ParanoiA

My how the hypocrisy goes unchecked... For the president of a country, your solution is to back in time and kill him - the mentallity you say you're against. But for Islamoracist murder clubs your solution is: Nice to finally validate what I've always suspected about extremists. Edit: Had to remove the last sentence after realizing SkepticLance isn't an american. Don't worry, didn't miss much...

Yes, that does appear to be the case... So, are we going to get rid of the percentage we spend on bridges out of the transportation bill? Why are we funding the same thing out of different taxes? I love how we tax things from so many different points, complicate the hell out of it... I also love how we just give our elected representatives the out. If you can't blame Bush, then no one's at fault? So, let me get this straight...they've had billions of dollars to pay for this stuff, but they've mismanaged these funds due to other "pet projects" and things that are more important than falling bridges - bridges that have been declared "deficient" no less. And these representatives have managed to swindle the public into not only absolving them from blame - on which it clearly lies - but they've actually tricked the public into thinking we need to raise taxes!! And it doesn't stop there. Now they're turning their blatant ineptitude into a "political position" from which to aid in getting elected! I stand in awe of their superiority in controlling the minds of the american sheeple... I need to see if I can turn my next stupid mistake at work into a raise and promotion... They are mutually exclusive since you don't need MORE money if you're spending it wisely. Government doesn't worry too much about spending too much money since they have no consequences for spending it. If they run out, just raise taxes and get more. If the public gives you any flack about it, just say it's "for the children"...

Uh, no. What made you think I would? Oh, I see, you made you think I would... I have never argued for sacrificing civil liberties in any way shape or form. Find where I stated that in my post or else stop throwing in strawman arguments to make it easy to debate. Why even discuss anything in here if you're just going to catergorize everyone and attack the category? You can do that without us. I'm not taking issue with sacrificing civil liberties for some stupid idea of "security". I have never and will never agree to any such thing and you won't find any of my posts supporting that. I'm taking issue because you seem to think terrorism is an annoyance rather than a problem. Because you want to make the same mistakes as the other superpowers in our history and under estimate those who oppose you. I realize that Al Queda's got a lot on their plate if they're going to utterly destroy our entire country, but that's ONLY because we're actively trying to prevent it. If everyone had your attitude, they would have already succeeded in their multi-nuclear warhead simultaneous attack theme on our soil. Lucky? No. Predictable? Yes. They didn't get lucky. They knew how stupidly futile it is to have "systems" to prevent criminal acts. A "system" can always be conquered just by virtue of being a system. As long as that's how we think, that's how we'll die. I could walk out to a school yard at lunch time and mow down tens of children at any moment - got a system for that?. I could rent U-Haul's largest truck and plow full speed into a bridge pillar - got a system for that?. If I can fish my county's resevoir I can get poisons in it too. I could think of hundred's of terror acts to perform on our soil that no "system" will ever conquere. Intelligence services asleep? Let them stay awake. It doesn't matter, you still won't stop it. You can't. As many as they want. You think there's really a limit-per-customer? Please, don't be so naive. Yeah, we can't find OBL after a 5 year unprecedented manhunt in one general area with multi-million dollar rewards, but we can be sure that world wide Al Queda won't get very many nuclear warheads? No, actually I'm the one who recognizes that we win most of our battles in Iraq and are terribly successful at war. Winning these battles doesn't win the war though. And no amount of these soldiers and hardware is going to do a damn thing to keep our country from being destroyed by terrorism. I don't believe your precious intelligence agencies and electronic gizmos are going to save us from anything - more likely to help destroy us with the false sense of security you're selling here. Here you go again inferring ignorant arguments from my posts. I'm taking issue with your emotional statements. Does our torturing prisoners cause Al Queda to gain strength? No. Does Abu Ghraib give the insurgency new ground in Iraq? No. My point is about this silly notion that if we act like them, then terrorism wins. No it doesn't. No, if we act like them, then we lose a part of ourselves - and that is not tolerable. But they don't win anything, anyway. Understand the difference. You're making poetic statements, emotional appeals that don't stand up to logic. I'm not therefore arguing for more Gestapo behavior, I'm arguing for reality here, not poetry. No, you didn't understand my post. Probably because you chop whole paragraphs into little pieces and argue each piece independent of the others. So, you get lost in the discussion and the context of those pieces. Pay attention this time, please. The point I was making is that my government gives me the right to a fair trial, here at home, but shoots some guy in the head because he's wearing a particular uniform, over there in Iraq. This is what I'm talking about. Because my government shoots that guy in the head in Iraq - for wearing the wrong uniform - does not mean my government is going to start shooting me in the head, here at home. When our governments war and conflict, they are going to behave to each other in ways they would never behave towards their own people. Like murdering soldiers on a battle field, but requiring trials and due process at home. Your government's behavior toward your enemy, is not necessarily an indication of its intent toward you. That was my only point. I dare you not to infer more to my position than that. How do they win if we become despicable and malicious? They get a prize or something? Does that somehow translate to americans leaving their soil? Again, it sounds like more poetry... We disagree. Maybe a thread just on this subject is in order? What Al-Qaeda wants... I'm mainly taking issue with the after-school-special mentallity with the cliche one liners - "If we become them, they win". No we don't, and no they don't. If we become them, we lose everything we stand for as a country. What we stand for matters more than the ends, to me. I'd rather be dead than live without freedom and the moral high ground concerning how we behave ourselves in this conflict. But none of that makes that poetic one liner any smarter. The terrorists don't win if we turn all totalitarian and create a military state with absolute control over our soceity. In fact, we'd probably roll all over them without care for innocent civilians, dropping nukes and reduce the whole region to rubble. Whatever, I don't see a big win for terrorism in that case...

Well the libertarian in me has to point out that public education shouldn't be run by the federal government in any capacity. It should be a state function, if anything. Otherwise, private schools can give both of you what you want. Anyway, I agree with alot of what you say, but to be fair consider that many of the consequences of religion, such as wars and oppression, come from men - not the religion. It's always about some perverse interpretation to justify a means to an end. And it certainly seems to have happened quite a lot in our history, and still today.

Nah, I think we pretty much agree in belief. Your last post seems more reasonable to me. I've spent most of my life with an aversion to christianity, and later realized it was an aversion to religion in general, and later still, have realized it's an aversion to what I believe to be ideologies that shackle the advancement of the human condition. Admittedly, I have merely a loose grip on what that really means, but I have to reject overcompensation to be fair and sure of my own position. True tolerance means tolerance of the intolerant. No, he was responding to Sayanara, who stated, about creationism: So he replied with: So, no he's not calling scientists liars, rather he's replying to Sayanara's accusation by pointing out similar issues in science.

Not really, because he's not advocating hatred nor justification of hatred toward any group, rather defending a group being hated. I agree.

Well, not really. 1. to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest: to hate the enemy; to hate bigotry. 2. to be unwilling; dislike: I hate to do it. –verb (used without object) 3. to feel intense dislike, or extreme aversion or hostility. –noun 4. intense dislike; extreme aversion or hostility. 5. the object of extreme aversion or hostility. "Hate" is more a description of the level of aversion, whereas "rationale" is about the reasoning for that aversion. When someone tries to make a case that it's ok to hate something, that's rationalizing hatred. Like, hating child molesters is an example of hatred with rationale. Now, I would certainly challenge the logic behind rationalizing hatred for creationism, but not for child molesters.

Hate can be justified? I think hate is far more dangerous when it's rationalized by otherwise thinking people....

Or, how about "What's worse, people who hate or people who rationalize hate?"

No, I don't have a telescope. Although I live next to the Powell observatory which has an impressive arsenol of scopes. I have been there once, and it was a really cool experience. http://www.askconline.org/powell.htm Anyway, it's nice to know some of these images are close to true color. I was afraid some of this stuff might be downright boring to look at when observable by the naked eye. Of course, that would be fascinating in itself...

Ok, so I guess I'm stupid because I had always thought those beautiful, awesome pictures of nebulas and such were actual colors. Now I'm learning that much of this color is added to distinguish the various ingredients - like hydrogen and sulfur. So, now I'm wondering, what do these things really look like to us? If I'm traveling in the starship enterprise and happen upon the Eagle Nebula, what would it look like to me?

I realize that, and we've been down that road before. Present efforts in technology are no indication of the potential for those efforts. Missile defense is a smart move and needs to be invested in generously. That, and a dozen other defense oriented military developments. It only makes sense to spend more on military defense than offense, for a non-interventionist country, which is what I'd like to see my country become. Another argument for nuclear defense, in my mind. When everybody has a gun, the next logical step is a Kevlar vest. When everybody has one of those, then everybody wins. Particularly the bulk of the powerless, relatively innocent. Defense gaurantees...the continued sovereignty sell off. No, I don't think prearranged military obligations are good for anyone, except the country being protected. This needs to stop. You should earn your alliances per the given situation. These prearranged alliances promote blind obligation, conflicts with latter generations being forced to provide military support - serious, serious consequences - that they don't necessarily agree with. I don't think it's fair to obligate future generations of americans in a future we cannot predict. Particularly military conflict. The consequences are way too serious to be doing this. Defense of other nations should be earned by that nation's merit, not by some document signed in the distant past.

I respect your opinion and is certainly well stated. I guess my thinking is that concentrating on missle defense and border security - actual' date=' [i']for real [/i]national security - will achieve a similar end without endangering ourselves by putting a bull's eye on our country. Acting like world police and shoving people around - which is how it's interpreted no matter how noble we're actually trying to be - just keeps us hated and targeted. I agree with whole notion of ending nuclear proliferation and destroying what arsenol we all have. As long as we're just another number, one of many nations added to the chorus denouncing nuclear weapons and urging non-proliferation than I think we can eliminate being a target for destruction. But selling out our sovereignty to the UN, and retaining our power and authoritarian status while pushing nuclear non-proliferation inflames the east, motivates non-nuclear states to develop the technology to protect themselves against, what is perceived as, an imperial power. After all, I would expect an imperial superpower to deny my efforts to become a nuclear state. Kind of like how the reversal of our second amendment would be a good idea for an oppressive, totalitarian government.

I disagree with that first part, but I hope I'm wrong, I really do.

Sure. Why not? How many nuclear warheads going off on our soil would it take to defeat us? Surely you're not going to make the mistake of under estimating your enemy...they really love that. If they can coordinate 4 jets on 9/11, then they can coordinate other flying things too...things like nuclear weapons. We're a free society. We're not set up to stop that really on our own soil, except at the border. And we're not doing that either. Not trying to stir fear, just reality. Don't think we're unbeatable just because we got fancy war toys. Why is that so hard to understand? In WWII we murdered, slaughtered thousands if not millions. Our government had better behave that way when called for. Your government's actions against others is not even the most remote indication of their intent to you and your countrymen, so totalitarian-like or not, it's irrelevant. Torture, kidnapping, lying to their own people - all actions of humans defending their packs. These are techniques that work. That's why it's done. Terrorism hasn't "won" anything. Terrorism wins when you give them what they want. They don't win anything if we get all kooky and kill everybody on the planet. They don't win anything if we become despicable and inflame our malice. They only win something when they get what they want. What they want is for us to leave their precious soil. I have no issues with that win. It's a wish they will come to regret if it were really granted. This idea that they want us to convert to Islam and make our women subserviant and all is about as important to them as WMD's were important to Bush. They wouldn't be attacking us if we didn't violate their religious ground. It's about our presence there, not how we behave and live over here.

And I, as well as the rest of america, never heard anyone say "hey, let's get Halliburton rich!", but many would contend that was the sole purpose of war in Iraq. I don't think "invading Iraq for something to do" is what's going on in people's minds. People love drama. Look at TV. We're head over heels for drama. 9/11 was the best thing to happen to the media in a long time. They made a ton of money off of 9/11. All the drama and sensationalizing by the mainstream media is in response to the american thirst for such drama. All this "care" reporting in the wake of some tragedy...where they tell us about the victims and their personal life, and show their family's tears - none of which has anything to do with the news. It's about real life drama. I'm not convinced people are really that scared...I think they're just using the situation to justify being more dramatic. Which, I should add, isn't necessarily inappropriate, just disingenuously exaggerated.

Just like it was the media and the Clinton administration back in 1998 that initially claimed Iraq had WMD's. They were going on and on about it for some time which, if you remember, was GWB's campaign platform. Everyone seemed to forget ALL of that when GWB echoed that claim and proposed to do something about it. Plenty of hypocrisy to go around, which is what wears some of us down because we just see dems and repubs screwing the country with partisanship instead of being honest and doing their job. We should fire them. And Osama has referenced the black hawk incident in the past as an example of the american will to run away when things get tough...he was right.

Can I also add that labels are actually necessary? They serve a logical function in discussion of ideas. People do tend to think in patterns and there's a practical necessity in being able to reference a particular thought structure or ideology. Personally, I'd like to see us expand our confidence into more parties, and free ourselves from the "siege". I would think so. It causes us to compete and improve the quality of life and the species.

Actually they do though. What doesn't make sense to you, is the idea that some problems are for the government to fix and some are for free society to fix. Since we've disregarded respect for this 200 year old document, in recent decades, we've developed a psychology where we think laws should fix all problems. The laws protecting gangster rappers are the same laws that keep our country from corruption of state power over the individual. You have to keep in mind, that incrementalism is extremely powerful. You toss a few of these laws to make it easier to prosecute drug cartels today, then come back and visit in 50 years and see how the state has abused the absence of those laws. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Instead, we established our justice system with the intent that we'd rather let 10 guilty people go free than to punish 1 innocent person. We wanted a justice system that would give an innocent person the best chance to prove themselves - by putting the onus on the state to prove guilt - not the other way around. That's a powerful difference there. You don't appreciate it until you experience the supposed "justice" systems throughout the rest of the world. Keep in mind, there was thousands of years of historical reference at the time our constitution was drafted. It is quite a thoughtful document.

Pretty bold. That certainly isn't tap-dancing... I understand his reasoning in terms of taking out something precious of theirs to equal ours - trying to create a logical MAD scenario between us. The problem is, of course, that we would be taking out mostly innocent people that don't represent extremist militant Islamofascists and inflame an entire region into becoming extremist militant Islamofascists. That would be very stupid. But this brings up a solid point, in my opinion, supporting why no one should be doing any business with that region. With mature, grown up nations, we can trade and do business with a rationale that we understand and can reasonably deal with. With the trust fund states of the middle east and their Islamofascist murder clubs out of control as they are, we have no rational means of protecting ourselves when doing business with them. We can't bomb their countries, because of the mostly innocent populus that these people hide within. We can't invade these countries to deal with them hands-on, sorting through the innocent because then we become occupier and become a recruiting slogan for insurgency and end up fighting everyone instead of just the Islamoracist murder cowards. We can't, apparently, expect these trust fund states to deal with it themselves or else they would already be dealt with. We're damned every which way. We just have no means of protecting ourselves while retaining something of a moral code, when dealing with the anti-american, Islamic extremist middle east. I just don't see how we can stay there in any capacity. I just don't see why we should stay there in any capacity... wow..i sure drifted off topic huh...sorry

It's exactly that attitude of disrepect for that paper that has led to the mangled version we follow today. It's why men can die for their country at 18, but can't drink a beer until they're 21. To understand the reason for this regard and eternal reverance for that paper written 200 years, you have to consider the opposite. What if we didn't care a thing at all about what that piece of paper said? If we didn't, laws would mean nothing. There would be no law and no order. In order to not be ruled by certain men, but rather the whole public, we chose to be a nation of laws, not of men. A nation of laws can only work if we respect the process of how the laws are created and documented. We have agreed that paper will serve as the medium for documenting these laws and respecting that paper is how we respect the law of the land.

Fine with me, too. That's really a compliment as far as I'm concerned. That's another reason why I like (..here's comes the shameless plug..) Ron Paul. He, too, isn't one for political tap-dancing and makes the rest of the republicans look like the car salesmen they seem to be...

Awesome point. And then to think that Hillary and company actually slammed him for answering it, giving "absolutes"...how insulting considering your point here.

To be fair, I only hear this particular question when it's the democrats being beaten on. Of all of the threads in this Politics subforum, republicans are beaten about relentlessly and only now, blatantly picking on democrats, do I see this question come up - post number 6 no less. You are right, no doubt. But partisanship seems to be quite popular, even among those of us who claim not to be...

Well that's just it...the democrats have been trying real hard to be different from Republicans for years now concerning these things. Rather than admit that many techniques and ideas used in this "War on Terror" by republicans are shared by democrats, they've put their elections and power above the nation's interest by trying to find a way to be different. Criticizing everything the other party does always sets you up for this kind of hypocrisy. And with our media, they always get away with it. So, I'm not surprised their true colors have shone here...and I'm equally not surprised nobody really knows it. They'll probably continue to receive credit for opposing Bush on it as well...