ParanoiA

This has long been a problem here in KC. Last year, we topped over 100 murders before July, if I remember correctly. And these idiots are gauranteeing their dead brothers don't get justice. They started another program backed by the school system, where they gave out awards for the best "slogan" to fight back with. 'Break The Silence' won out but I haven't heard a single thing about it since. I guess my question is...where's the logic? I mean if you have dead white kids, killed by black kids that won't cooperate with police or whatever then at least I can see faint signs of logic there. But, when black kids are being killed and no one is cooperating, then how in the hell is that logical in the least? I don't get it.

Well, this is funny. Rush is calling him a traitor for declaring defeat. He's calling him Benedict Reid, or something like that. He wants him brought up on charges, since that's the left's tactic used against conservatives now - apparently referring to calls for Bush's impeachment and etc. But, even stretching it, could you really be a traitor for declaring defeat? He's not in a position for it to have any value is he?

Good point. And consider that what little footage I've seen in the media covering operations by the military, candid footage of soldiers working the streets, a proud respect for these people is shown by them. I believe the soldiers do see the value of human life here, even if those who sent them there do not.

Sounds right to me. What exactly did you take issue with in my statement? You haven't countered a single part of it... Oh and in the 21st century of technology and weaponry, I doubt you're going to get to many chances to enjoy the privilege of waiting to be attacked first before you pull your head out of the sand and quit pretending like your neighbor isn't actively plotting your death. With today's technology, there might not be enough of your country left to fight with... But hey, we'll certainly be wearing the white hats huh? Just nobody left to actually put them on their head...

Oh my poor disillusioned musician friends...anytime I hear a musician or actor say something about politics, they always sound like a naive 13 year old... Pink has one of the greatest voices and her song "family portrait" makes me cry - seriously. All the talent in the world. But why do people transfer song lyrics and political emotion to actual ideology? I mean, I'm all for writing about how war is bad, love is good, why can't we all get along....etc. It's supposed to be about emotion and emotion doesn't have to be logical in the least. That's why I don't associate logic with art, but rather emotion with art. But somehow, somewhere, our society has decided that this "emotion" expressed in art, should be an ideological template. Audiences cheering over a narrow minded, rehash of privileged teenage insight. But where's the logic? It's hard to find. Just like it's hard to find a musician with dirt under their nails...

You know, I used to defend the war on those grounds. Also, due to the other 9 resolution violations. But the kicker still is: Those were UN violations - not American violations. It was for the UN to pursue, not america. I have no problem with dropping the UN and turning our back on them for not having the balls to stick with their own demands - for not using power to back up their peace making abilities. But, our preemptive strike was about snatching WMD's in self defense. That's how it was sold. WMD's were smuggled and hidden in the half year advanced notice we gave Saddam and friends, so they weren't going to be found anyway. The Iraq invasion was promoted as a sole concern over WMD's...

Foodchain.. Why is it you think you were strong enough to deal with drugs but no one else is? Your posts bring up good points for people to consider, but have little to do with supporting drug illegality.

I don't know why. But I don't like thinking that covert agencies have procedures. I mean really. Doesn't the word "procedure", imply a repetitious behavior or system? Systems have loop holes. Repetitious systems are predictable and can be easily thwarted the better the system is followed. Do you ever hear about "procedures" with ninjas? Hell no. Ninjas don't have procedures, systems and etc. They have "training", but that's even covert. Ninjas don't mess around with "flowchart" thinking. I think that's why we suck at it and they're bad ass. Once a spy or something sees our flowchart procedure, we're done for...

No, that's not terror. That's immigration. We have people here who say similar things and they are called the Ku Klux Klan, Black Panthers...etc. Those who take land and fight for it are called human beings. Land doesn't belong to anyone - you have to take it. That's what countries are. No, bombing a country and killing over two thousand people without provocation is terror - Ie..pearl harbor. Bombing that country in return - to spare your own country's lives - is practical. Why should we risk a single american life for a conflict we didn't start? No..that's not terror. The claims weren't proven to be wrong. We have the receipts for the stuff we sold him - the only debate is where he put them or if he used them already. Could be some terror there, if there's any truth to it. Although none of it compares to Saddam's gassing of the Kurds. Nope..not terror. This same industry is responsible for building the stuff the world uses to live. The stuff we use to help other countries during catastrophes. The stuff we used to fight WWII. The stuff we use to physically trade goods between nations. The stuff you take for granted. The stuff you used to make that post... Nope, not terror. That's misguided prejudice or racism - imperialistic character. It's ugly but it's not terror. It's terror when those countries build bombs and target innocent people to perpetuate their "superiority" beliefs. We completely agree. Islamofacist racist murder clubs should not be allowed to continue this superiority exercise. We're not doing a very good job though. But then, neither has anyone else... Now that's terror. We took the land, like humans do, but we killed needlessly and irreverantly. Nasty chapter in history, that's for sure. Edit: Something I'm confused about...What about people who choose guns over food at the expense of their starving citizens? What's that called? Also, what's it called when people spend the majority of their energy on killing other people who "deserve" it, rather than spending that energy on feeding themselves and building things?

Not true. If we didn't go to war against the Axis powers lots of more people could have died. By not acting, you can cause more death as well. Why do you think Europe was so adimant in getting us involved in WWII? I'm sorry, but these blanket statements about "no war ever" and "nothing gets solved with war" is just naive and wrong. It may not be admirable and it may not be a good idea 99% of the time - but it does solve things, and it is necessary sometimes. You can make plenty of arguments against war without making these fallacious statements. This is the same thing that has happened to us all over the middle east. We align ourselves with some faction that shares our desired end and support them (ie..Osama Bin Laden). Then they become our enemy years later - then everyone says how stupid we are and how we trained them and sold them stuff and blah blah blah...(again...Osama Bin Laden) How many times do we need to train and sell stuff to future enemies before we stop training and selling stuff to future enemies? And indirectly murder mainly civilians. Great plan. Sorry, but war is more humane. I'd rather kill some civilians rather than only civilians... I recommend Phi's ninjas. We suck at covert stuff.

I can do the falsetto. Bass is our weak section...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267340,00.html Just thought this story was funny. When people overreact to this extent, it reminds me I live in America. Can you imagine how free you aren't when running for office? The land of the free, unless you're in politics, then anything you even joke about - every minute of everyday - can and will be distorted and exaggerated about you out of the original context and into some new context. I don't think I could handle the lack of candid speech - free speech - involved with becoming a politician. Well, and then I hate most politicians, so there's that too...

It's not like every shiny shoe politician out there isn't capitalizing off of this with thier cliche "our hearts and prayers are with the families of the victims". Can't someone write a line that's at least a little different? Maybe change the order of the words around or something? At least sound like they're actually concerned, instead of addressing it out of PC obligation. So, I have more respect for Phil who actually has something to say, a real thought - his own thought. I believe he actually gives a shit. Even if he is wrong. I can't say the same for Hillary and GWB...

I guess Rush was right afterall. He's been saying for months, if not years, that Democrats own defeat. That they don't want to win and can't wait to declare defeat. Just a few months in majority, and here we are. I think I've been fairly clear that the currect plan isn't working, although I don't see any reason to roast anyone over it since terrorism is a complicated issue that no nation on this earth has been able to solve. I can disagree with adminstration without the pretention that usually comes with it. But why in the hell do some of us want to lose so badly? Isn't that overcompensating disagreement with the war?

So can you tell us any more about this single bomb you're predicting? One nuclear bomb could pale any of those statistics. You're refusing to accept a more than plausible scenario. The dynamics of terrorism are not to be under estimated. They made an example of us already, in that regard. Ah..now you're adding qualifiers and narrowing down the statement. That was precisely my point. Glad you got it. And I agree. I'm disappointed in our approach so far. Iraq is a bitter pill. OBL is free as a bird and I'm not sure we're even trying to find him all that intensely. I like the analogy about the redneck killing flies with a shotgun. That really sums it up nice to me.

And our lives. (And communism still has its rich) No, it's what we call a good deal. Both sides get something good out of it. It takes quite a selfish person not to see the sense in that. Yeah, gee I wonder...it's almost like if they had done the work clearing the jungle and growing food themselves it could have been even more beneficial. Funny, a capitalistic country had to do it. It's almost like capitalism might be a really cool economic system.... That's quite an impressive point. I'm obviously outmatched by your intellect. Gee..it's almost like they should try capitalism too. Oh, and maybe choosing food over weapons as a priority for their governments. I'll tell you what. If I don't throw my food away, will they not starve? Look, I don't think capitalism is perfect, or even ultimately good for the human race. But it's better than the alternatives. What makes you think that life is supposed to be all smooth and easy going? Life is hard man. And capitalism taps into the human spirit and maximizes a person's potential and drive. Good things happen when you do that. Greed can ugly it up, but all systems have bad symptoms, and I believe greed is the preferred problem over the others. Like Herbert Hoover said, the only thing wrong with capitalism is capitalists. And where are you expecting to get? This is a discussion and debate forum. Agreeing on stuff is no fun.

Now this is great. Mind telling us how you foresee the future? How did you manage to find out what's going to happen the next 50 years? You know, you should be rich by now with that kind of prophecy - a nice edge for the stock market. One nuclear bomb could kill more people than have died in the US in the last 50 years.

Ok, I'm going to try this for the 4th time. If you two still don't get it, then I'm giving up. Your first sentence may be true, but is NOT what I said. Please read carefully. Do not add or subtract to it. BECAUSE THERE IS A RISE IN TERRORISM DOES NOT MEAN YOUR TACTICS ARE WRONG. That fact alone, is not a logical conclusion of incorrect tactics. That's it. No more. No less. If you're going to use that logic to conclude GWB's plan sucks, then ANY plan that involves fighting back in ANY way, sucks. When you fight back, terrorism will increase. No matter how you fight back, this will happen. Now...the RATE of this increase in terrorism is certainly a logical point. If one plan creates a lower RATE than another, then that's something to look at and consider. But to include "terrorism has increased" in your list of reasons why GWB's plan sucks, to me, is shortsighted and thoughtless. When you fight back - even with SkepticLance's superior plan - terrorism will increase. You know this. So, why keep using that flawed logic to point out GWB's failures?

I agree. I keep saying that. My question is on the logic that increases in terrorism is indicative of a bad plan or is a reason not to fight back. It's not. That's my only point. That point matters because you and many others keep using that logic to point out the problems with the administration's approach so far. But that logic doesn't work, because ANY plan that involves fighting back is going to increase terrorism and recruitment. I agree with your ideas and alternatives. But if you're just going to point at increases in terrorism as your supporting argument, then you're leaving out a ton of dynamics that are actually at the heart of the problem. Your own plan is going to increase terrorism too. So to use that logic is silly. In other words, GWB's plan sucks because of X, Y and Z - not because "terrorism has increased". That's thoughtless and inaccurate. Does that make sense?

So, is this your only issue with a partial birth abortion ban? Or do you want to see partial birth abortion completely legal irregardless of any pregnancy complication?

Actually, that's not true. Terrorism has the potential to take thousands and thousands of lives in mere moments, depending on the attack. 9/11 proved that point. The potential is there for total destruction. The nation states that support terror are also dangerously close to nuclear status. You really believe in the next 50 years they won't achieve it? Do you believe they won't try to use a nuclear weapon in the next 50 years? Rapes and muggings pale in comparison to that dynamic...

No, I'm not. I want you to come up with a term that can be used to reference our struggle with terrorism for use in conversation. This is a logistical requirement for humans to socialize efficiently. What should that term be, sensitive to the issue of terrorist "empowerment" with vocabulary? Nah, there's no reason not to change it now. In fact, we'll probably end up with a democrat this election so it would make sense and perhaps aid the ninja operation if they think we're changing our whole approach.

Your post does not answer my question. Subterfuge and surgical strikes will also inflame the enemy and cause massive recruitment efforts. Terrorism will increase as you succeed. Eventually, you will deal force onto them, and when you do, it will piss them off and help recruitment efforts. Now, the recruitment rate will pale in comparison to the "war". I don't deny that, and I also don't have an issue with your plan. Sounds good to me. Better than the mess we have now. But, that still doesn't stop the increase in recruitment. Again...why do you think that increases in terrorism and recruitment means you shouldn't fight back? If you're going to use the argument of terrorism growth when fighting back, then anything less than surrender will not work. That's the point I'm trying to make. Quit using that as a logical argument against the war, because it's still a logical argument against any plan that involves fighting back.

That doesn't sound very intellectually honest. I get the whole "tag line" sound byte thing, but that's the case with any label on an issue as divisive as this. You're still refusing to admit that we need a word to describe the effort - no matter how worthless you think the effort has been exercised at this point. So, what word, or word combination will still be effective for using as a reference to this conflict/war/issue/whatever and not "empower" terrorist recruitment efforts?