ACU Sends Congratulations, Thanks to Massachusetts Chief Justice for Making Big Bush

[anomaly]

Re: ACU Sends Congratulations, Thanks to Massachusetts Chief Justice for Making Big B

I wrote a while back that if one feels sufficiently threatened by a situation that could be leading up to a mugging, one does not wait for an attack before taking evasive action or protective measures. I subscribe to the old adage attributed to founding father Benjamin Franklin, "A stitch in time saves nine."

There was no evidence that Allende would negotiate and cooperate with the Soviets. So you are saying, though, that America's interests are more important and America's opnion is somehow more valid than that of another country?

You picked the perfect case. During the Korean and Viet Nam conflicts, prisoners of war taken by the Chinese and North Vietnamese somehow wound up in Russia. Spend a little time surfing and you will find the evidence.

But, if you want to look at history once more, you'll see that there was much animosity between the two countries. Reds do not neccesarily flock together. Castro came to power through a 'red' revolution, and Sweden is 'red' (they are socialist), and yet I see no great bond (or any for that matter) between these countries.

Do I at least get a compliment for deducing the color of your proclivities?

Well, that's not very hard, is it? I'll really give you that compliment, though, because you stopped trying to tell me about communism and Marxism. Thanks.

I do not maintain that sweatshops are a panacea for those in foreign countries who work in them. However, considering the alternative, most of those folks are far, far better off than before.

How are they? Before (long before) people in most countries survived on subsistence farming. They worked just hard enough to survive, and spent the rest of their time however they wanted. Seems pretty good to me. Now these same people work long hours for bad pay in a sweatshop? Explain to me how exactly that is 'better off'. You, my friend, are better off, not they. People who are better off today can be located in Mexico. The Zapatistas. They have set up an autonomous zone inside of Mexico, and in it people have a truly democratic economy.

First, a lesson in geography. Russia is not a European country.

Next. In the matter of consequence, if the rest of those countries never improved their relations with the US, how would the US be harmed?

First, Russia is partly in Europe. I believe the line is around Moscow, so I would consider Russia a European country, since its capital is in Europe (all be it that the bulk of the land is east of Moscow). And considering that the countries I named are part of the EU (very powerful economically) the US can be harmed. Also, it's always good to be an ally of Russia. They are still the second most powerful country in the world.

Those you mention fall into two categories; US residents or Non US residents.

Those who reside outside the US reside in countries in which economic opportunities either do not exist or are tightly controlled by a government that fears its subjects and strives to keep them powerless. As communications from the 'outside' world and imported goods filter into the local consumer market, conditions are improving.

Explain to me then why the landless peasants of Brazil are anti-capitalists, not anti-gov't. The reality is that these countries have few workers rights, and few regulations. This means that corporations can come there to get cheap labor and then the countries economy is able to atleast avoid collapse and its workers have a job. It really doesn't help the workers, though. For them, it just means they're able to buy some bread. But I am amazed at how great you and Gabo feel life is in a third world country. Perhaps you should go there since its so great. But if the country is bad, it's never the fault of the capitalist system, it's the gov't (or the regulations, or the people). When will you people wake up and realize that the capitalist system needs this inequality to survive. As long as capitalism exists, it will always be this way.

I applaud your admission regarding WMD. Think in these terms. Afghanistan was first, Iraq was second, Libya caved in without a shot, Syria and Egypt are mellowing, Iran is simmering, North Korea is negotiating, in their oriental way, and the others are far less boisterous and more cooperative than they have ever been.

The democrats thought there were WMDs, obviously. I mean, they did vote for it. But why did they? False intelligence is to blame. Bush pressured the CIA to come up with something against Iraq. There are even some in the CIA who say that after 9/11, Bush desperately wanted some intel suggesting Saddam was involved. So perhps it is time for you to stop applauding yourself, and realize that Bush came into office in 2000 wanting war with Iraq. Again, even if Saddam did have weapons, there is no evidence to suggest that he would use them. After his army was destroyed 12 years ago? Come on, even Saddam isn't that stupid.

Who knows what Saddam Hussein would do. The Al Qaeda were well financed, well armed, well equipped, well provisioned, and well trained. So were the 9-11 terrorists. They all were hit men for the 'mob'. Iraq was in the shadows.
UN pressure? In the twelve years following the Desert Storm cease fire, the UN passed seventeen resolutions requiring Iraq to change its behavior. Saddam Hussein spit in the eye of the UN seventeen times.

Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, so please don't say 'they were in the shadows'. No they weren't! He obviously got rid of his weapons. he only thing Saddam didn't do was stop his murders. But he had slowed down by the time we invaded. Perhaps he was finally beginning. I can't believe that you cons actually still support the war. Answer me this, if the CIA provided accurate intel, and you knew there were no WMDs before we invaded, would you still support the war?

I certainly hope so. I don't like the way his predessor let tin horn despots yank his chain while he did nothing about it. 9-11 was the culmination of no response to repeated terror attacks against US interests.

Again, I can't believe you'd mention invading Iraq and 9/11 in the same breath. And it was all Clinton's fault? Now, I'm no fan of Bill, but I don't think he is to blame for 9/11. I don't blame anyone fori t except the terrorists who did it. The problem I have is with how Bush used fear from 9/11 to attack Iraq. That may not be a flat out lie, but it certainly wasn't the truth.

Since he beat his opponent twice, what does that say for Gore and Kerry?

It says that only 50% of Americans actually voted (talk about democracy!) and the majority of the ones who did voted for 'moral issues' or something stupid like that. It says that the American people were a largely ignorant bunch at the polls. Even today, 3 1/2 months after election day, I bet 40% of Americans will say that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. That's how Bush won.

 

[Fantasea]

Re: ACU Sends Congratulations, Thanks to Massachusetts Chief Justice for Making Big B

Originally Posted by Fantasea

I wrote a while back that if one feels sufficiently threatened by a situation that could be leading up to a mugging, one does not wait for an attack before taking evasive action or protective measures. I subscribe to the old adage attributed to founding father Benjamin Franklin, "A stitch in time saves nine."

There was no evidence that Allende would negotiate and cooperate with the Soviets. So you are saying, though, that America's interests are more important and America's opnion is somehow more valid than that of another country?

If you mean that Allende and the Russkies didn’t show up with their arms around each other on the front page of the New York Times, then I guess there was no evidence. However, what makes you think you are privy to the PDBs?

Originally Posted by Fantasea
You picked the perfect case. During the Korean and Viet Nam conflicts, prisoners of war taken by the Chinese and North Vietnamese somehow wound up in Russia. Spend a little time surfing and you will find the evidence.

But, if you want to look at history once more, you'll see that there was much animosity between the two countries. Reds do not neccesarily flock together. Castro came to power through a 'red' revolution, and Sweden is 'red' (they are socialist), and yet I see no great bond (or any for that matter) between these countries.

Eyewash and whitewash are tools long used by the Reds in their efforts to mask the truth. The difference between Sweden and Cuba is the difference between day and night.

Originally Posted by Fantasea
Do I at least get a compliment for deducing the color of your proclivities?

Well, that's not very hard, is it? I'll really give you that compliment, though, because you stopped trying to tell me about communism and Marxism. Thanks.

I did?

Originally Posted by Fantasea
I do not maintain that sweatshops are a panacea for those in foreign countries who work in them. However, considering the alternative, most of those folks are far, far better off than before.

How are they? Before (long before) people in most countries survived on subsistence farming. They worked just hard enough to survive, and spent the rest of their time however they wanted. Seems pretty good to me. Now these same people work long hours for bad pay in a sweatshop? Explain to me how exactly that is 'better off'. You, my friend, are better off, not they. People who are better off today can be located in Mexico. The Zapatistas. They have set up an autonomous zone inside of Mexico, and in it people have a truly democratic economy.

If there was not a significant improvement in their standard of living, compared to what it was, why would their government permit these jobs to exist? If working in these places did not provide economic improvement, why would these people take the jobs? No doubt, as time passes, these people will find ways to improve their working conditions.

Originally Posted by Fantasea
First, a lesson in geography. Russia is not a European country.

Next. In the matter of consequence, if the rest of those countries never improved their relations with the US, how would the US be harmed?

First, Russia is partly in Europe. I believe the line is around Moscow, so I would consider Russia a European country, since its capital is in Europe (all be it that the bulk of the land is east of Moscow). And considering that the countries I named are part of the EU (very powerful economically) the US can be harmed. Also, it's always good to be an ally of Russia. They are still the second most powerful country in the world.

All the maps I have seen clearly show that Russia does not extend onto the European continent. Moscow is inland, hundreds of miles from the border.

Although I disagree that EU members can harm the US, today’s AOL stories feature one stating that during the President’s current trip to the NATO countries, several, France among them, have softened their stance and are pledging assistance with Iraq. Perhaps the French are having trouble finding drinkers for their wine since US imports have gone way down and would like to reverse the trend.

Russia needs the US far more than the US needs Russia.

Originally Posted by Fantasea
Those you mention fall into two categories; US residents or Non US residents.

Those who reside outside the US reside in countries in which economic opportunities either do not exist or are tightly controlled by a government that fears its subjects and strives to keep them powerless. As communications from the 'outside' world and imported goods filter into the local consumer market, conditions are improving.

Explain to me then why the landless peasants of Brazil are anti-capitalists, not anti-gov't. The reality is that these countries have few workers rights, and few regulations. This means that corporations can come there to get cheap labor and then the countries economy is able to atleast avoid collapse and its workers have a job. It really doesn't help the workers, though. For them, it just means they're able to buy some bread. But I am amazed at how great you and Gabo feel life is in a third world country. Perhaps you should go there since its so great. But if the country is bad, it's never the fault of the capitalist system, it's the gov't (or the regulations, or the people). When will you people wake up and realize that the capitalist system needs this inequality to survive. As long as capitalism exists, it will always be this way.

Governments that do not educate their people keep them ignorant for a reason. The less they know and understand, the easier they can be controlled.

Any country flourishes if its inhabitants’ inalienable rights to freedom of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is not suppressed by government.

Originally Posted by Fantasea
I applaud your admission regarding WMD. Think in these terms. Afghanistan was first, Iraq was second, Libya caved in without a shot, Syria and Egypt are mellowing, Iran is simmering, North Korea is negotiating, in their oriental way, and the others are far less boisterous and more cooperative than they have ever been.

The democrats thought there were WMDs, obviously. I mean, they did vote for it. But why did they? False intelligence is to blame. Bush pressured the CIA to come up with something against Iraq. There are even some in the CIA who say that after 9/11, Bush desperately wanted some intel suggesting Saddam was involved. So perhps it is time for you to stop applauding yourself, and realize that Bush came into office in 2000 wanting war with Iraq. Again, even if Saddam did have weapons, there is no evidence to suggest that he would use them. After his army was destroyed 12 years ago? Come on, even Saddam isn't that stupid.

You as much as agreed that, prior to the commencement of hostilities, all of the UN members believed that Iraq possessed WMD. Remember? You said you were unable to cite any prominent public figures who disagreed with that.

Stupid? No, not stupid. France had him convinced that the US was only bluffing. That is, until Operation Shock & Awe broke loose around him.

Originally Posted by Fantasea
Who knows what Saddam Hussein would do. The Al Qaeda were well financed, well armed, well equipped, well provisioned, and well trained. So were the 9-11 terrorists. They all were hit men for the 'mob'. Iraq was in the shadows.
UN pressure? In the twelve years following the Desert Storm cease fire, the UN passed seventeen resolutions requiring Iraq to change its behavior. Saddam Hussein spit in the eye of the UN seventeen times. ]/quote]

Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, so please don't say 'they were in the shadows'. No they weren't! He obviously got rid of his weapons. he only thing Saddam didn't do was stop his murders. But he had slowed down by the time we invaded. Perhaps he was finally beginning. I can't believe that you cons actually still support the war. Answer me this, if the CIA provided accurate intel, and you knew there were no WMDs before we invaded, would you still support the war?

Saddam Hussein was convinced that his game of hide and seek could go on forever. After all, it was still going strong after twelve years. Why should he cave in to the UN, a toothless tiger?

I don’t believe that anything positive comes out of hypothetical answers to hypothetical questions. However, I believe that the Clinton Administration declaration that there must be a regime change in Iraq was well followed by the succeeding Congress. Freeing more than twenty-five million Iraqis from the yoke of tyranny was a worthwhile result.

This response exceeded the permissable length. This is part 1. Part 2 follows.

 

[Fantasea]

This is part 2 of a 2 part response.
Quote = anomoly

Originally Posted by Fantasea
I certainly hope so. I don't like the way his predessor let tin horn despots yank his chain while he did nothing about it. 9-11 was the culmination of no response to repeated terror attacks against US interests.

Again, I can't believe you'd mention invading Iraq and 9/11 in the same breath. And it was all Clinton's fault? Now, I'm no fan of Bill, but I don't think he is to blame for 9/11. I don't blame anyone fori t except the terrorists who did it. The problem I have is with how Bush used fear from 9/11 to attack Iraq. That may not be a flat out lie, but it certainly wasn't the truth.

I have no control over what you wish to believe. Bear in mind that the US fled from Somolia when its nose was bloodied, did not snatch Bin Laden when offered up by the Sudanese, did nothing to pursue terrorists after the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, did nothing about the terrorists bombings of embassies in Africa, did nothing about the Khobar Towers bombing, did nothing about the bombing of the USS Cole. This set the stage for a bigger and better terrorist attack which turned out to be 9-11.

Originally Posted by Fantasea
Since he beat his opponent twice, what does that say for Gore and Kerry?

It says that only 50% of Americans actually voted (talk about democracy!) and the majority of the ones who did voted for 'moral issues' or something stupid like that. It says that the American people were a largely ignorant bunch at the polls. Even today, 3 1/2 months after election day, I bet 40% of Americans will say that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. That's how Bush won.

Perhaps you prefer the single candidate elections that were the hallmark of communist countries. Or maybe the Iraqi 'free' elections in which Saddam Hussein regularly received 99.99% of the votes.

Since registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans, in order for the president to be reelected by the margin he achieved, millions of Democrats had to cross over and vote for him. In this country, does one have to explain the whys and wherefores of one’s vote?

Since you believe that the American electorate is largely ignorant, are you suggesting some kind of test to qualify before one may vote?

 

[anomaly]

Re: ACU Sends Congratulations, Thanks to Massachusetts Chief Justice for Making Big B

For the sake of my own time, I will not respond to debates that don't seem to be going anywhere.

If there was not a significant improvement in their standard of living, compared to what it was, why would their government permit these jobs to exist? If working in these places did not provide economic improvement, why would these people take the jobs? No doubt, as time passes, these people will find ways to improve their working conditions.

Such faith in the 'freedom' of capitalism! First off, most governments anymore don't "permit" jobs to exist, as the political continuesto lose control over the economic. These jobs give money to the corporations as an increase in profit is inevitable from cheap labor. The countries' economy goes up thanks to exports. Judging by these two facts alone, one could make an argument that capitalism is 'great'. But to do that would be to ignore the majority of people, the workers, who suffer (unless the gov't has labor regulations, as in the USA). People take these jobs instead of farming or something else for 2 reasons: 1, companies have largely eliminated the farmland by building on it. 2, the workers then need work, as work gives them money, and they of course need money to survive. It usually doesn't give workers enough to live on, that is, enough for food, water, shelter, clothes, and any needs their family may have. This is the true injustice about capitalism, we in the rich global north feel capitalism's cozy benefits while those in the global south feel none of it. There is no such thing as trickle down economics, only a trickle up.

Although I disagree that EU members can harm the US, today’s AOL stories feature one stating that during the President’s current trip to the NATO countries, several, France among them, have softened their stance and are pledging assistance with Iraq. Perhaps the French are having trouble finding drinkers for their wine since US imports have gone way down and would like to reverse the trend.

Do you no nothing of the various boycotts of US goods many activists have started? These have not effected the mighty USA yet, but very well could.

Governments that do not educate their people keep them ignorant for a reason. The less they know and understand, the easier they can be controlled.

Any country flourishes if its inhabitants’ inalienable rights to freedom of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is not suppressed by government.

Are you saying that these landless peasants are ignorant?? Their land was not taken by the government, it was a multinational corporation that stole it. If countries that allow teaching are never 'ignorant' (in your pathetic mind, that obviously means leftist), then why is Europe, where in many cases the average person is more educated than the average American, more leftist that America?

You as much as agreed that, prior to the commencement of hostilities, all of the UN members believed that Iraq possessed WMD. Remember? You said you were unable to cite any prominent public figures who disagreed with that.

Actually, I said I knew of few US politicians who said Iraq had no WMDs. I never mentioned the UN. But I do know that virtually all of Europe (excluding Britain) was against this invasion, not to mention all of the Muslim world.

Saddam Hussein was convinced that his game of hide and seek could go on forever. After all, it was still going strong after twelve years. Why should he cave in to the UN, a toothless tiger?

Did you know we bombed the Iraqis several times during those twelve years (as reported by Michael Moore in Farenheit 9/11, and yes, I know, only 95% of that movie was truth...also, I watched Farenhype 9/11, the conservative critique, and it talked about every single thing wrong with Farenheit and never once mentioned this claim of Moore)? Did you know that the Iraqis were starved by numerous economic sanctions thanks to the UN? If Saddam couldn't even feed his country, why would we think he had weapons? The collective might of the UN and US had brought Saddam to his knees, he had no chance of using any weapons (if, now imagine, he actually had any) since the UN and US kept a close watch of him. And how quickly do you really feel a third-world country with a terrible ecnomy can build up and kind of army, let alone WMDs? Frankly, we royally whipped Iraq's *** in Desert Storm. People were starving, Iraq was strugling mightily, and what do we do? We bomb the hell out of them. Seems good to me. And Bush blatantly lied to get us into Iraq, not only about WMDs (not exactly a lie, but Bush did pressure the CIA to give some intelligence against Iraq), but he simply lied when he tried to connect Saddam to AL-Qaeda (there was never any intel about that).

 

[anomaly]

This is part 2 of a 2 part response.
Quote = anomoly

I have no control over what you wish to believe. Bear in mind that the US fled from Somolia when its nose was bloodied, did not snatch Bin Laden when offered up by the Sudanese, did nothing to pursue terrorists after the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, did nothing about the terrorists bombings of embassies in Africa, did nothing about the Khobar Towers bombing, did nothing about the bombing of the USS Cole. This set the stage for a bigger and better terrorist attack which turned out to be 9-11.

I do not blame bush (or any American) for what happened on 9/11. The fact is, it simply surprised us that terrorists would pull off such a massive and daring effort. I simply blame Bush for his post-9/11 actions (namely Iraq). There are things we could have done, but at that time they didn't seem right. Remember that we gave weapons to Osama and the Afghan resistance in their war against the Soviets, and we armed Iraq in their war against Iran (weapons they later tried to use on us in Desert Storm). American foreign policy since the 1960s has never been too sensible.

Perhaps you prefer the single candidate elections that were the hallmark of communist countries. Or maybe the Iraqi 'free' elections in which Saddam Hussein regularly received 99.99% of the votes.

Since registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans, in order for the president to be reelected by the margin he achieved, millions of Democrats had to cross over and vote for him. In this country, does one have to explain the whys and wherefores of one’s vote?

Since you believe that the American electorate is largely ignorant, are you suggesting some kind of test to qualify before one may vote?

Did you know that most
Americans are not registered with any party? Your logic is completely flawed. I support no one-party system, nor do I support the current two party system. I support the idea of a multiparty system with proportional representation is the National House and Senate. A two-party system neccesarily has the two parties drifting ever to the center, so that only the 'majority' (educated or not) gets represented. Minority views deserve minority representation, as opposed to none at all. I believe that American citizens are a slave to the mass-media. They think what the mass-media (run by several large corporations, mind you) thinks. This explains why Americans are largely ignorant as regards to socialism and communism. European democracy works better, usually than American (atleast in France and Germany, unfortuantely Britain is very similar to the USA). Networks are required to give a 'moderate' view (and moderate is drifting right). They stress whatever emotional crap America wants to see (usually patriotism, or the greatness of America, or something 'powerful' such as conquest as in Iraq). Democracy is not at fault here, it is only the American system which is.

 

[ShamMol]

Re: ACU Sends Congratulations, Thanks to Massachusetts Chief Justice for Making Big B

I believe that American citizens are a slave to the mass-media. They think what the mass-media (run by several large corporations, mind you) thinks. This explains why Americans are largely ignorant as regards to socialism and communism. European democracy works better, usually than American (atleast in France and Germany, unfortuantely Britain is very similar to the USA). Networks are required to give a 'moderate' view (and moderate is drifting right). They stress whatever emotional crap America wants to see (usually patriotism, or the greatness of America, or something 'powerful' such as conquest as in Iraq). Democracy is not at fault here, it is only the American system which is.

Now that is ignorant right there. The majority of Americans wish that they could get straight information and would make informed decisions if they could get it. but you are right in saying that mass-media is at fault, but only partly.

The fact is that while the mass-media likes to put out its own message (such as Fox) others try and present the news like it is. You have to learn to listen to those organizations, like the New York Times, like CNN (the news, not the talking heads like Anderson).

You made an interesting point that the media stresses patriotism, but that is only because otherwise they wouldn't make any money during war time. During that time, all americans become extremely patriotic and they don't want to see something otherwise and will turn you off if you are not (hypothetical news reporter).'

But you are wrong in saying that networks REQUIRE their correspondents to present one side fo the information. Only fox does that with its daily memo and no other one does to our knowledge (and it would be found out pretty damn quickly).

While Europe has a more socialist/atheist spin to their politics, they aren't that much different in the sense that they have the same roots in the traditional democracy. I do profess to know little about it, but in theory alone, they are exactly the same (except for elections, where America is compeltely more cutthroat). While our country might be more conservative (unfortunately) than Europe as a whole, that doesn't mean that the political systems are different.

 

[anomaly]

Re: ACU Sends Congratulations, Thanks to Massachusetts Chief Justice for Making Big B

Now that is ignorant right there. The majority of Americans wish that they could get straight information and would make informed decisions if they could get it. but you are right in saying that mass-media is at fault, but only partly.

The fact is that while the mass-media likes to put out its own message (such as Fox) others try and present the news like it is. You have to learn to listen to those organizations, like the New York Times, like CNN (the news, not the talking heads like Anderson).

You made an interesting point that the media stresses patriotism, but that is only because otherwise they wouldn't make any money during war time. During that time, all americans become extremely patriotic and they don't want to see something otherwise and will turn you off if you are not (hypothetical news reporter).'

But you are wrong in saying that networks REQUIRE their correspondents to present one side fo the information. Only fox does that with its daily memo and no other one does to our knowledge (and it would be found out pretty damn quickly).

While Europe has a more socialist/atheist spin to their politics, they aren't that much different in the sense that they have the same roots in the traditional democracy. I do profess to know little about it, but in theory alone, they are exactly the same (except for elections, where America is compeltely more cutthroat). While our country might be more conservative (unfortunately) than Europe as a whole, that doesn't mean that the political systems are different.

A fellow leftist! Finally (seeing as I've been debating with a rightist in this forum for some time)! About networks requiring correspondents to report one side of info, I'm actually right. Do not think of it in our American political terms, liberal and conservative, since most networks are pretty much in the 'center' of American politics (which happens to be a bit to the right, the center that is). i'm talking about the American news media reporting the capitalist view of things. We always here how much our economy happens to be booming, but do we ever hear at what human consequence this is happening? Do we ever hear of the gross inequality caused by capitalism in this world? Do we ever even hear communism being described without the mention of a dictator? No. Never. That is what I'm talking about, and it undeniably happens. About the EU media, I'm not familiar with it (I am after all, an American), but I imagine it is completely similar, perhaps a bit more leftist friendly. And Americans, wake up! The information you crave is out there (or rather 'in' here). It is to the internet we must turn. The internet is abounding with truth, but at the same time massive propaganda. Here's a pretty good site if you want the truth about American politics: cursor.org .