| February 26th, 2005 07:40 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
That's a dumb reply. You could have written something funny but you seem very lazy. You must be a democrat! |
| February 26th, 2005 08:49 PM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
If the Koran is the word of god, it was dictated on a very bad day.
- C. Hitchens - |
| February 26th, 2005 10:31 PM |
|
|
| Poplar |
Nice one Riffy. |
| February 26th, 2005 10:41 PM |
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
quote:
Poplar wrote:
as for what makes a rational argument ... that's rather subjective isn't it?
no - that's the whole idea - a rational argument leaves aside subjective views - as to who "wins" a rational argument follows from a logic as immutable as 2 plus 2 = four - that's what rational means - at least according to my dictionary
you predicated a whole lot of stuff about were you stood politically and FPM took you apart and, as he noted, he did so by using your own words - your fundamental position held the seeds of its own discredit - and it's got nothing to do with wehther i think or you think or FPM thinks bush is a good bloke or not or a good president or not - i was simply looking at it from a logical or rational point of view
[Edited by stonedinaustralia] |
| February 26th, 2005 10:46 PM |
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
quote:
Poplar wrote:
but you simply aren't the judge here.
well, i am so far in that i make my own judgements of the stuff i read - thankfully, i'm entitled to my own opinion and to express it |
| February 26th, 2005 11:06 PM |
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
quote:
glencar wrote:
Nope. Reagan toppled Communism,
sorry glencar, i can never buy into that one... by an acccident of history he happened to be in power when it's inevitable demise (in europe) occurred
communism was doomed from the start - Marx had some interesting theories and shed a lot of light on stuff not properly articulated before himn (e.g. theories on control of the means of production) - but as real life that can work as a system it never got over the fact that human beings are ambitious and are ultimately concerned with their own welfare and are unfortunately at times greedy and grasping
it still survives in china of course but what they have looks more like to me a tyranny by another name - 'tho it will be toppled there eventually - the influence of Western capitalism got a toe hold when the lease ran out on Hong Kong and now what with the potential markets there and the freedom computers allow information to be disseminated evetually china, too, will succumb to the decadent ways of western consumerism (i'm being sarcastic there if you didn't notice)-it won't be able to afford not to - and as that comes so will there be more demands by the population to be treated as "individuals" (with the attendant rights that come with that) and not merely like some anonymous and utterly dispensible member of an ant colony
[Edited by stonedinaustralia] |
| February 26th, 2005 11:33 PM |
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
quote:
telecaster wrote:
Odd Rocksoff.org fact:
The only, only posters/people here that have ever mentioned their occupation are................?????????
LAWYERS!
Waz Up Wid Dat?
Why?
well tele that's not so - as sirm pointed out many others have let us know what they do
anyway, the lawyers bit on this thread is apropos - as i'm sure you're well aware - lawyers run the world - for good or ill - one of the main reasons i became one was in the interests of self-preservation - i thought i'd better get with the strength and get a full understanding on what was really going on (at least as far as i could and i can tell you it HAS helped) - but there is a downside of course - apart from those that comment wistfully that "they always wanted to be one" we are generally loathed and mistrusted -until of course we are needed - no doubt right up there with dentists and plumbers - we are the last people you want to see until you need us and then they become very important indeed to your continued comfortable existence, but with the added burden of also being asked to help you hang to your money and at the extreme your liberty - it can be dirty work but, unfortunately, some-one HAS to do it
see of course the bard on this one as the terrorist rebels discuss what they will do when they take over in Henry VI
DICK
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
JACK CADE
Nay, that I mean to do. Is not this a lamentable
thing, that of the skin of an innocent lamb should
be made parchment? that parchment, being scribbled
o'er, should undo a man? Some say the bee stings:
but I say, 'tis the bee's wax; for I did but seal
once to a thing, and I was never mine own man
since.
[Edited by stonedinaustralia] |
| February 27th, 2005 12:04 AM |
|
|
| Poplar |
quote:
stonedinaustralia wrote:
a rational argument leaves aside subjective views - as to who "wins" a rational argument follows from a logic as immutable as 2 plus 2 = four - that's what rational means - at least according to my dictionary
When it comes to politics, a whole shit-load of things are subjective. Thus this endless, heated ,(NSC) thread. You seem to be saying those who disagree with you are irrational, and I find that a bit arrogant.
Again - I feel for anybody willing to stroke themself for "taking apart" someone's rationale by means of critiquing some off-hand paragraph of a thought on a message board.
|
| February 27th, 2005 12:44 AM |
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
[quote]Poplar wrote:
>When it comes to politics, a whole shit-load of things are subjective. Thus this endless, heated ,(NSC) thread. You seem to be saying those who disagree with you are irrational, and I find that a bit arrogant.
AAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!! - fuck no poplar (and check your pm)
as i've said my comments re your argy bargy with FPM had nothing to do with politics and the political view points of the argument - that's not the point- you're right, in politics (as with most things) there's a ton's of subjective views floating around - my comments were about the fact that you put up some propositions and in my view FPM pulled them apart and i based my comments on reading them as objectively as possible - read what i said - you could have been talking about any number of topics - and if expressing my opinion (and believing it correct from as objective a point of view as i can take)is arrogant...well so be it but i reject that simply on the basis that, in the end, i couldn't give a flying fuck who agrees with me or not(unless getting paid depends upon it)...i'm too old for that shit
and be careful that line of thinking can cut both ways
>Again - I feel for anybody willing to stroke themself for "taking apart" someone's rationale by means of critiquing some off-hand paragraph of a thought on a message board.
easy there big fella - no need to resort to that kind of talk - let's keep the level of argument above the crotch shall we - as i said, i'm entitled to an opinion as you are - and if it's all so "offhand" why you getting to this point with it -
and as you'll recall the subject of this thread is essentially taking the piss out of a politican and i "feel" for someone who can't take a joke in that regard - hell, i even get a laugh out of jokes people have at the stones expense - tho i might not agree with the sentiments expressed i can still see the funny side
so,ok, i'll lighten up if you will - what do you say??
[Edited by stonedinaustralia] |
| February 27th, 2005 01:20 AM |
|
|
| Poplar |
on the way to the bar now, my friend. i'll have one for you, you have one for me.
god, do we need a tour or what?
Stones rule you bastards.
[Edited by Poplar] |
| February 27th, 2005 02:13 AM |
|
|
| Stonesthrow |
All of you who are ragging on the republicunts and damacraps are mired in minutiae. You need to step back and look at the big picture. The problem is that the system for electing people needs revising. In a country of 250,000,000 people, it's likely that there are many people who possess the intellect and leadership qualities we should expect from the person to be the leader of the most powerful country in the world. Having said that, look what cream has risen to the top-- Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Gerald Ford, George Sr. and Jr., and Bob Dole. Say what you want about Nixon and Reagan, they did possess a long term vision for the future of the county whether or not you liked it. The last democrats with vision were Kennedy and FDR. The system must be changed so that people of real substance will be enticed into running for office (this sentiment also applies to other elected offices as well as the Presidency). What person in his right mind would want a job badly enough that requires him to put up with exposing every detail of his life and character (and the lives and characters of all the people he knows) to be fodder for character assassination? It doesn't pay well enough for that. Only those motivated by acquiring power at all costs would consider it. I don't know about you, but that sort of personality would not make my ideal candidate. Maybe if the job paid $40,000,000.00 a year rather than $400,000.00. CEOs at major corporations make that kind of money all the time without being in a fishbowl.
Aside from the actual personalities involved, the mechanics of the system need to be revised. The most significant change must be the abolition of the Electoral College. That system currently allows the winner of the 11 most populous states to win the election even if he had not one single vote in any of the other 39 states. Go by popular vote so that a vote in N.Y. will be no more powerful than one in Montana.
I also must respond to the allegations that Bill Clinton was responsible for the budget surplus. It was not his doing for a number of reasons, some of which have already been posted. He happened to be in the right place during the confluence of Perfect Storm conditions including:
1. Recessions end some time. The one during Bush Sr's term was winding down before the election.
2. The fall of communism opened up a number of new parts of the world for free trade including the communist block countries.
3. Although it had its beginnings during the Reagan years, the internet really caught on as a means of promoting exchange of knowledge and commerce (thank you Al Gore).
4. The fall of communism begat the Peace Dividend. Without the Soviet Union being a threat, the spending on the military was reduced significantly thus helping toward balancing the budget.
5. The 1994 Republican Contract With America-- That was probably the biggest single reason for improving the budget. As was stated earlier, all spending measures must originate in the House of Representatives. The President can only suggest and support, or conversely, stand in the way of budget proposals. The real villain in the budget morass is your friendly neighborhood Congress. It never met a buck it didn't like to spend. For one shining moment in 1994, Congress rose above itself.
6. Fear over Y2k caused a great deal of precautionary spending to try to avoid the perceived trouble there. More spending temporarily led to more jobs, etc.
7. The price of oil during the Clinton years was considerably lower than it is now. Had America done what I advocated in 1974-- gone into a war time effort to develop solar power-- we could have had a perpetually balanced budget and could have economically marginalized the oil countries so they would not wield any political or economic power. There would be the added perk of staying out of their personal business as well.
Having said all that, Clinton did something right. He stayed out of the way so the confluence could create the remarkable economic climate of the '90s. He could have tried to impose himself into the picture but fortunately did not.
The last time I voted "for" a Presidential candidate rather than against the other was in 1984 when I voted for Reagan. In 3 of the past 4 Presidential elections, I voted for someone other than republicans or democrats. I find the prolonged absence of meaningful candidates rather depressing. Forget the Bush bashing and Kerry kicking. Those two are only symptoms.
|
| February 27th, 2005 04:23 AM |
|
|
| greedo |
quote:
Stonesthrow wrote:
6. Fear over Y2k caused a great deal of precautionary spending to try to avoid the perceived trouble there.
I sure hope you not talking the smack down on my main nigga y2khai, get loc'd niggas
http://www.y2khai.com/khai01.html |
| February 27th, 2005 04:38 AM |
|
|
| Stonesthrow |
Yes, as lovable as your main man looks, there was serious concern about him back in 1999. From your link, he seems to have survived.
BTW, did you shoot first or not?
|
| February 27th, 2005 05:39 AM |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
quote:
glencar wrote:
That's a dumb reply. You could have written something funny but you seem very lazy. You must be a democrat!
you seem very stupid...you must be a Republican |
| February 27th, 2005 07:20 AM |
|
|
| Poplar |
quote:
greedo wrote:
http://www.y2khai.com/khai01.html
damn!  |
| February 27th, 2005 08:52 AM |
|
|
| glencar |
SIA, China is about as Communist as Malibu. Yes, they talk a good game but they love the money. Reagan had more to do with eliminating the USSR than you give him credit for. He outspent them & he refused to deal with the old men who followed Brezhnev. He encouraged perestroika & Gorbachev. He gave a spotlight to Soviet dissidents & got many of them freed. His place in history is not an accident.
I think the current President is on a similar course in re crazed Muslim fundies. Democracy is taking wing & enough people in Arabia will see that they don't have dick & will realize that they want freedom of choice & a better lifestyle. |
| February 27th, 2005 12:57 PM |
|
|
| Cant Catch Me |
In the space between his ears, Dubya mostly hears the constant shriek of a scorching wind as it scours a parched desert landscape with blasts of stinging sand and dust. On a rare calm moment, he might hear a brief snippet of “Chain of Fools.”
|
| February 27th, 2005 01:25 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
Here,here Blue! SIA it is very easy to say that Reagan was just in the right place at the right time,but that would ignore the man's entire political career. Ronald Reagan laid all of this out way back in 1964.
"We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now in slavery behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skin, we are willing to make a deal with your slave-masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one!" Let's set the record straight. There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace . . . and you can have it in the next second . . . surrender!
Admittedly there is a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson in history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face. . . that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand-the ultimatum. And what then? When Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we are retreating under the pressure of the cold war, and someday when the time comes to deliver the ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he has heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he would rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us. You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing is worth dying for, when did this begin-just in the face of this enemy?- or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots of Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain! Where then, is the road to peace? Well, it's a simple answer after all.
You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." There is a point beyond which they must not advance! This is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace through strength!" Winston Churchill said that "the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits-not animals." And he said, "there is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty." You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness."- Ronald Reagan "The Speech" Republican National Convention 1964
Reagan knew damned good and well that the Soviet system was morally bankrupt and evil. He,like GWB,was not afraid to call a spade a spade. It is a bit amusing that so many liberals hate it when Bush called Iraq,Iran,and North Korea the "Axis of Evil". He echoed Reagan's own "Evil Empire" theme regarding the equally evil USSR. Liberals went nuts! "How dare he!","He is a cowboy!","He's behaveing like a rude American!","He is sooo stupid!","He never sees the nuance in these affairs!"
LOL! I mean how fucking pansy can you be?! Look,the facts are pretty goddamned simple. Saddam was an evil fuck that had to go. Period. End of story. The USSR was evil and brutal. They had to go. End of story. Now I ask you. Who had the balls,the fortitude,the persistance,the foresight to make the world a safer place? Reagan placed ICBM's inside Europe when all the liberal limpwristers were calling him a warmonger. Today there are no ICMB's anywhere in Europe or the in "former" Soviet Union. Reagan once said to an aide,"Today they call be a warmonger. Tomarrow they'll be forced to call me a peace maker." How true is that?!
He had vision,forsight,and the courage! Kinda like the fella we have in office right now! And,as was the case in Reagan's days,Bush is making a difference on the world stage for the better. And,as was the case in Reagan's day,liberals hate him for it. And,as was the case in Reagan's days,the liberals are wrong again!
Riffhard
PS-Thanks gypsy and Blue for the kind words.
|
| February 27th, 2005 01:39 PM |
|
|
| Dan |
Nice post, however it all seems so hypocritical when measured against current U.S. China policy. |
| February 27th, 2005 04:30 PM |
|
|
| Starbuck |
much to reply to! however, i'll confine my replies to riffy's innaccuracies.
riffy, you know i love you like a pair of firm fitting silk boxers, but you need to reevaluate exactly what you're reading on the US and the mideast.
quote:
"...Bush was right all along about the Middle East."
this assertion is just plain laughable!
say what you want about clinton, but one thing he did do right was his tireless efforts to bring peace in the ME. he worked his ass off with barak and arafat to make things happen, but it ended up falling on its ass. i know this for a fact. I was in gaza in the summer of 2000, and all the palestinians i met wanted to express their extreme thanks to clinton and the americans. finally, they said, a US president was willing to look at the conflict from their side, and they respected that. unfortunately, it was arafat that was the stick in the mud in the deal, so what are you going to do? then nov of 2000 rolls around, bush gets elected, and does jack shit towards doing ANYTHING about bringing the palestinians and israelis together. his response is to send some third rate general (zinni schminni) there to start negotiations & rename the process to give it more appeal to the average american ("roadmap" my ass). to make things worse, barak, one of the true peacemakers, gets ousted and ariel "kill em all" sharon gets put in office. ariel, who was censored by his own govt for his roll in allowing christian militias allied to the israelis completely wipe out palestinian refugee camps south of beirut during the israeli invasion in '82. the man is a fucking butcher and he is calling the shots. with him in power in israel and bush in power in washington, things have been hell for the average peace loving palestians and israelis for five years now. a complete disaster.
quote:
The stupid liberal adage is "You can't force democracy at the point of a bayonette!"
no, i believe the stupid liberal adage is "you can't force democracy to a region that has never known it for its entire existence. you can't plant an orage tree in minnesota and expect it to bear fruit, either. these "democracies" the US is setting up will fail sooner or later, i am sure of it. how can they succeed? even our allies in the region govern themselves by means of suppressive monarchies.
quote:
1.-9/11/01 the USA is hit by the worst terrorist attack in history.
done on bushie's watch!
quote:
2.-After gathering the military mite needed to retailiate. The USA removed the Taliban in record time with minor US casulties.
yes....and because of the fact we only went in with a small number of troops and relied on warlords and other afghan allies to do the fighting, OSAMA GOT AWAY! wasn't that the point of the #@!*ing war to begin with?!?!? had bush sent in half the number of troops he sent to iraq, we would have had the bastard!
quote:
4.-After the Taliban was overthrown Afganistan held their first democratic election in the five thousand year history of that country.
well, that's overstating the facts. democracy has only been around for a few hundred years anyway.
and where is #3? can you con boys count?!!? (CRRRACK!)
quote:
5.-The USA goes to the UN for a solid fourteen months to try and force the enforcment of the previous 17 seperate UN resolutions drawn up in the Security Council. Rush to war? Hardly!
and what did we bring to the UN? intelligence that was false and completely shoddy! our reasons for going to war were based on incorrect intelligence!
quote:
The USA had every right to insist upon the enforcment of these resolutions. Why? Please refer to 9/11/01. Oh,I hear you! You say that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11/01. Ummm hmmm....WHO FUCKING CARES? All bets were off after 9/11/01.
this is very scary. so what you're saying is this: we get attacked by country A, and its therefore OK to invade and destroy country B. this is paramount to FDR declaring war on China in 1941 because we were attacked by Japan.
let me tell you something else: paul wolfowitz had the iraq battle plans drawn up well before 9-11. in fact, he presented them to the president before 9-11 as well, but was rejected. he and the other neocons, who, i might add, are giving good conservatives a bad name, are EVIL PEOPLE and have been planning an invasion of iraq for at least five to ten years before the war began! 9-11 was the perfect excuse!
quote:
6.-Iraq holds it's first democratic elections in over fifty years! Over 60% of the population turned out. They did not let the evil(oh how liberals hate that word!)insurgents/terrorists scare them! They waved their purple stained fingers proudly in the air,and made no it a point to thank America for their first opportunity to vote.
yes, and it is an election that will send those people into civil war. of the 60% of the people you speak of, 59.9% were either shi'ite or kurd. the sunnis will not participate in this new government and civil war will be the result!
quote:
8.-Israel and the PLO are trying to restart the peace talks.
wait a minute - are you giving bush the credit for the restart of peace talks? he has had nothing to do with that! arafat's death is what caused the peace talks to restart.
quote:
Bush has shown the Middle East that democracy can happen in that part of the world
umm, shouldn't we wait a few years before we judge that bushie's "democracies" are successful? they had one election, that doesn't mean they're ready for NATO yet....
riffy... you need to read tom friedman's book "from beirut to jerusalem". it was written by an eyewitness to reagan's fucking up of the middle east that resulted in the deaths of a couple hundred US marines. it may cast a shadow on your hero! |
| February 27th, 2005 04:59 PM |
|
|
| gypsy |
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:
you seem very stupid...you must be a Republican
Another witty reply from "lotsajizz," folks! |
| February 27th, 2005 05:35 PM |
|
|
| Snappy McJack |
quote:
greedo wrote:
I sure hope you not talking the smack down on my main nigga y2khai, get loc'd niggas
http://www.y2khai.com/khai01.html
Wasssaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, Greedo?
When are you guys getting a Stones show on Uranus? The presale might be a bitch for those shows! |
| February 27th, 2005 05:41 PM |
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
glencar - riffhard
i take your point - to a point
there's no denying that it was the attitude of the West in general and the States in particular that facilitated the the disintergration of the USSR
i just have difficulty with this "cult of personality" view of history - sure Reagan's ADMINISTRATION may have had a great part to play but as i said in a previous post after WWII "leaders" of democratic nations as such are much like a figurehead on a ship - they set the tone and style of the vessel but it's the movers and shakers in the captain's cabin that are really calling the shots and dictating the course
there are exceptions to this of course - nelson mandela springs to mind |
| February 27th, 2005 06:16 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
And Ronald Reagan is another exception. I agree with you that the Big Man view of history is usually untrue but in those cases (in fact, Reagan more than Mandela) it was the man who changed the world. |
| February 27th, 2005 06:17 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
quote:
Dan wrote:
Nice post, however it all seems so hypocritical when measured against current U.S. China policy.
And what would you have us do in China? I personally am boycotting "The Golden Wok" this week! |
| February 27th, 2005 07:27 PM |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
quote:
glencar wrote:
SIA, China is about as Communist as Malibu. Yes, they talk a good game but they love the money. Reagan had more to do with eliminating the USSR than you give him credit for. He outspent them & he refused to deal with the old men who followed Brezhnev. He encouraged perestroika & Gorbachev. He gave a spotlight to Soviet dissidents & got many of them freed. His place in history is not an accident.
Yes, it is. Carter did all that you cite--years in advance, but got derailed by a since-admitted conspiracy of the oil companies and the GOP to artificially create fuel shortages leading to the gas lines and the lies ensuing. Ray-gunz wasted $ spending it on a Cold War already won. What Ray-gunz did was probably force some national untiy onto an artificial state and delay it's downfall by a year or two.
The Cold War was a tragic myth into which the trailer trash and other Republicans still buy.
|
| February 27th, 2005 08:24 PM |
|
|
| Dan |
quote:
glencar wrote:
And what would you have us do in China? I personally am boycotting "The Golden Wok" this week!
Not sure what I would do but I dont like the present course taken by the last several administrations. Turning over our manufacturing base to an evil, oppressive regime with expansionist aims doesn't seem like a good idea to me. |
| February 27th, 2005 09:03 PM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
quote:
Dan wrote:
Not sure what I would do but I dont like the present course taken by the last several administrations. Turning over our manufacturing base to an evil, oppressive regime with expansionist aims doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
It makes economic sense, though. Think about the terrific job them coolies did with our railroads. Cheap too.
All part of god's great plan. Ours not to reason why. |
| February 28th, 2005 02:58 AM |
|
|
| Poplar |
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:
...trailer trash and other Republicans...
|
| February 28th, 2005 09:53 AM |
|
|
| Joey |
quote:
gypsy wrote:
Another witty reply from "lotsajizz," folks!
My Queen Bee ......................
You make Joey sniggle . |
|
CHAT
ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]