Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Church spreading aids
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 94 of 143 (28321)
01-02-2003 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Zhimbo
01-02-2003 3:11 PM


I'm not talking about just this thread, Zhimbo. I believe my references to "this board" made that obvious.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 01-02-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Zhimbo, posted 01-02-2003 3:11 PM Zhimbo has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 101 of 143 (28757)
01-09-2003 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by metatron
01-05-2003 10:10 AM


Hey Metatron,
Speaking of babies, it was reported yesterday on American cable news that UK Channel 4 is going to broadcast stills of a Chinese "performance artist" eating the flesh of a stillborn child.
I'm astounded.
Culture? Civility?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by metatron, posted 01-05-2003 10:10 AM metatron has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by metatron, posted 01-10-2003 1:56 PM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 104 of 143 (28940)
01-12-2003 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by metatron
01-10-2003 1:56 PM


No I don't necessarily object to violence on television, especially on the news. But I think it is a sign of a degenerate society to eat baby flesh on television to boost ratings.
By the way, weren't you going to explain how killing unborn babies makes a society "civilized"? Do people in your "civilized society" eat your babies with tea?
And as for Texas, if a court has the authority to lock somebody in prison for the rest of their life, the same court has the authority to take away that life. If you believe courts do not have the authority to deprive a convicted murderer of his life, then by what right does the court lock them up for 75 years? For 20 years? Overnight? What about speeding tickets? Either the court has authority or it does not. Apparently you think it does not.
Please. So let's review. If somebody kills a few little girls, and through due process of law is convicted by a jury of his peers, you think that person should not be executed. But, if we choose not to pay to have other people's unborn children killed, we are "uncivilized"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by metatron, posted 01-10-2003 1:56 PM metatron has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 105 of 143 (28942)
01-12-2003 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by metatron
01-05-2003 10:10 AM


quote:
Nobodies asking america to pay out gene we are asking america not to use economic and political pressure to inflict their backward religious preconceptions on the world.
Ah. So if one of those Pacific Rim countries decided to, oh I don't know, gas half of their population, we shouldn't apply any "economic pressure" because it would "inflict" our "backward religious preconceptions" upon them.
And by the way, you might want to check your sources. Or at least read them.
This is the link you left:
Attention Required! | Cloudflare
This is a quote from that site explaining the political background, emphasis mine:
quote:
BACKGROUND: In 1994, 179 nations signed an agreement in Cairo, Egypt, that guaranteed individuals around the world the right to make their own childbearing decisions, and that called on governments to provide them with the resources they needed to make those decisions.
IE, the United States Government (using my tax dollars) pays for murder of the unborn. If I don't believe in abortion, why should I help fund it?
And I am funding it, not only in the US but in those Pacific Rim countries. In 2002 US$34 MILLION of America's taxdollars was to be spent on infanticide in foreign nations. Instead, thanks to the Bush Administration, it is going to USAID. My hat is off to them.
And you might consider that it is our money to spend as we please.
By the way, here's a liberal whining about it:
Page Not Found
And it goes deeper. It turns out that those $34 million were to be used partly by China in FORCED STERILIZATIONS and FORCED ABORTIONS. The President does not want to pay for that. Unfortunately the other countries, including the UK, seem to be just fine with it.
Here's the letter:
Page Not Found
[This message has been edited by gene90, 01-12-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by metatron, posted 01-05-2003 10:10 AM metatron has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 106 of 143 (28943)
01-12-2003 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by metatron
01-11-2003 8:53 AM


quote:
No wonder George Bush Jnr grew up to be such a twisted phychotic.
A "phychotic", that would be what, a diseased plant?
At least Bush isn't eating babies on television, eh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by metatron, posted 01-11-2003 8:53 AM metatron has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by metatron, posted 01-12-2003 10:36 PM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 108 of 143 (28986)
01-13-2003 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by metatron
01-12-2003 10:36 PM


quote:
Have you noticed (as your president and military obviously havent) that Al-Qaeda is recruited, financed and organised from Saudi Arabia?
Yeah I have. But the Saudis aren't making weapons of mass destruction, are they? By the way, what do you propose we do about it? You're opposed to ousting Saddam so you support invading Saudi Arabia?
quote:
Wake up Gene the Bush family are risking world peace for personal financial gain.
World peace? LOL! What was in those cannisters the cops found in a London apartment last week? If your idea of world peace means that terrorists are going to be flying planes into office towers, gassing the Tube, and eventually setting off low-yield Iraqi nukes in New York, I say screw it. You can go out there and do your job and not whine about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by metatron, posted 01-12-2003 10:36 PM metatron has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Andya Primanda, posted 01-13-2003 11:05 AM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 111 of 143 (28990)
01-13-2003 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Andya Primanda
01-13-2003 11:05 AM


Hi Andya, I'm glad you're joining in. I know I don't act like it but I think it is important to hear the opinion of Muslims on this.
quote:
Saddam have never used his missiles to attack US.
That is true. But does it mean he can be trusted? Saddam also does not have nukes and does not have missiles that can reach the US. If we leave him alone it is likely he will eventually develop that capability. And then he may use it, probably against Israel, *maybe* against the US.
quote:
He did sent some to Israel back then, but Israel is also suspect of having nukes
Israel has nukes. That's probably not a good thing but it isn't against any law I'm aware of. It is illegal for Iraq to attempt to develop nukes because of the terms of their surrender after the Gulf War.
quote:
And Saudi Arabia cash flowed into their coffers. Some of their benefactors didn't even know they were funding terrorists
When civilians fund terror it is difficult to track. As Metatron will gladly point out Americans are known for funding the IRA. Saddam's regime however is funding terror, he gives thousands of dollars to the families of suicide bombers that attack Israel. And he very likely wants to have better toys up his sleeves.
The best we can do about that is try to cooperate with the Saudi government to crack down on those charities that fund terror. We've even had to shut down a couple on US soil.
quote:
Oh, and don't forget N. Korea, they got away easy with their nukes because they have no oil underneath.
I think North Korea is just as dangerous as Saddam and I think Bush is not being aggressive enough in dealing with them. I do agree that Iraq is of greater tactical value to the US because of its own oil reserves and its proximity to Kuwaiti and Saudi reserves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Andya Primanda, posted 01-13-2003 11:05 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by metatron, posted 01-13-2003 11:40 AM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 115 of 143 (35830)
03-30-2003 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by metatron
01-13-2003 11:40 AM


quote:
The problem currently is that in 1990 iraq attacked kuwait giving reasonable justification for a military responce. There is no justification now
Human rights violations supply justification for ousting Saddam, just as they justified ousting Milosevic. Also, under the terms agreed to in the Iraqi surrender in the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam cannot have chemical weapons. His failure to cooperate with disarmament gives the United States authority to attack (Resolution 1441 found that Iraq was in 'material breach' of its obligations). Technically our current action can be seen as a continuation of the Gulf War after Iraq failed to disarm.
quote:
George bush wants control of the iraqi oil supply
Funny how everyone opposing the war claims that is what Bush wants and they never seem to be able to support the assertion.
Personally, I would rather the US find an alternative for oil and cease all petroleum imports from the Middle East than buy oil from people that hate us!
Actually, all indication is that France is the nation after oil. They profited the most from the 'oil for food' program and have the longest history of dealing with Saddam, (ie, accepting his blood money). Remember the Iraqi nuclear reactor Chirac built? And vowed to rebuild after the Israelis destroyed?
From NewsMax.com :
------------Saddam's Bombmaker: France Helped Baghdad Get Nukes
It's no accident that the French, along with Germany, have now lined up in opposition to U.S. plans to use military force to neutralize Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction program. Especially since, according to at least one former top Iraqi nuclear scientist, Paris helped Baghdad go nuclear in the first place.
According to Dr. Khidir Hamza, who ran Saddam's nuclear bombmaking program in the early 1990s, Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor was built by the French. When the Israelis determined that the reactor's real purpose was to make nuclear weapons, they destroyed it in a 1981 bombing raid.
"From the moment Osirak was hit we knew we had to try another method to get the bomb," Dr. Hamza told the Washington Times in September 2002.
The year before, Dr. Hamza confirmed that the Osirak reactor was never intended to be anything but a nuclear bombmaking plant.
"I went to France in 1974 to buy a reactor, as a starting point, for a plutonium bomb," Hamza told the Carneigie Endowment in November 2000. "It was a long-range project. The reactor would be inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and the French would be there."
And even after Osirak was taken out, French assistance was critical to Baghdad's continuing plan to get nuclear weapons.
"Just before the Gulf War, the crash program was ongoing to make one bomb from the French fuel," Hamza told the Carniegie group.
"People were putting stock into that one bomb," he said. "They were afraid of even testing the bomb, because Iraq testing that one bomb would be like telling the world that we used the French fuel."
Dr. Hamza said that in 1990 Saddam ordered him to make a single nuclear device using materials obtained from Paris.
"We made a device, actually, minus the core," he told PBS's "Frontline" in October 2001. "And we sat down and did calculations. ... We would have had a small - probably two- to four-kiloton - explosion at the time. ... But the idea was [that Saddam] wanted it on a missile, and he was mad at us for not making it small enough."
Undoubtedly, one of the things French diplomats now fear most is that a U.S. invasion of Iraq is likely to confirm Dr. Hamza's account, providing undisputable evidence that Baghdad relied on French assistance to make Iraq's most deadly weapon of mass destruction.
From: http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2003/1/24/113801
------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
North Korea's recent actions were timed perfectly to demonstrate that America could not care less about WMD

Whoa! Wait a minute! You are PRO-WAR with North Korea? And ANTI-WAR with Iraq? Maybe you would like to elaborate?
The Bush Administration thinks they can deal with North Korea diplomatically, which shows that they think war is only a last resort. I personally wouldn't mind it if there were a couple of carriers and nuclear missile subs hovering off the Korean peninsula but I suspect that the anti-American peaceniks would have a problem with that too.
Also, why did we attack Milosevic? Where's the Yugoslav Oil Reserve?
quote:
You're saying I should shut up and blindly obey orders Gene?.
I thought that was your job, soldier. Maybe if you don't want to go fight a war, you shouldn't be in the army?
But apparently your idea of world peace is allowing gas attacks in subway systems and planes flying into buildings and letting Saddam lower dissidents feet-first into shredding machines and gas whoever he pleases. If that's your idea of peace, I don't want it.
As for Hitler, you would probably protest a war against him too.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 03-30-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by metatron, posted 01-13-2003 11:40 AM metatron has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by metatron, posted 04-19-2003 2:21 PM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 119 of 143 (38479)
04-30-2003 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by metatron
04-19-2003 2:21 PM


quote:
Why were we ordered to protect "Oil assets" whilst watching Iraqi's loot hospitals?.
Maybe because protecting an urban environment would cause more civilian casualties?
quote:
By the way your fucking useless countrymen killed two lads from my platoon.
Sorry about that, but soldiers die. They knew that when they enlisted. You know that too. Why the hell are you even in your nation's army? Last I heard the UK doesn't have mandatory service. You like the "cheque" you get but you won't fight a just war? Don't whine to me about lousy career decisions you've made.
quote:

religious bigots (Bush).

Where's Bush's torture chambers? Deathcamps?
--------------------------------------------------------
April 9
Crowds of Iraqis celebrate and pull down a statue of Saddam as Baghdad falls. Western newspapers publish reports from inside the infamous "White Lion" prison in the southern city of Basra, where for decades victims of the toppled regime were hung from ceiling hooks and tortured with hot irons, cigarettes, boiling water, pliers, and baths of acid.
The U.N. high commissioner for human rights, Sergio Vieira de Mello, announces himself "deeply disturbed" over civilian deaths and injuries resulting from the U.S.-led coalition war of liberation.
April 14
Western newspapers publish reports from inside suburban Baghdad's notorious Abu Ghraib prison, Saddam's largest, where thousands of people were tortured and murdered: forced to sit on glass bottles until their intestines were perforated, their lips and ears and tongues amputated with box cutters, and so forth.
Vieira de Mello tells the BBC that "war is always too high a price" to pay for freedom, that coalition forces are guilty of "serious breaches to the Geneva Convention," breaches that his agency will investigate if, "as I hope we will be able to," his staffers are allowed to return to Iraq. Meantime, the commission approves a resolution expressing "deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism" and authorizing an inquiry into "the situation of Muslim and Arab peoples" with "special reference" to attacks against their persons and properties "in the aftermath of the events of 11 September 2001."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/...es/000/000/002/594ifgdy.asp

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by metatron, posted 04-19-2003 2:21 PM metatron has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by nator, posted 05-04-2003 9:04 AM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 120 of 143 (38480)
04-30-2003 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Adminnemooseus
04-19-2003 4:01 PM


Re: Time to close this one down?
quote:
Why is all this Iraq war type stuff showing up here?
Because we like fighting over it, Moose.
I still wonder why your treacherous comment about wishing the White House and Pentagon would "disappear" appeared anywhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-19-2003 4:01 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by crashfrog, posted 04-30-2003 7:36 PM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 122 of 143 (38493)
04-30-2003 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by crashfrog
04-30-2003 7:36 PM


Re: Time to close this one down?
quote:
Also, in that sense, it is your comment that is truly trecherous to our American freedoms, not Moose's.
In case you forgot, some hijackers with ideas similar to Moose's (wishing that the Pentagon and the White House would "disappear") flew a hijacked aircraft into the Pentagon. Another aircraft that crashed into a field near Shanksville, PA is believed by some to have been headed for the White House. Moose's comments that he essentially wished the terrorists had succeeded are indefensible.
quote:
such, the White House, Pentagon, even the President himself do not represent unassailable institutions
Perhaps you would like to elaborate on what you mean by "unassailable" because I find it an interesting and appropriate choice of words. Those institutions were proven to be "assailable" on 9/11, but contrary to Moose's apparent wishes, the assault failed.
quote:
and it is against that document that treason must be judged.
Ambiguous meaning.
Actually we have other laws that deal with the definition of treason.
See United States Code, Chapter 115, Section 2385, "Advocating Overthrow of Government"
U.S. Code | FindLaw
quote:
Currently, the actions of Emporer Ashcroft, et al. represent a far, far greater threat to our freedoms than any terrorist plot.
You find the gov't a bigger threat than terrorists? Ah, an extremist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by crashfrog, posted 04-30-2003 7:36 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by crashfrog, posted 05-01-2003 12:44 AM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 124 of 143 (38676)
05-01-2003 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by crashfrog
05-01-2003 12:44 AM


Re: Time to close this one down?
quote:
To the contrary, they're highly defensible.
Yeah, treason laws aside.
quote:
I'm sure he did not wish for the deaths of hundreds of American citizens
He said he wanted the White House and the Pentagon to be gone one morning. The implication is not peaceful removal but by force.
quote:
There's nothing un-American about wishing for drastic change in the government.
Wishing for drastic changes in a republic through democratic process is perfectly acceptable. Wishing for things to "disappear" without consent from the voting public is anathema to democracy, and constitutes treason. And given that lots of people died when the Pentagon was attacked and that the White House was the suspected target of Flight 93, which crashed into a field killing all onboard rather than reaching its intended destination, his comments are unfit for any civilized society, and his lack of apology casts doubt on his humanity.
(Plus, it is somewhat amusing that liberals whine about "free speech" when they get boycotted but not only do they want to censor the President they want him to vanish!)
Freedom of Speech does not cover advocating a change of American government by extra-legal means, including their "mysterious disappearance".
quote:
sure he did not wish for the deaths of hundreds of American citizens, but only for the disappearance of those institutions.
I don't think it is the White House building that pissed Moose off. I think it was the current occupant. I don't think he wants the physical building to go away because he has some problem with it, I think the implication is clearly that he wants the building to go away and take everyone inside with it.
quote:
Living in Minnesota, I'm not really much of a terrorist target.
Minnesotans aren't threatened by terrorism just like Oklahomans aren't threatened by terrorism.
And not every American lives in Minnesota. Some of them live in New York City and Washington DC and other places that have a tendency to be attacked.
quote:
The major threat to my freedom is from the government taking it away to "protect" me
And what freedoms does Rumsfeld want to take away from you? Your right to bear arms? Ooops, wrong party...
I don't think you have anything to worry about unless you've been emailing Osama bin Laden or called Saddam on your cell phone. I personally don't fall into either category so I'm not particularly worried. I'm just another completely unremarkable face in an ocean of Americans. Do you think Ridge cares about whatever unremarkable "secrets" I might have? Or what brand of cola I buy? Or the websites I visit? The very idea is ridiculous.
If, however, I came here on a student visa from Saudi Arabia, never showed up in class, called Mohammed Atta on 9/10/01, and enrolled in flight school, I think the government should take interest in that.
quote:
from attacks that likely won't affect me.
Attacks that "wont affect" you? Are you not an American? Do you not live here? Do you not trade in American dollars? Are you not even slightly concerned about your fellow citizens?
If you think attacks on America don't affect you, sir, I respectly suggest you refrain from voting because you clearly aren't interested in the wellbeing of America or even your fellow human beings.
quote:
Don't you think, if the terrorists hate us for your freedom (as Bush would have us believe), giving it up to protect ourselves is exactly what they want?
And what freedoms am I giving up? The right to commit acts of terrorism?
quote:
People like you, who would sacrifice our liberites for security (don't forget what Ben Franklin had to say about people like that)
Be sure and tell that to the liberal gun control lobby.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 05-01-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by crashfrog, posted 05-01-2003 12:44 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by crashfrog, posted 05-01-2003 8:46 PM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 126 of 143 (38690)
05-01-2003 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by crashfrog
05-01-2003 8:46 PM


Re: Time to close this one down?
quote:
If you can prove to me that his comments represent "a clear and present danger" to the US
I don't have to. I've already linked you to specific laws regarding what constitutes treason in the above. I did that in my first reply. You have not adequately responded to that point. Rather, you are dodging the issue. It does not have to be proven to be a "clear and present danger" and I have the United States Code to prove it, which you have categorically ignored.
Since you missed it the first time:
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or
teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of
overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or
the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession
thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by
force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any
such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any
such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates,
sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed
matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity,
desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any
government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts
to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society,
group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the
overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or
violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any
such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes
thereof -
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by
the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five
years next following his conviction.
I don't see "clear and present danger". I do see "whoever" and "advocates". That's rather more inclusive than your definition, don't you agree? You don't have to be dangerous, all you have to do is speak (or type) the wrong thing. Again, if you have a problem with this, write your Congressman and ask for a repeal.
quote:
Yeah, he's interested in what websites you visit. And what books you read. And if you have gay sex. And if you like to launch model rockets. And if you've ever ordered a set of lockpicks. And any number of things that reasonable people do, for very reasonable reasons.
And how is what Tom Ridge knows relevant to your liberties being taken away? If you get prosecuted for having gay sex, that's because it is illegal in your state, not because the gov't knows. Write your state legislature and ask to have the law repealed. And as for the model rocket motor issue, that was resolved, as I understand it. The rocketry websites that were up in arms no longer mention the issue. And they did it before I had a chance to fax Congress. We bought a few engines not long ago. So I don't agree with *every* little detail in homeland security but I do think that overall is a good idea and now we see from firsthand experience that excesses can be handled democratically, through the voice of the people. Without suggesting that anyone needs to "disappear". And may I point out that the whole fiasco was from the ATF, not Ridge himself. These are the same people who wanted to ban fireworks during the Clinton years, they don't need a Republican in office to be ridiculous. Lockpicks? I think that is indeed interesting that a person might buy lockpicks. If they are reading websites that give tips to stalkers, I think that person warrants attention from the Federal government. However, the gov't knowing you do things is not the same as the government taking away "liberties" (though I did not know that gay sex, lockpicks, and rocket motors were in the Bill of Rights). There are no Constitutional limits on gov't obtaining information. And the gov't knowing your habits is not the same as gov't restricting your habits--you can still collect lockpicks and become a walking encyclopedia on stalking and if you don't break any laws Tom Ridge can't stop you, though he may get a court order to tap your phones or search your property to make sure you're not about to murder somebody--however law enforcement could do both of those things *before* 9/11, now couldn't they?
Just because government may know--or be able to find out--what you do in your spare time is not equivalent to having your "liberties" taken away, unless those "liberties" were actually illegal already. Do you see the distinction?
quote:
How do you think Nazi Germany started? With the gradual erosion of the freedoms of people nobody liked.
Another good point. Again, tell this to the gun control lobby next time you're debating them.
quote:
If you think I toe the liberal party line because I treasure individual freedom
No, I don't think that because I'm not convinced the run-of-the-mill liberal values freedom (Violence against SUV users, opposition to gun ownership, blowing up animal research labs, spiking trees, opposition to hunting, eroding rights of land-owners, mailing razorblades laced with poison to people that disagree with them, hurling paint at people that wear fur, beating up military personnel in uniform, need I go on?)
quote:
and to take a little responsibility for their own defense.
Not even illegal fully-automatic assault rifles or Russian-made RPGs are going to stopped that hijacked 737 from flying into your office tower. An efficient means of collaborating information that the gov't already has the right to monitor with the right court orders that allows them to spot Saudis with expired visas, a lack of university attendance, suspicious enrollment in flight schools, and terrorists on their call lists just might stop them before they get on that plane. Likewise carrying a gun in your glove compartment isn't going to protect you if you're upwind from a dirty nuke. Individuals have a limited ability to protect themselves from mass casualty terrorist attacks and so we need the CIA, FBI, and Department of Homeland to Security to do their best to interfere with terrorist plots, and we need a strong, proactive military to actively disrupt terrorist activities in their home countries, regardless of if the local governments approve. Oh yes, I support the right of people to carry guns and I oppose attempts to erode that freedom. But I also realize that the government has to be allowed by the courts to do its job: to defend Americans from threats, foreign and domestic.
I do agree about taking some responsibility for one's own defense. Such as a nation invading another nation ruled by a dictator to ensure disarmament, rather than trying to peg the responsibility for its defense on a supranational body (that is, the UN).
[This message has been edited by gene90, 05-01-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by crashfrog, posted 05-01-2003 8:46 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by crashfrog, posted 05-01-2003 10:46 PM gene90 has replied
 Message 133 by joz, posted 05-03-2003 4:33 PM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 128 of 143 (38825)
05-02-2003 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by crashfrog
05-01-2003 10:46 PM


Re: Time to close this one down?
quote:
I don't have to. The Supreme Court says that speech is protected under the First Amendment so long as it doesn't constitute a "clear and present danger that they will bring about substantive evils Congress has a right to prevent"
Being thick-headed aren't you?
Until the Supreme Court declares that law unconstitutional, it stands, and Moose's comments can be construed as treason.
It is not my objective to argue whether or not treason can be protected under the First Amendment, but whether or not the comments are indeed treason.
quote:
Perhaps if you had read the Bill of Rights, you might have noticed Amendment 9:
Your reasoning also implies that cockfighting and child molestation are "rights" as well, along with anything else the Constitution does not expressly ban. Therefore your interpretation is clearly in error.
In fact you seem to think that you can sit around all day long and make a list of things, no matter how absurd, violent, and reprehensible, and if it isn't mentioned in the Constitution, you call it a "right". That is not how it works. Article 9 only implies that people have other rights. It is not an open license allowing you to do anything you can think of with legal impunity!
quote:
You don't see it as the first step?
Just because something could be construed by a liberal (or a conspiracy theorist, whichever you may be) as a "first step" towards something does not make it wrong. Nor does "could be" make it so. You need something a lot more solid than suggesting that something "could be" a step down a slippery slope. Cops being allowed to carry guns COULD BE the first step towards a Gestapo-style secret police force but I don't think so and I do see the need for armed cops just as I see an immediate need for the Patriot Act.
quote:
Then you are truly naive.
Or possibly just better informed and/or less paranoid.
quote:
And I'd be a little less worried if terrorism was a little more clearly defined. As it stands what's to prevent Bush from saying that all american Muslims are terrorists?
Ummm, a dictionary?
quote:
The threats always come from those things we can't predict.
Circular reasoning:
Because if we could predict them they wouldn't be a threat...
Now let my try and see if I comprehend your opinion on homeland security...
3,000 Americans are killed on 9/11 and you believe that we should do...NOTHING to prevent it from happening again?
[This message has been edited by gene90, 05-02-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by crashfrog, posted 05-01-2003 10:46 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by crashfrog, posted 05-02-2003 8:16 PM gene90 has replied
 Message 130 by crashfrog, posted 05-03-2003 12:41 PM gene90 has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 131 of 143 (38866)
05-03-2003 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by crashfrog
05-02-2003 8:16 PM


Re: Time to close this one down?
quote:
I take that to mean they can't be construed as treason. Certainly I didn't find them so.
So, what do you think of them? Callous, insensitive, inappropriate?
quote:
If you're so worried about Moose why don't you call the cops on him?
Because I don't actually think Moose means any harm. Nor do I even think Moose is a particularly bad person. I just think he said something extremely stupid and inappropriate which he has never owned up to and which I think is very worthy of comment. Especially since he is an administrator on this board and has been granted the authority to delete posts, close threads, and ban users, and that anything he does can be construed to represent the entire board.
In effect, Moose decides what is tasteful and what is not, and I think this brings into question whether he is fit to be moderator.
I also think I think I should be allowed to say what I want about the people who will moderate my discussions; just as you have a right to defend those moderators from my bashing.
quote:
Or could it be it's just a little ridiculous to get all worked up about something posted on the internet?
I'm not worked up, I'm just venting steam between exams. But I do think that, technically, his comments are treason and I have US Code to prove it.
quote:
To the contrary; all Article 9 says is that these can't be denied as rights simply because they're not in the constitution.
True. But it does not mean that any "right" not mentioned in the Constitution is automatically a "right". It does not give you a license to sit around and do whatever you want.
Therefore you must do more than cite Article IX to convince me that gay sex, lockpicks, and rocket motors are "rights".
Then you have to show me Tom Ridge taking away liberties, having proven them as such.
You have to prove that the people and the Supreme Court are both unable to step in and protect said liberties. Especially since the issue with rocket motors in effect proves that gov't is still severely limited by the will of the people, and with better communication, is more limited than it ever has been at any other time in American history.
You need to prove your belief that there is no difference between the government knowing what legal activities you participate in and then
stopping you from those activities.
Finally you have to prove that Tom Ridge has ambitions for the Homeland Security department other than safety (paranoia and conspiracy theories don't count).
quote:
You have to come up with a better argument to deny these "rights".
So, (for example) you have a right to molest small children until I come up with an argument to deny you that right?
Look, the problem here is that the Framers decided that people could use their own common sense to decide what rights people have and what rights people don't have. Unfortunately not everyone has common sense and not everyone has the same ideological views. For example, some people think that a society where gay sex is legal is 'degenerate' and don't want to live there. So in some places it is illegal. I personally don't care and frankly don't want to know what my neighbors do in their spare time but the people that do are registered voters who have a right to influence political discussion, even if you do think they are the Christian Taliban.
quote:
In your last post you hand't done that; you'd just made the argument that certain "rights" weren't in the constitution, therefore they could not be rights.
That's a strawman. I just wanted you to prove that gay sex (which I don't particularly think is anyone's business between consenting adults), rocket motors (which I buy and use, btw) and lockpicks (which have both legitimate and illegitimate uses) were all "rights" because none of those are specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Instead you simply used Article 9 with states that there are rights not in the Constitution. However, this is not proving that those particular things are "rights", it merely opens the possibility. Lots of things not mentioned in the Constitution are most definately NOT rights so mentioning Article IX is insufficient to prove your point.
Now that I have explained what I want to debate with you, do *you* have a cogent response? Or should I focus my (limited) debate time on other threads? There is no shortage of people to argue with around here.
quote:
I don't think we should rush to make sweeping governmental reform, mere weeks after the event, without stopping to consider the consequences far off down the road. Nothing I have heard or read suggests that Congress's actions were anything but reactionary. I find reactionary government dangerous. Don't you?
The last time a few thousand Americans suddenly died at the hands of others, within 24 hours this nation was in a World War with two of the most robust industrial nations on the planet. This, by comparison, is hardly "reactionary".
But to do nothing after 9/11 would be lunacy. I only hope the current gov't responses will prove themselves adequate to protect ourselves in the future, and I hope that the next administration is not lax.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 05-03-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by crashfrog, posted 05-02-2003 8:16 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by crashfrog, posted 05-03-2003 2:51 PM gene90 has replied
 Message 136 by nator, posted 05-04-2003 8:34 AM gene90 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024