (IRS). It would generate more revenues, reduce costs for every company due to hours and personnel, and fairly tax everyone whether they want to pay or not (no cheating). One of the ideas I read had to do with finding the poverty line and sending everyone a check every year for the tax amount on that line. So basically, the poor wouldn't have to pay taxes while the rich wouldn't get any breaks.


----------



## Azure (Mar 1, 2008)

Completely true, not only does it remove the almost 300 billion dollars it costs to runt the IRS a year, but it also completely reduces the cheating factor.  And the checks for reimbursement come every month, not every year.


----------



## Lobar (Mar 1, 2008)

AzurePhoenix said:
			
		

> Completely true, not only does it remove the almost 300 billion dollars it costs to runt the IRS a year, but it also completely reduces the cheating factor.  And the checks for reimbursement come every month, not every year.



Hardly.  FairTax is just as easy to evade, if not easier.  To prevent taxation and re-taxation of business goods as they transition from raw materials towards retail goods in the manufacturing process, FairTax only taxes at the retail level.  Business expenses are not taxed.  Now, if you own a business, or at least have significant clout within your business to affect purchasing decisions, the evasion mechanism is obvious: using your business to buy untaxed goods for your own personal consumption.  Now, which class of people makes up the bulk of people that would be able to take advantage of this, I wonder?

And for determining reimbursement, you said your rebate was determined by spending above your income level.  Now, who is responsible for that determination?  It would seem like it would take some sort of federal agency, set up for the people to report their income to.  It would also need a way to make sure this reporting was done faithfully, maybe with a team of auditors to investigate people with suspicious income reports.  Now, once this federal agency, call it an "internal revenue service" if you will, is established, we'd have to expand it, make it _bigger_, with a system to monitor consumption as well.  I'm sure you don't have a problem with this though.

Oh, and returning to the fact that FairTax is regressive: Are you arguing that the rich do _not_ save a greater percentage of their income?  Because if they do, then that translates to a smaller percentage of income spent, thus a smaller tax burden under FairTax, making it regressive, no matter what some website says.


----------



## Azure (Mar 1, 2008)

I never said that the rich don't save a fair share of their income, but under either system, that income is never taxed no matter what, even under the current one.  And the agency for determining the income reimbursment would be far more straightforward and easy to set up, running far below the giant budget consumed by the IRS, and yeah, they might just call it the IRS, just with fewer and less bullshit involved, since its functions are reduced by a large percentage.  As far as your ideas for evasion at the business level, I have a bit of news, and that is that business expenses are completely deductible right now, and cost our system more than they would with the fair tax, and using a business to purchase personal goods, especially within a larger company, is both a crime and nearly impossible to pull off anyway.


----------



## Lobar (Mar 1, 2008)

AzurePhoenix said:
			
		

> I never said that the rich don't save a fair share of their income, but under either system, that income is never taxed no matter what, even under the current one.  And the agency for determining the income reimbursment would be far more straightforward and easy to set up, running far below the giant budget consumed by the IRS, and yeah, they might just call it the IRS, just with fewer and less bullshit involved, since its functions are reduced by a large percentage.  As far as your ideas for evasion at the business level, I have a bit of news, and that is that business expenses are completely deductible right now, and cost our system more than they would with the fair tax, and using a business to purchase personal goods, especially within a larger company, is both a crime and nearly impossible to pull off anyway.



I've never argued that our current tax code doesn't need reform, just that FairTax is no solution.


----------



## Oni (Mar 2, 2008)

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main

*studies*


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 3, 2008)

AzurePhoenix said:
			
		

> I don't doubt that Cuba will be seen to by it's own revolution in the next 10 years, as Castro's brother isn't half the despot.  They will never again threaten us the way they did in the missile crisis now that the Soviet Bloc has fallen, and when things change there, I don't doubt they will become a good neighbor.



Or maybe Cuba will evolve along its own path towards a free-market economy, like China and Russia. A revolution ain't necessarily the "right" answer, and such a revolution might result in a Haiti-like state next door to the US instead.



			
				AzurePhoenix said:
			
		

> But as for negotiation with countries that are aggressive towards, especially countries that harbor terrorists, I think its a joke.  Look at how pathetic the EU sounds when it tries to wheedle Iran into stopping its uranium enrichment programs.  Did they stop, NO, not even when we managed to impose sanctions on them through the UN.  Like my father says, talk is cheap, and the last thing America can afford now is showing weakness.



Like the US threatening to bomb the shit out of Iran and North Korea has worked wonders with either of 'em... besides, when the US outspends practically the rest of the damn PLANET in "defence" spending, how can the US EVER look "weak" in a military sense? 

It's BECAUSE the US has been so obsessed with projecting power through military means that it has become so ineffective at diplomacy and negotiations.


----------



## Azure (Mar 3, 2008)

Do you truly consider China in any way to have what resembles a free market economy??  And Russia is slipping back towards Communism as we speak, so I'd hardly reference those countries as any sort of paragon for success.  And would you like another Haiti on our back step, perpetuating both mass immigration and drug trafficking into our country, while accepting handouts left and right from the international community and reaping no consequence fro their behavior.  I for one would love to see Cuba turned into a responsible country, but with the dogma of those in power, and the one,s that back them, I see little other option for a people that has lived in oppression for as long as even the oldest of them can remember.

And when did we threated to bomb Iran and North Korea?  Technically, our war with North Korea never ended, we only signed a cease fire, but I don't really consider them to be much of a threat, as they are far to xenophobic to ally with anyone and become a threat, much less feed their own people.  And in the end, their Chinas problem, not ours, as they are well known to be Chinas little bitch.  As for Iran, I believe that they should have been our primary target in the beginning, not Iraq.  Saddam may have been a despot and a maniac, but he never possessed any of the crazy Jihadist policies that the mullahs of Iran did, and still do.  Saddam could be controlled and bought off, but religious extremists are a different bird, and the idea of them even possessing any form of fissile nuclear fuel brings nothing but dark thoughts.  Nuclear power research for one of the top oil producers in the world, give me a fucking break people, we all know what it's really for.

As for America being weak, I didn't mean that in a military sense, but in a political sense.  The face we present to the enemy is divided by people in Washington who act only to increase their own power and standing.  The acts of both Republicans and Democrats have not been coordinated, both have acted in their own interests and not in the interest of the whole, and just to gain a few votes here or there to retain their power.  We as a country have become too divided to as effective as we should be, and I think that if they put aside they petty squabbles for power, they might actually solve the problem instead of making it worse, which is all either of them has done.  Think of all the stunts that they have pulled in the last year, for example when the Democrats attached the money the military needed to a bill that contained provisions to end the war on a time table, or when the Republicans attach this privacy invading Patriot Act shit to bills that have controversial issues that would make the Democrats look bad.  We as a nation need to realize how dire the situation is, and we need change.  Remember, we give them their power, not the other way around, and it's high time we kicked a good majority of the fuckers out of office if they don't perform to the standards we believed they would when they sent them.  Believe me, to the rest of the world we look weak, and weakness only invites more of what we have experienced in these past few year.

As for our diplomacy skills, even diplomacy in general, I invite you to look at the efforts of the UN agains Iran, or Iraq, or North Korea, or China, or East Timor, or the Congolese, or Sudan, or any number of other failures that lay at their feet.  Talk has solved nothing, and it never will.  Do you think we could have talked Osama out of bombing the towers, or a PLO opertive from his suicide bombing.  Remember when one of our radar planes was downed in a collision with a chinese fighter.  We negotiated with them, and for our efforts, we received nothing except at their convenience, the crew first, and the plane years later.  Again, I will state that talk only works with a party that is willing to listen, and I don't count our enemies among them.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 3, 2008)

Lobar said:
			
		

> Rilvor said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He also refuses to pledge alligence to the Flag... automatic disqualification for the office of President, or any other political office, far as I'm concerned.  Someone should also dump a bucket of water on Hillary, so we can watch her melt....

As for the Republican side......... ?  I'm at a loss!  Either way, this election is gonna make history, and not in a good way.   :shock:


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


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Mar 3, 2008)

AzurePhoenix said:
			
		

> Do you truly consider China in any way to have what resembles a free market economy?



Yes.


----------



## Azure (Mar 3, 2008)

How?
(wow, you really have to try hard with 1 word responses)


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Mar 3, 2008)

Businesses are not owned and operated by the Chinese government.


----------



## Azure (Mar 3, 2008)

Not true.  All utilities and significant infrastructure are owned by the STATE.  People are still by and far assigned work by the STATE.  While there are some rumblings of a foray into capitalism, things by and large are still run by the STATE.  China is still a heavily communist country, and as long as they remain that way, there will never be free market like we experience here in the Western world.


----------



## Jelly (Mar 3, 2008)

Rostam The Grey said:
			
		

> One of the ideas I read had to do with finding the poverty line and sending everyone a check every year for the tax amount on that line.



By "finding the poverty line," do you mean updating the one we've been using for around 4-5 decades?

And then distributing checks according to that?


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Mar 3, 2008)

jellyhurwit said:
			
		

> By "finding the poverty line," do you mean updating the one we've been using for around 4-5 decades?
> 
> And then distributing checks according to that?



I'm not sure. I think it was more of a theoretical discussion that I heard this during. I would assume they would come up with an imaginary 'line in the sand' in which everyone under it is poor but the people who make 5 more dollars aren't. Probably would be the current one though.


----------



## Lobar (Mar 3, 2008)

Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> Lobar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is a lie.  The photo in question this rumor started from was taken during the _national anthem_, not the Pledge.  All that is asked when the anthem is played is to rise, which Obama did.

These sorts of lies and political tricks are exactly why I hope Hillary goes down in flames tomorrow.


----------



## Paul Revere (Mar 3, 2008)

How's this for PoLiTiCaL DiScUsSiOn?

Listen to Walter Cronkite say fun things like:
1) Americans need to give up sovereignty (YAY!)
2) We need to establish a permanent International Criminal Court (WOW!)
3) There should be a system of enforceable World Law (World Government, WAHOO!)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaS6bLQixkM[/youtube]

And note the giddy laughter of the audience when Wal-kite says "I stand at the right hand of Satan."



This gives me the chills, especially when The Hillary comes on to "thank" Wal-kite.

Chilling.  If they're so serious about World Government, and if it's sooo good for us, why are we being left out of the debate?


----------



## Azure (Mar 3, 2008)

Dear Walter Cronkite,  

Thanks so much for using your place in the media to embolden our enemies in the Vietnam Era, resulting in the slaughter of thousands of your country men, and wrecking Americas reputation through out the tenure of your career.  Thanks for betraying they very people that you claim to work for.  And thank you for inspiring thousands of future activism journalists, who carry out your work to this very day.  They give our enemies hope and strength through their continual efforts to sabotage the American spirit and resolve.  To reward you for your tireless work in a career filled with ignorance, I bequeath unto you a boot to the head, and maybe one to the balls, just cause I feel like it.  Also, Universal Peace=LOL in my book, its just not feasible due to human nature.  Right hand of Satan indeed.


----------



## Lobar (Mar 4, 2008)

Lobar said:
			
		

> Roose Hurro said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And just to put the final nail in the coffin of this lie, here's Obama leading the Senate in reciting the pledge, in June of 2007:
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=JD6bKaVW-ls[/youtube]

And a clip of an Obama rally where the pledge was led by a little girl (0:53):
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=ekiQ20doAtc[/youtube]


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Mar 4, 2008)

AzurePhoenix said:
			
		

> Not true.  All utilities and significant infrastructure are owned by the STATE.  People are still by and far assigned work by the STATE.  While there are some rumblings of a foray into capitalism, things by and large are still run by the STATE.  China is still a heavily communist country, and as long as they remain that way, there will never be free market like we experience here in the Western world.


It's true, but THE STATE only controls 30% of the GDP while 70% is located in the private sector. MEANING, that although China CONTROLS all utilities by and far what's driving the Chinese economy are private enterprises. And while by and large many things are run by THE STATE, China's ultimate ascension as a powerful economic power is driven greatly by international trade and the private sector. And while I admit China's economy is closest to a SOCIALIST one, I do think that 





> China in any way


 resembles a market economy. 

On the other hand, I think I'll agree with you entirely. Because you're basically saying that a communist economy can be a successful one.


----------



## Azure (Mar 4, 2008)

Live off of less than 2,500 dollars a year and say that.  Hell, and thats the middle class.  Communism is in no way successful, either to the individual or the state.  One of the only reasons China ever climbed out of the gutter it was in for decades was because we allowed them to float their currency on the dollar.  Their entire success is an illusion, and dependent on our good will and continued patronization.


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 4, 2008)

AzurePhoenix said:
			
		

> Do you truly consider China in any way to have what resembles a free market economy??



What part of "*towards* a free-market economy" did you miss? Given the amount of businesses and millionaires over there, I'd say they were well on the way - especially with all those US greenbacks fuelling them 



			
				AzurePhoenix said:
			
		

> And Russia is slipping back towards Communism as we speak, so I'd hardly reference those countries as any sort of paragon for success.



I'd LOVE to know how you get the idea that Russia is going back to communism - getting more authoritarian maybe, but hardly communistic. Or is this simply the typical knee-jerk reaction that any economic system different to the US free-market model is automatically "socialist" or (gasp) communist?



			
				AzurePhoenix said:
			
		

> And would you like another Haiti on our back step, perpetuating both mass immigration and drug trafficking into our country, while accepting handouts left and right from the international community and reaping no consequence fro their behavior.



Did I even SAY I *wanted* another Haiti on your back doorstep? My POINT was that the "revolution" in Cuba that you hope for *might* deliver unforeseen and unwanted consequences.

The double-standard in the US's dealings with Cuba continues to amaze me though. A forty-year old (and counting) diplomatic and trade embargo against Cuba is intended to try and change their communist government (because of human rights etc), yet the US is quite happy to talk to and trade with communist China and ignore *their* violation of human rights. Maybe it is because China has nukes and Cuba doesn't?

I leave it as an exercise to the reader as to which approach by the US has been more successful for the people of China and Cuba.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Mar 4, 2008)

AzurePhoenix said:
			
		

> Live off of less than 2,500 dollars a year and say that.  Hell, and thats the middle class.


When the cost of living is that much lower in a country, 2,500 is a lot of money. And while it's true that the U.S. has given a great lop-sided deal in favor of China, China has also purchased a great deal of America's national debt. Our "good will and patronization" is fueled by the constant fear that China will demand our tab and throw our economy into a tail spin. And while foreign investment is key in lifting China from economic destitution it was in, China has built an economy that continues to expand and, barring significant social conflicts, will be self-sustaining. Then again, the American economy is hardly self-sustaining at this point.


----------



## Azure (Mar 4, 2008)

And what about Chinas significant debt, whom has purchased that.  And foreign investment is the only thing that lifted China from economic ruin.  If I had it my way, I'd obey the policies we have in place that bar trading with communist countries, both Cuba, China, Vietnam, etc.  And the American economy, while limping a bit right now, can hardly be considered  sustaining.  It takes the next 9 countries in the top to just to equal our GNP, which is just about to crest 20 trillion dollars.  Either way you slice it, a good 70-80% of Chinas population still live in destitution.


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 10, 2008)

AzurePhoenix said:
			
		

> And what about Chinas significant debt, whom has purchased that.  And foreign investment is the only thing that lifted China from economic ruin.  If I had it my way, I'd obey the policies we have in place that bar trading with communist countries, both Cuba, China, Vietnam, etc.  And the American economy, while limping a bit right now, can hardly be considered  sustaining.  It takes the next 9 countries in the top to just to equal our GNP, which is just about to crest 20 trillion dollars.  Either way you slice it, a good 70-80% of Chinas population still live in destitution.



On the other hand, China's growth is outstripping that of the US - and they've practically squeezed what took the USA around eighty odd years to do into thirty. Not to mention that China has over ten times the population of the US! And the Chinese Communist party is basically 'communist' in name only these days, places like Shanghai especially have been transformed into quite a nexus of capitalism that wouldn't have been tolerated under Mao. China has a way still to go, but they're making progress, and I for one don't begrudge them their successes - unlike certain other people. Why certain Yanks feel the need to restart the Cold War in the 21st century by raising the old boogeyman of communism is beyond me.

As the saying goes, China's just had a couple of bad centuries... and now they're back!


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Mar 10, 2008)

China's is not going to demand us to pay because they need us more than we need them. We are the reason they are progressing so fast in more ways than one. Not only are they 'stealing' our technology and knowledge. A good portion of their economy is producing things for America. Yes, a lot of their people are poor, also for quite a few reasons. The primary reason being population which leads to high demand and higher unemployement. Most of the economy is centered around cities on the coast which leads to overcrowding and larger demand. The production demand is for low cost goods so workers are paid next to nothing. I think the main reason the government has become more lenient is fear. Eventually there'll be so many people that it wont matter how large the army is. And if most are poor and discontent, you will see an uprising.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 10, 2008)

Rostam, you realize _a lot_ of Chinese youth don't even know Tienanmen Square happened, or if they do they have a very warped view of it that basically absolves the government of any wrongdoing, right? There won't be an uprising as long as those people are unaware of the truth of their situation.


----------



## Pausert (Mar 10, 2008)

Not to mention that Mao is still considered a hero. >.>


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Mar 10, 2008)

Wolf-Bone said:
			
		

> Rostam, you realize _a lot_ of Chinese youth don't even know Tienanmen Square happened, or if they do they have a very warped view of it that basically absolves the government of any wrongdoing, right? There won't be an uprising as long as those people are unaware of the truth of their situation.



Ya, that's part of how you supress democracy. Through ignorance. But at the same time, people wont stay unhappy and discontent forever. Eventually they will revolt.


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 11, 2008)

Rostam The Grey said:
			
		

> China's is not going to demand us to pay because they need us more than we need them. We are the reason they are progressing so fast in more ways than one. Not only are they 'stealing' our technology and knowledge. A good portion of their economy is producing things for America.



News flash: it ain't just *America* they're making things for. It's hard to turn around in many places these days without seeing *something* with that "Made in China" tag on it...

Sheesh, it's _always_ about America, isn't it? China is 'stealing' 'your' technology and knowledge - as though they couldn't equally get what they want from other places or even (shock horror) work it out for themselves. China is only successful because of America's 'good will' - as though there wasn't Europe or the rest of Asia equally happy to invest in the place, or because the Chinese simply work their arses off!

The reason that China doesn't want to call in America's debt at the moment is because it would wreck one of their biggest markets - but I reckon that if push came to shove, China would have the US economy by the balls if the US tried anything militarily against them. And as for human rights violations - well, after Guantanamo Bay, Abhu Graib, "extraordinary renditions" and waterboarding bans being vetoed by Dubya, the US hardly has a squeaky-clean record these days either...

The sooner the US learns to co-exist with China, rather than contain or dominate it, the better it will be for the US and everyone else.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Mar 12, 2008)

Mayfurr said:
			
		

> News flash: it ain't just *America* they're making things for. It's hard to turn around in many places these days without seeing *something* with that "Made in China" tag on it...



I'm aware of that. However when over 30% of your exports are to a single country, you kind of don't want to piss them off....



			
				Mayfurr said:
			
		

> Sheesh, it's _always_ about America, isn't it? China is 'stealing' 'your' technology and knowledge - as though they couldn't equally get what they want from other places or even (shock horror) work it out for themselves. China is only successful because of America's 'good will' - as though there wasn't Europe or the rest of Asia equally happy to invest in the place, or because the Chinese simply work their arses off!



You are the one making this appear arrogant. You actually sound kind of arrogant yourself. I was merely stating a fact. China is hiring people to go to america and 'steal' ideas. They are hiring nerds to break into american websites. Esspecially government websites in an attempt to 'steal' secrets, etc... Call it what you want. You're only sounding more and more like a whining child...



			
				Mayfurr said:
			
		

> The reason that China doesn't want to call in America's debt at the moment is because it would wreck one of their biggest markets



Um.... That was kind of my point.... Way to run through the door with guns blazing only to shoot yourself...



			
				Mayfurr said:
			
		

> - but I reckon that if push came to shove, China would have the US economy by the balls if the US tried anything militarily against them.



I think I could live paying a little more for clothes and shoes... If we stopped all imports from China we could handle it. It would be different if it were something like oil. But it's clothes and other assorted products here. Nothing major we that people would be killing each other over...



			
				Mayfurr said:
			
		

> And as for human rights violations - well, after Guantanamo Bay, Abhu Graib, "extraordinary renditions" and waterboarding bans being vetoed by Dubya, the US hardly has a squeaky-clean record these days either...



If one person is tortured and it saves one person's life, I'm all for it. And you better believe I'd put a gun to someone's head if my family was in danger. I guess you'd just try to talk them into putting away their gun and walking away?



			
				Mayfurr said:
			
		

> The sooner the US learns to co-exist with China, rather than contain or dominate it, the better it will be for the US and everyone else.



I wasn't aware we were trying to dominate it? We actually co-exist quite nicely. Among recent things to note is the fact we now have a 'red' line with their military to reduce confusion in emergencies.


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 13, 2008)

Rostam The Grey said:
			
		

> Mayfurr said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But what if someone was tortured and they *didn't* know anything? What if it *didn't* save someone's life?

What if it was *you* or any of your family being tortured because someone thought (wrongly) that you had information that could save someone else's life? 

What if it was *you* who had the gun to *your* head if someone else's family was in danger and they thought (wrongly) that you had information to save that family?

I'm sure the KGB / Gestapo etc had the same thoughts as you regarding the use of torture to protect the citizens of their state, "ends justify the means" and all that. Oh, but I forgot... according to Dubya's administration - and it seems, a worrying number of American citizens - while torture is torture if it's done _to_ Americans, torture isn't torture if its done *by* Americans.

*Even the most gruesome torture cannot make someone reveal a secret they don't possess*, and people will say *anything* while being tortured if they believe it will make it stop. And for every suspect terrorist your torture, you create ten more out in the field. *It simply doesn't work.* Be careful who you hand that particular sort of weapon to, because one day they might use it on *you*.

And it's perfectly possible to get information from prisoners *without* threatening them - I've read accounts of British interrogations of German POWs that managed to extract vital information without the prisoners even being aware on occasions they were giving information away... and *that* is a hell of a lot more reliable than beating the crap out of them.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Mar 13, 2008)

Pausert said:
			
		

> Not to mention that Mao is still considered a hero. >.>



60-40 is the official Chinese stance on Mao. 60% good, 40% bad. Mao early on did some pretty incredible things. The biggest accomplishment is that he reunited China after some 50 years of horridly violent in fighting. In fact, even during the Japanese occupation, the Chinese were viciously fighting each other. After the reunification, however, Mao became an asshole and was a serious prick to everyone else. In fact, he was such an asshole that he spread his stuffy assholitis to others and they were assholes to fellow Chinese. When I think about it, my estimation of Mao is 30% good, 70% bad.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Mar 13, 2008)

Mayfurr said:
			
		

> But what if someone was tortured and they *didn't* know anything? What if it *didn't* save someone's life?
> 
> What if it was *you* or any of your family being tortured because someone thought (wrongly) that you had information that could save someone else's life?
> 
> ...



But the point kind of is if you don't mention what you know by a certain point, you must be innocent. I would understand if I got tortured to save other people's lives even though I didn't do it or know anything. I guess I should clarify some though. I'm for torture in which no one is physically harmed. Waterboarding to me is fine, or even making people think you are hurting other people is fine. Putting a gun to someone's head would be fine. Possibly even electrical shocks. I for humiliation torture. Anything they can do to get a person to give information without physically harming a person is acceptable to me. But don't cut off any fingers, etc... If you can get the information through other means, go ahead, try. But if it's time critical, you're going to need to do something quick, and I don't think you can convince them to start talking.


----------



## Azure (Mar 13, 2008)

Torture, for good or bad, will never officially go away.  Do you think that if we pass some silly law, that it will magically disappear?  Or that many other countries do the same things we do, and face no flak for it?  And that torture is actually useful, and it isn't always used to gain a specific answer?  Torture is used to gain information, sometimes it is used for a specific answer, but often little bits and pieces of info come out here and there, and between that an an info analyst, coupled with what we know, we get a more coherent picture.


----------



## KazukiFerret (Mar 13, 2008)

Most of what gets labled as torture by American soldiers in Iraq amounts to mere college pranks. The normal interigation tactic is to interveiw a detainee for as long as the interviewer can stay awake. How long can this last? -72 hours is what I've heard as the current record, to the point both parties were seeing lobsters on the walls. Guantanamo Bay? Please, fucking pussy camp. Shit if those fuckers where detained by the Egptians; they'd actually be tortured. 

Enemy combatents in everywar America has been in perfer to surrend to American forces over any other nation. Inclueding British (they'd defeat any Francies they came across, lol), German, and even Canadian forces; surrending soldiers overwhelmingly choose to surrender to American forces. THERE'S A REASON FOR THAT. 

And do you want to know what I say about AliBoba the suspected terrorist crying for his rights? -Welcome to war dipshit. And to the actual enemy combatents, who cry out for 'their rights' after being captured? -I say tell them to grow the fuck up and face the motherfucking music.

Besides you'd have to be retarded to say that American run prisons in Iraq are worse then what Saddam had; you know where he'd send you the bill for the bullets used to exicute your family member?


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 13, 2008)

That's the thing that gets me about the whole torture thing at Aboo Grabby and elsewhere... far as I'm aware, those who were "tortured" still retained all their body parts, and didn't end up with horrible scars, except, perhaps, to their Pride.  Not like the Chinese, who like to shove bamboo under fingernails... not like the old-fashioned torture devices, like The Rack, and Red Hot Branding Irons, and all of those other nasty toys that really were devices of Torture.  Humiliation is not torture... gun to the head is not torture... waterboarding is annoying, but it isn't anywhere near the level being whipped with a cat-o-nine-tails is... not even the same as being caned.  Torture is someone bleeding, and screaming in agony as bones are broken and limbs are crushed.

Torture is NOT making threats of bodily harm, or embarrassing someone by stripping them nude in public, or denying them ethnic meals... if it doesn't involve blood, guts, mangled bodies, and/or horrible screaming, it isn't torture.  And some prisoners *whining* about their situation doesn't make it torture, either!  If they had been truely tortured, they wouldn't be able to whine.


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


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 13, 2008)

Rostam The Grey said:
			
		

> Mayfurr said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And what would that point be, hmmmm? Who gets to decide that point? What if the torturer thought, "they're not talking yet, but I reckon if I go a little bit further..." and further... and further...?

And if they WERE innocent, what then hmmm? "Oh dear, we tortured you big time for nothing, we're sorry, bye-bye."



			
				Rostam The Grey said:
			
		

> I would understand if I got tortured to save other people's lives even though I didn't do it or know anything.



May I suggest then you wander down to Washington with your preferred media outlet in tow, and volunteer to be subjugated to "enhanced interrogation" so you can demonstrate how it's not all that bad.



			
				Rostam The Grey said:
			
		

> I guess I should clarify some though. I'm for torture in which no one is physically harmed. Waterboarding to me is fine, or even making people think you are hurting other people is fine. Putting a gun to someone's head would be fine. Possibly even electrical shocks. I for humiliation torture. Anything they can do to get a person to give information without physically harming a person is acceptable to me. But don't cut off any fingers, etc...



Oh, you're SO generous... so you'd be okay if someone was tortured mentally to the point that they'd become a gibbering idiot for the rest of their lives, as long as they weren't physically harmed? Good grief, I don't see people like John McCain - who *have* been tortured - saying that waterboarding is "fine", quite the opposite in fact.

Frankly, after reading your response I wonder how you can say that part in your oh-so-precious Pledge of Allegiance about "...justice for all..." with a straight face... http://www.stuff.co.nz/684812a17217.html



			
				Rostam The Grey said:
			
		

> If you can get the information through other means, go ahead, try. But if it's time critical, you're going to need to do something quick, and I don't think you can convince them to start talking.



Bullshit. There's exactly the same chance of getting the information you need by torture - i.e. bugger-all - whether the deadline is ten minutes, ten days or ten months. And what if it's not time-critical, but you feel "well, I could torture if it was time-critical, so now it is kinda time-critical, so off we go..."? If you 'reserve' torture only for specific situations, sooner or later those situations are going to stretch into areas you _really_ don't want 'em to go. 'Course, if you accidentally wind up _killing_ them in your desperation to get them to tell you _something_, you've lost _completely_...

And in all of this, how is torturing by Uncle Sam any different to torture by any number of tin-pot dictators or insurgent groups? 

I also love the contrast between the discussion on gun rights and the Second Amendment - basically, you can't trust your own government - with the carte blanche trust you appear to give the _same_ government to torture people on your behalf. So you can trust government agencies to torture people on your behalf to protect you, but simultaneously you can't trust the government so you need to bear arms to defend yourselves against it?


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 13, 2008)

KazukiFerret said:
			
		

> Most of what gets labled as torture by American soldiers in Iraq amounts to mere college pranks.



But if those same "college pranks" were carried out against *American* soldiers, I guarantee that you'd be screaming to the rooftops about the violation of their rights, and demanding the perpetrators have the snot bombed out of them...



			
				KazukiFerret said:
			
		

> Guantanamo Bay? Please, fucking pussy camp. Shit if those fuckers where detained by the Egptians; they'd actually be tortured.



'Course, that's why the US has been sending people from Guantanamo to places like Egypt and Syria on the CIA rendition flights, because there's some sick stuff even the CIA won't do. They're obviously not going halfway around the world for a holiday spa, eh?



			
				KazukiFerret said:
			
		

> Enemy combatents in everywar America has been in perfer to surrend to American forces over any other nation. Inclueding British (they'd defeat any Francies they came across, lol), German, and even Canadian forces; surrending soldiers overwhelmingly choose to surrender to American forces. THERE'S A REASON FOR THAT.



In case you hadn't noticed, the events you're talking about are over *fifty years ago* - and back then no President ever endorsed they type of treatment that Dubya just has. Frankly, I doubt that would be the case *now*.



			
				KazukiFerret said:
			
		

> And do you want to know what I say about AliBoba the suspected terrorist crying for his rights? -Welcome to war dipshit. And to the actual enemy combatents, who cry out for 'their rights' after being captured? -I say tell them to grow the fuck up and face the motherfucking music.



Y'know, I thought you had to have trials and evidence and cross-examination and stuff to work out whether someone was guilty of a crime or not - but hey, now it appears that you can tell just by looking at 'em. And because you captured them, they're automatically guilty, right? How wonderful. Stalin would be proud.

You can't have it both ways. If they're criminals, they have to be subjected to a fair trial. If they're POWs, they have to be treated decently until hostilities are over. "Enemy combatant" is a legal fiction created by the US that basically sends people into a legal limbo so that the US can do what they like with them, like detaining them without trial. 

And let's say to US soldiers, "who cry out for 'their rights' after being captured? [...] grow the fuck up and face the motherfucking music."



			
				KazukiFerret said:
			
		

> Besides you'd have to be retarded to say that American run prisons in Iraq are worse then what Saddam had; you know where he'd send you the bill for the bullets used to exicute your family member?



So this is what it's come to - "we're not as bad as Saddam Hussein". Whoop - de - fucking - doo. Shouldn't these places be *nothing* like Saddams? 

Guess America can just blow up old Lady Liberty and shred the Constitution and Bill of Rights - they obviously don't have any meaning these days.


----------



## Lobar (Mar 13, 2008)

Rostam The Grey said:
			
		

> I'm for torture in which no one is physically harmed. Waterboarding to me is fine, or even making people think you are hurting other people is fine. Putting a gun to someone's head would be fine. Possibly even electrical shocks. I for humiliation torture.



Congratulations, you've disregarded the Geneva Conventions and the United States Code on torture.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Mar 14, 2008)

Lobar said:
			
		

> Rostam The Grey said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thank You! Guess it's a good thing I didn't sign it huh?


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Mar 14, 2008)

Mayfurr said:
			
		

> And what would that point be, hmmmm? Who gets to decide that point? What if the torturer thought, "they're not talking yet, but I reckon if I go a little bit further..." and further... and further...?
> 
> And if they WERE innocent, what then hmmm? "Oh dear, we tortured you big time for nothing, we're sorry, bye-bye."



Deserate times call for desperate measures. Sorry but you're not going to get me to subscribe to the bleeding heart mentality that torture is wrong, should never happen, and never works anyways. Because the fact is, it works, and has worked time and time again.



			
				Mayfurr said:
			
		

> May I suggest then you wander down to Washington with your preferred media outlet in tow, and volunteer to be subjugated to "enhanced interrogation" so you can demonstrate how it's not all that bad.



Volunteer to be tortured for no reason. Sounds like a great idea!...



			
				Mayfurr said:
			
		

> Oh, you're SO generous... so you'd be okay if someone was tortured mentally to the point that they'd become a gibbering idiot for the rest of their lives, as long as they weren't physically harmed? Good grief, I don't see people like John McCain - who *have* been tortured - saying that waterboarding is "fine", quite the opposite in fact.
> 
> Frankly, after reading your response I wonder how you can say that part in your oh-so-precious Pledge of Allegiance about "...justice for all..." with a straight face... http://www.stuff.co.nz/684812a17217.html



Sometimes justice requires extreme measures. I'm sorry, are you dumb or are you just ignoring the facts. We aren't torturing people to find out who stole a car. We aren't torturing them to make them pay thier bills. We are torturing people to save lives. One of the core principles of a democracy is that your rights only stretch as far as your neighbor. So sure, you can practice shooting your gun in your yard... As long as you don't endanger your neighbors. If you are endangering people you either loose the right, or are punished. So applying this idea, it's perfectly acceptable to torture people to save lives.



			
				Mayfurr said:
			
		

> Bullshit. There's exactly the same chance of getting the information you need by torture - i.e. bugger-all - whether the deadline is ten minutes, ten days or ten months. And what if it's not time-critical, but you feel "well, I could torture if it was time-critical, so now it is kinda time-critical, so off we go..."? If you 'reserve' torture only for specific situations, sooner or later those situations are going to stretch into areas you _really_ don't want 'em to go. 'Course, if you accidentally wind up _killing_ them in your desperation to get them to tell you _something_, you've lost _completely_...



Actually what you said is Bullshit.... You seriously think you could convince a religious fanatic to tell you something time critical any way other than torturing him... And if torture didn't work, it would be non-existent. 



			
				Mayfurr said:
			
		

> And in all of this, how is torturing by Uncle Sam any different to torture by any number of tin-pot dictators or insurgent groups?
> 
> I also love the contrast between the discussion on gun rights and the Second Amendment - basically, you can't trust your own government - with the carte blanche trust you appear to give the _same_ government to torture people on your behalf. So you can trust government agencies to torture people on your behalf to protect you, but simultaneously you can't trust the government so you need to bear arms to defend yourselves against it?



Considering it's not physically harming the person? As opposed to torture where the person ends up dead. Obviously even an idiot can see the difference... And the rant about the 2nd amendment I wont even respond too. It has nothing to do with what we are discussing and is incorrect logic to begin with....


----------



## Lobar (Mar 14, 2008)

Rostam The Grey said:
			
		

> Lobar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're a goddamned monster and I'm thankful you don't hold any position of power.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Mar 16, 2008)

Lobar said:
			
		

> Rostam The Grey said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If I'm a monster for wanting to save lives and protect my family. I'd hate to see what a normal person is...


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 17, 2008)

Rostam The Grey said:
			
		

> Mayfurr said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not according to the US Army Field Manual, apparently: â€œTorture is a poor technique that yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say what he thinks the collector wants to hear.â€

Unless the US Army is a bunch of "bleeding hearts"...



			
				Rostam The Grey said:
			
		

> Mayfurr said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why not? You're perfectly happy for others to be subjected to it... and are spectacularly callous regarding those who may be tortured for no reason. Put your money where your damn mouth is.



			
				Rostam The Grey said:
			
		

> Sometimes justice requires extreme measures. I'm sorry, are you dumb or are you just ignoring the facts.



Fuck, I guess I _must_ be dumb for thinking that Americans actually _believed_ in the principles enshrined in their Constitution and Bill of Rights - now that you've proved that such high-minded principles can be casually thrown out in the name of "security". That rumbling sound is your Founding Fathers spinning in their respective graves.



			
				Rostam The Grey said:
			
		

> We aren't torturing people to find out who stole a car. We aren't torturing them to make them pay thier bills. We are torturing people to save lives. One of the core principles of a democracy is that your rights only stretch as far as your neighbor. So sure, you can practice shooting your gun in your yard... As long as you don't endanger your neighbors. If you are endangering people you either loose the right, or are punished. So applying this idea, it's perfectly acceptable to torture people to save lives.



Well then, if it's _saving lives_ that's important, I guess you'd be happy in torturing suspects in murder cases, eh? Serial murders, rapists, child molesters, armed robbery... why limit it to terrorists then, if it's so "useful", "effective" and "acceptable"? 



			
				Rostam The Grey said:
			
		

> You seriously think you could convince a religious fanatic to tell you something time critical any way other than torturing him... And if torture didn't work, it would be non-existent.



And how do you think that torturing someone who's already mentally checked into the Martyrdom Express is going to be any more effective? After all, if they're the type that can strap bombs to themselves or fly planes into buildings...

The reason torture is still used is because people MISTAKENLY believe it works, that it's "quick", and because it satisfies some twisted desire to inflict cruelty.



			
				Rostam The Grey said:
			
		

> Mayfurr said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In other words, "It's not torture if *we* do it." How wonderfully self-justifying, as though Torture Lite was anything to be proud of. Ask those people in Latin America that were subjected to the electric cattle prod etc that left no "physical" harm whether they felt it was better than being physically harmed - I'd bet that for them, there was no difference apart from deniability by the torturers afterwards.

Frankly, I thought even an idiot would know that once you start doing bad things for good reasons, it'll soon be easy to do bad things for bad reasons - and if the Good Guys act the same as the Bad Guys, then the Good Guys are simply only a different degree of Bad Guys. 



			
				Rostam The Grey said:
			
		

> Mayfurr said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Bollocks. It has EVERYTHING to do with it. You'll happily trust agents of the government you feel the need to protect yourself against that they will TORTURE ONLY THOSE PEOPLE WHO "DESERVE" IT.
If the government will torture terrorists, how long will it be before they will torture YOU "to save lives"?

Has it ever entered your sick twisted mind that there's a shitload of blowback onto the US from the endorsement of torture? Already, dozens of generals and admirals have pointed out that how America treats its prisoners will affect how U.S. troops are handled if captured by the enemy - hardly a good way of "supporting the troops". Other countries are spectacularly disinterested in handing over suspects to the US if they believe that they will be tortured there - and many states, including those in the EU, have actual laws that prevent this.
Goodwill for the US is evaporating faster than spit on a hotplate - and if you think the US can "go it alone", then you're VERY much mistaken.



			
				Rostam The Grey said:
			
		

> If I'm a monster for wanting to save lives and protect my family. I'd hate to see what a normal person is...



Saving lives and protecting your family is one thing - advocating, supporting and justifying criminal acts in the process is quite another.

Have you no decency, sir? Have you _no_ decency at all?


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Mar 17, 2008)

Mayfurr said:
			
		

> Not according to the US Army Field Manual, apparently: â€œTorture is a poor technique that yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say what he thinks the collector wants to hear.â€
> 
> Unless the US Army is a bunch of "bleeding hearts"...



For one thing, that was probably written based on a different agenda. Soldiers != Terrorists or Religious Fanatics. For another, it has worked in Iraq. A general was able to save a squads? soldiers by putting a gun to a persons head. He was reprimanded, but he saved lives. I wouldn't be surprised if this has happened more and we just don't know about it. And finally, if it didn't work, people wouldn't do it. But I think I already said that...



			
				Mayfurr said:
			
		

> Why not? You're perfectly happy for others to be subjected to it... and are spectacularly callous regarding those who may be tortured for no reason. Put your money where your damn mouth is.



Because there's no point in it other than shear stupidity... It's like volunteering to be electrocuted in the electric chair to show it kills people. I have no secrets for them to extract.



			
				Mayfurr said:
			
		

> Fuck, I guess I _must_ be dumb for thinking that Americans actually _believed_ in the principles enshrined in their Constitution and Bill of Rights - now that you've proved that such high-minded principles can be casually thrown out in the name of "security". That rumbling sound is your Founding Fathers spinning in their respective graves.



I already explained how rights only stretch as far as your neighbors rights. I'm sorry if you don't understand...



			
				Mayfurr said:
			
		

> Well then, if it's _saving lives_ that's important, I guess you'd be happy in torturing suspects in murder cases, eh? Serial murders, rapists, child molesters, armed robbery... why limit it to terrorists then, if it's so "useful", "effective" and "acceptable"?



Actually, they do use a form of torture where they hold the person in a room for hours on end. This is perfectly acceptable to me.



			
				Mayfurr said:
			
		

> And how do you think that torturing someone who's already mentally checked into the Martyrdom Express is going to be any more effective? After all, if they're the type that can strap bombs to themselves or fly planes into buildings...
> 
> The reason torture is still used is because people MISTAKENLY believe it works, that it's "quick", and because it satisfies some twisted desire to inflict cruelty.



But it has worked... It's not people believing it works, it's people it has worked for.... It has worked for people! They have retrieved valuable information through torture. It has worked... I figured maybe if I said it enough in a few different ways, you'd understand.



			
				Mayfurr said:
			
		

> In other words, "It's not torture if *we* do it." How wonderfully self-justifying, as though Torture Lite was anything to be proud of. Ask those people in Latin America that were subjected to the electric cattle prod etc that left no "physical" harm whether they felt it was better than being physically harmed - I'd bet that for them, there was no difference apart from deniability by the torturers afterwards.



I didn't say that. I said if it saves lives and it's not physically damaging, it's acceptable. Stop trying to force me into the extreme case when I've explained myself several times. I'm sure you can understand what I'm saying even though you pretend not to.



			
				Mayfurr said:
			
		

> Frankly, I thought even an idiot would know that once you start doing bad things for good reasons, it'll soon be easy to do bad things for bad reasons - and if the Good Guys act the same as the Bad Guys, then the Good Guys are simply only a different degree of Bad Guys.



Only if you are morally susceptible to doing bad things for bad reasons. I could torture someone, doesn't mean I enjoy it, and it doesn't mean I'd do it for the wrong reasons. That's like saying someone who steals food to survive would still steal food if they suddenly won the lottery. Only an idiot would think that....



			
				Mayfurr said:
			
		

> Bollocks. It has EVERYTHING to do with it. You'll happily trust agents of the government you feel the need to protect yourself against that they will TORTURE ONLY THOSE PEOPLE WHO "DESERVE" IT.
> If the government will torture terrorists, how long will it be before they will torture YOU "to save lives"?



The second amendment is about protecting myself from a corrupt government or tyrany. It has nothing to do with me not trusting the government. If you don't understand that, I'm sorry. Apparently you don't understand a lot... But that discussion has nothing to do with this thread.



			
				Mayfurr said:
			
		

> Has it ever entered your sick twisted mind that there's a shitload of blowback onto the US from the endorsement of torture? Already, dozens of generals and admirals have pointed out that how America treats its prisoners will affect how U.S. troops are handled if captured by the enemy - hardly a good way of "supporting the troops". Other countries are spectacularly disinterested in handing over suspects to the US if they believe that they will be tortured there - and many states, including those in the EU, have actual laws that prevent this.
> Goodwill for the US is evaporating faster than spit on a hotplate - and if you think the US can "go it alone", then you're VERY much mistaken.



I'm aware of this. I'm also aware that American soldiers *will* get tortured in a war, whether we torture the enemy or not... And goodwill for the US is still as strong as it was immediately following the cold war. The same sentiment is active. People don't like us because they couldn't stop us and we are the super power. Generally when something happens, we have a hand in it. And also not everyone is Christian and we usually stick to christian ideals. Some religions are actively for destroying the US. Clumping everyone together and saying they hate the US because they torture people is kind of ignorant.



			
				Mayfurr said:
			
		

> Rostam The Grey said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, protecting your family is everything. I would wade through hell and highwater to save my kids. Torture or no, family is *everything*. If you don't have kids, I can understand how you might not understand this.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 17, 2008)

So, if I stuff a bunch of Git Mo terrorists into a room, and play Barry Manilow songs twenty-four hours a day, that's bad?  And exactly how is puting a gun to someone's head torture?  It's a threat, yes, but it ain't torture!  You can threaten to cut some Islamist's balls off, to get them to talk.  But, until you actually _do_ it, it isn't torture.  Fear is a powerful tool....


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


----------



## Devolger555 (Mar 24, 2008)

i say a native american(indian) shall be the next us president


----------



## Lobar (Mar 25, 2008)

Devolger555 said:
			
		

> i say a native american(indian) shall be the next us president



That's quite a prediction considering there are ZERO Native American candidates running this year.


			
				Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> So, if I stuff a bunch of Git Mo terrorists into a room, and play Barry Manilow songs twenty-four hours a day, that's bad?  And exactly how is puting a gun to someone's head torture?  It's a threat, yes, but it ain't torture!  You can threaten to cut some Islamist's balls off, to get them to talk.  But, until you actually _do_ it, it isn't torture.  Fear is a powerful tool....
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------



Threat of imminent death (mock executions and the like) is torture as defined by both United States and international law.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 26, 2008)

Lobar said:
			
		

> Roose Hurro said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Huh... well, not by my definitions!  Torture has to involve screaming and blood, shattered bones, flayed skin... you get the idea, I have a very Medieval view of what makes something torture.  Let me put it to you this way:  If a mugger puts a gun to my head, and gives me that trite line... "Your money or your life!"... wouldn't that also be considered torture, "as defined by both United States and International Law"...?  I've never heard such an argument coming up in any court, nor have I heard of any mugger accused of torture, to go along with any other crime they've committed.

Do you have an answer as to why there is this double standard?  Why I can be threatened with knife or gun or other form of harm, by some scumbag on the street, and yet the law doesn't call that torture?

So, as I said, _threats_ of harm are not torture... actual harm is!  Show me the scars, show me the x-rays, show me the blood stains, show me the psychologist's bill.


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


----------



## Jelly (Mar 26, 2008)

Rostam The Grey said:
			
		

> Mayfurr said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, better hope no one ever considers one of your kids a terrorist, and keeps them without trial or solid evidence of guilt.

Then again, that takes empathy. I can't tell you what empathy is, only hope it hasn't been enculturated or mutated out of you.

...but on the Iraq war (since we're already on that subject):

What do you young, hip cats think about the fact that the Iraqi LGBT has gone underground due to the fact that hundreds of LGBT people have been murdered, beaten, and humiliated? They say it was better under Saddam, as sexual freedom was much less restricted. Now, with the combination of cleric-oriented hate groups and the Iraqi police force working to kill them or destroy their lives it is difficult to do much but hide.


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 27, 2008)

Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> Lobar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Tough shit. United States and international law trumps "Roose law". Deal with it.

'Course, I doubt you'd be so accepting of the acts you don't believe constitute "torture" being used by, say Iranians against US soldiers... would you?


----------



## Lobar (Mar 27, 2008)

Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> If a mugger puts a gun to my head, and gives me that trite line... "Your money or your life!"... wouldn't that also be considered torture, "as defined by both United States and International Law"...?  I've never heard such an argument coming up in any court, nor have I heard of any mugger accused of torture, to go along with any other crime they've committed.
> 
> Do you have an answer as to why there is this double standard?  Why I can be threatened with knife or gun or other form of harm, by some scumbag on the street, and yet the law doesn't call that torture?



Because the mugger on the street is not acting as an official of the government.  The USC definition of torture states that torture means "an act committed by a person acting under the color of law..."  No double standard here.


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 27, 2008)

Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> Torture has to involve screaming and blood, shattered bones, flayed skin... you get the idea, I have a very Medieval view of what makes something torture.



You (and Rostam) seem to have a very Medieval view, period. 

For fuck's sake, waterboarding et al against "enemy combatants" was enough to get Nazi soldiers sent to the gallows at Nuremberg for torture and war crimes (against Norwegian resistance members)... surely the US is supposed to be better than Nazi Germany was? :roll:


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Mar 28, 2008)

Something's up, I don't like the feeling I'm getting for Obama's numbers in the next few primaries. I hope I'm wrong.


----------



## Lobar (Mar 28, 2008)

Bowtoid_Obelisk said:
			
		

> Something's up, I don't like the feeling I'm getting for Obama's numbers in the next few primaries. I hope I'm wrong.



There's nothing in the polls to indicate that.  He's recovered completely from the Wright story, which was the biggest thing they had to throw at him, and now Hillary's getting hit for her Bosnia lie.  Her own campaign has now admitted that she can't possibly catch up in pledged delegates, and is currently thinking of new bullshit ways to judge the primaries to pitch to the supers to coronate her.  They won't fall for it, and a lot of the big name Dems are starting to subtly hint openly declare that Hillary needs to sit down and shut up.


----------



## Devolger555 (Apr 6, 2008)

i ment the right president for the usa is a native american, they wore the first there
and maybe an native would do more environment protection


----------



## Kelsh (Apr 6, 2008)

Devolger, a president shouldn't just worry about our environment. They'll end up like Al Gore.


----------

