PDA

View Full Version : Bodies of our soldiers in Iraq War have to be destroyed? & other political issues



Tycho
02-07-2003, 01:11 PM
My newspaper today reported that Saddam threatened to use biological weapons "of mass destruction" :rolleyes: on American ground troops if the U.S. invades Iraq. These are the same weapons he supposedly doesn't have. I guess they can make them really fast then?

Due to possible contamination, Bush and Rumsfield warned that American soldiers killed in action might have to be burned to ashes on the battlefield where they fall. Bringing the bodies home for burial would put other military personnel at risk, as well as chance bringing diseases back home to the continental United States.

Population growth in the United States, especially Latino population growth, and especially in California, the San Diego Union Tribune also reported today, is extremely high. The children are given citizenship upon birth on American soil while their parents may be illegal immigrants, or immigrants awaiting naturalization. 2/3 of them are poor, and the rates of their children completing a HIGH SCHOOL education are 3 times worse than those from other ethnic groups and citizenship backgrounds.

A military draft may be used to maintain a stronger conventional force as a sustained war on perhaps both the Iraqi and North Korean fronts involve us. (Bombers carrying nuclear weapons have been deployed to defend US interests in South Korea and Japan from the North Koreans, while we attack Iraq, should Kim Jung get trigger-happy. North Korea turned on their nuclear power plant yesterday, and it is now capable of supplying their impoverished people with energy and nuclear weapons capable of hitting our before-mentioned allies. Colin Powell labled North Korea a terrorist regime, suddenly and earlier this week).

American potential soldiers who have traditionally avoided the draft in the past, have shown evidence citing their enrollment in higher education, or provided documentation on why they cannot go to war through private doctors or legal representation. Private doctors and legal representation on such broad issues that affect everyone of draft age, are provided only to people who can afford them.


(from above) 2/3 of them are poor, and the rates of their children completing a HIGH SCHOOL education are 3 times worse than those from other ethnic groups and citizenship backgrounds.

Also in today's newspaper, the failing economy is experiencing some DEFLATION. However, a sustained war in Iraq would cause the reverse, inflation, especially on the prices charged by oil and energy companies. Enron, a US energy stock trading company that fell into scandal for false accounting done intentionally for them by Aurther-Anderson Accounting, over-paid executives, and diverted tons of money into the campaign contributions of both Republicans and Democrats upon mass. Vice-President Dick Cheney was heavily involved with energy companies, as is the President's family, as the Bushes' made their family fortune in Texas oil.

California Governor Gray Davis has sued Texas energy companies who sell power to consumer utility companies (and own power plants) in California for acting in collusion (that is talking to each other about a plan to shut down 1/3 of California's power plants for routine maintainance at the same time) and gouging consumers. My January gas and electric bill was $178 dollars for a 2bdrm / 2bath apartment, single occupant (likely due to heating at night for the most part, this time of year.)
California was experiencing a budget surplus when these kinds of bills hit citizens here before. Governor Davis opted to use the budget surplus to pay our electric bills, which in the summer of 2001 were closer to $200 a month for a lot of people. We are talking about running airconditioning to maintain a temperature of around 75 in 80-90 average outdoor conditions.

People who own utility companies and energy companies are usually rich. I didn't find any Star Wars figures today, so I bought 5 utility companies. How about you? I just got word that my check for a few billion dollars didn't clear though - insufficient funds...

Bush's tax breaks will allow those earning over $300,000 a year to receive a larger tax cut (percentages) than those earning $60,000 a year (that's 2 working parents typically - such as two school teachers, being paid around $30,000 each). Justification for this is, that the those with more disposable income will invest it in growth of their company (new hiring etc), but Bush cannot force them to. New hiring increases production. Of what? Consumer products cannot be bought by the majority of people who have experienced lay-offs, unemployment, and who could shortly feel the cost of energy inflation go up further. Products will be produced to be bought by who? Those new hires at unskilled or even middle-income skilled jobs will have to pay off debt incured in difficult economic times. A 2-income family that totals earnings of $60,000 might be involved in a lawsuit over an auto-accident that settles for several hundred thousand dollars. I think 9-10 people (at least) die in America, every day, due to auto accidents. In tighter economic times, folks still choose to drive without insurance, saying "it won't happen to me." They don't have the income to buy insurance or make payments on it. They can face criminal charges for neglecting to be insured, and face severe civil law suits.

It could be very difficult in the first place to finance the college education of 3 to 5 children. If they work, your family income might be strong to buy your home out of a dangerous neighborhood, and get auto insurance and security. Why should the kids finish high school, when they can work? College tuition is a remote possibility, English is hard to understand, so loans and scholarships are hard to get.

Those not able to fund college education, medical release, or legal representation (on ideology, non-violent beliefs, whatever) could be drafted to fight a war against Iraq (and / or North Korea).

Sadam Hussein pledged to use biological weapons on American soldiers.

American soldiers killed in action with possible exposure to biological weapons will be burned on the battlefield by our own service personnel, because harmful agents cannot be brought back amongst our troops, or onto American soil.

A large Latino population born to illegal immigrants are 3 times as likely to not finish their high school education and be able to afford higher education, or learn how to obtain it.

The Overlord Returns
02-07-2003, 01:20 PM
Did they have a quotable source about the hussein thing?

Sounds like an odd comment for the man to make...I know he's insane...but the stupidity of saying you don't have these weapons, then threatening to use them when america attacks...well.......I didn't really think Husseing would be so dumb.

Jedi Clint
02-07-2003, 03:05 PM
What is your point? If that is what has to be done, so be it. It isn't a comforting thought by any means, but I bet you slapped the title of this thread up there because you wanted to make it sound like the President was doing it just to be mean. Ridiculous.

There has been no official announcement that the draft will come back. I doubt it will. It is funny that you target the latin-american population with this scare tactic. Politicians from both sides are putting extra effort into courting their votes.

I'm not financially well off by any means, but my family got more than our fair share back in taxes this year. More than last year thanks to the tax package Bush signed into law! So your class warfare B.S. is exactly that. If people make more, they get more back. Nice try though.

If you earn 60,000 a year, and you don't have auto insurance.....It's probably because you just don't want to pay for it. What the heck was that whole section about? We are supposed to feel sorry for people making far more than my family made last year, while paying our auto insurance!, because they don't pay theirs?????

Unless you have some reason for posting a topic about what "the President" is going to do with the contaminated bodies of our fallen troops and then including the rest of the propaganda that you did, I will assume that you had nothing substantial to offer about the topic of this discussion, and just wanted to spew forth some spin and liberal rhetoric.

stillakid
02-07-2003, 05:03 PM
I don't make enough money to be a Republican yet...but I'm trying! :)

Tycho
02-07-2003, 06:17 PM
Why whatever are you saying, JediClint?

That I was suggesting that rich elites pave the way for their own gains on the backs of the poor and those whose ethnic origins they despise? Wherever did I say that?

I just reported the facts from several articles and several sections of our conservative, Republican-owned local newspaper here in San Diego. I didn't include events in the sports page, because I didn't see how they were related.

I am very surprised that you've retorted with accusations about my alleged accusations.

I think you were suggesting that I thought President Bush was going to kill the children of illegal Mexican immigrants and welfare recipients by sending them off to fight a war for his and his friends' oil in Iraq, and then burn the bodies over there so he doesn't have to risk getting his hands or health soiled by Saddam's bio-weapons of terror he "sometimes" has and sometimes does not have (by last wavering reports by our informant over there, CNN's Mr. Saddam Hussein).

The newspaper merely stated that a statistically high percentage of immigrants live in neighborhoods plagued by crime, and suggested that the law-abiding majority of them, may not want to live there. With 2 parents working, they possibly can scrape together $60,000 between both of them, but that is also (for comparison) what 2 school teachers make, were they to combine their income. (It's actually closer to $35,000 each now, according to my friend, an elementary school teacher, who is just doing his taxes today).

Within the limits of a $60,000 annual income, with children, it is very hard to start out by yourself, and put together the down-payment and capital to buy a house, especially in Southern California, where many immigrants go because they seek out others of their nationality to help employ them (so moving away is more difficult when they don't speak English), and they might make choices, such as to not insure their cars, to gamble that they can get ahead in life and leave their neighborhoods they first can afford, before their children are shot to death in gang violence.

I think you have suggested that I was saying Bush is offerering them the opportunity to get their money for college if they risk being shot to death by Iraqi violence -or fumagated, acidically burned beyond recognition, or having their internal organs liquify, or even damaged just enough that their children will have birth defects and thus be possibly unable to support themselves or reproduce their entire adult life. But for this reason, are you alledging that our great President will volunteer to order someone else to do the sad duty of burning their bodies into ashes with a flamethrower perhaps, so that they can continue to protect our great nation as little particles of something that doesn't matter so much as our energy company oil rights?

I'm sorry. I must have missed where I implied that when I was stating some facts.

When your family got back more than your fair share of taxes, did you hire a poor person? If you made more, got back more, did you need it more than a poor person? You weren't living with your entire extended family for 365 plus days before your tax return, were you? I hope you managed to save some for your kids' college education, unless you feel it's practical to buy Junior a handgun so he can live to graduate high school first?

I don't make more than $60,000 a year by the way, and I do pay for auto insurance. I'd like to be a homeowner though, but I will have to make more money first since homes here cost an average of $320,000, but I have not picked up extra expenses with a wife or children yet.

Jedi Clint
02-07-2003, 07:19 PM
I'm suggesting that you spill out baseless accusations as a way of propping up your point of view. How did you come to the conclusion that burning contaminated corpses amounted to hiding the dead soldiers? Are you going to tell me that we can't get our hands on an accurate account of the soldiers lost in battle?

Just got my refund. I'll probably spend it so that the people in my community can make some money, then your tax and spend friends can try and rob them of the money they earned.

I weep for the 60000 bread winner who can't afford auto insurance.

There are houses that cost less than 320000 dollars.

There are people who make less than 25000, pay their house payments, pay their car insurance, pay their bills, take care of their children, and afford all the other little expenses life can throw their way because they work for what they want, and they make good decisions.

"Junior" might have to take out a student loan and pay it back the way his folks did. I don't hate people who are more well to do than myself. I guess we differ there.

QLD
02-07-2003, 08:42 PM
Tycho is funny. :crazed: :D

Emperor Howdy
02-08-2003, 02:46 AM
Originally posted by Quite-Long Dong
Tycho is funny. :crazed: :D

Yes, Tycho IS funny. As a matter of fact, I really like Tycho. Tycho has some humorous views on relationships and the like, and some decent taste in music. However, Tycho has a dark side. He's an obscenely liberal Democrat. Obscenely liberal Democrats blame the government and the rich for the problems and dysfunctions of the uneducated poor. In our great land of opportunity, obscenely liberal Democrats can't see beyond the free ride. Obscenely liberal Democrats need to remember that Bush's tax cuts will affect everyone....at every income level....yet they also need to understand that their (or whomever's) income tax bracket is not my problem. They need to understand that if someone is successful by his own right, he shouldn't be punished by having to support the lazy, criminal-minded, or down-right stupid. Instead of expecting Mr. Bush to solve their financial problems, perhaps they should stop spending so much time on the computer writing five page essays on SirSteve's and should pick up a shovel. Stock a grocery, wait a table, hammer a nail, or get a law degree....I don't care...just stop blaming "the man for holdin' ya down" while the "rich get richer and the poor get poorer". Grow up. We're tired of the lazy man's cliches. No one's listening, ok? Yeah..I know...damn capitalists! :rolleyes: I've said it a thousand times. No one EVER gave me a damn thing. I started my business with a crappy little pick-up truck and a push-mower. I spent many a nights on friend's couches, eating raman noodles, and borrowing $20 from girlfriends. :rolleyes: Now, I have zero debt (except a new 2002 Silverado) and grossed over $79,000 in 2002. My goal is the $90,000-$100,000 range in 2003. I'll do so by advertising, working more hours...even more Sundays if need be, increasing my rates, and hiring more employees (whom, ironically enough, are Mexican. One of them just finished a total renovation on his house in Mexico to the tune of about $6,000. Another one just bought his wife a $500 chain/pendant for Valentine's Day. I don't jerk my guys around. They are hard workers, so they are well paid. Yet, they could give a rat's arse about learning English. They don't care about Super Bowls, Pete Townshend, or exploding space shuttles. They care only about dinero, dinero, dinero....sending it home so they can chill for a few years when they get back. Car insurance? Tax relief? LOL... :D ... They don't care!.....but if they did....they are in a country filled with opportunity if your willing to WORK for it....willing to EDUCATE yourself.....but I digress). Basically, I will EARN my money this year, not stand around with my hand out so Clinton and his cronies can hand out welfare checks to pregnant crack smokers who bum smokes off me all day while I'm working. You gotta love the obscenely liberal Democrat. They blame Dubya (or whomever the Republican in office is at the time) for unaffordable insurance, for example. Obscenely liberal Democrats don't accept the fact that frivolous lawsuits are the driving factor behind insurance rates. I'm going to tell all obscenely liberal Democrats a story: Ten months ago, I was putting out pinestraw at an apartment complex. Simple enough, right? Right. Then, around 5 o'clock, a group of kids ran up and started jumping on my trailer, and trying to take equipment (like a chainsaw) out of my truck. I ran down the hill, followed by two employees, and told the little brats to hit the road. They'd walk away, then as I would walk away, would turn around and rush my trailer....jumping up and down and saying, "Com'on, man, gimme a ride". Finally, I verbally laid into them, and they took off. I told my guys to keep working, and that I was going up to the office to report the incident to the property manager. I got in the truck, turned around in the cul-de-sac, and started to drive to the office. Suddenly, the kids ran out from behind some trees and tried to jump on my trailer while I WAS MOVING at about 10 mph. One kid, a four-year old, slams his face on the trailer, and, of course, gets a nice laceration on the side of his head. There's cops, ambulances, helicopters (no kidding), blah, blah, blah. Kid gets out of hospital only four hours after the accident.....no stitches...only a bandage, blah, blah, blah. Dad....who wasn't supervising brat at the time, blah, blah, blah,.....is now suing me (therefore my insurance co.) for $50,000 and the apartment complex (therefore their insurance co.) for $800,000 because he might have a scar on his unsupervised head (the kid is absolutley okay and looks fine). Oh, by the way....I didn't get a ticket because I wasn't liable, right? Of course. However, Super Dad says it's because I was white....and the cop was white....so therefore it was a race thing. He contacted the NAACP, who in turn contacted the police department, who in turn had me being questioned by a CRIMINAL investigator three days later. Aaaaaaanyway, I'm going to insist my insurance co. settle the case (don't get me started on "Why"). It will mean an increase in mine AND your (so to speak) insurance premiums. Super Dad will buy a new Cadillac and an insurance policy he couldn't afford before the accident because he couldn't get his fat a** off the couch to watch his kid, MUCH LESS GET A JOB! The obscenely liberal Democrat will blame Big Government for the next minority who can't afford insurance....when we all know the problem is Super Dad, don't we?......and the cycle continues. What the obscenely liberal Democrat needs to know is that the problems start in THEIR house, not the White House. I know several kids whom I could hand a pistol who wouldn't turn around and shoot up his school. Don't blame the NRA because your brat is crying out for attention. Don't expect me to open my wallet because you or your kid was too stoned to use protection and squirted out yet ANOTHER unwanted kid that you can't afford. Oh...that's right....I forgot...it's the GOVERNMENT'S responsibility to raise the kid. Lucky you! Hey, obsenely liberal Democrats....we're finally going to see some tax relief for small business. Oh, you don't have a small business? :( TOUGH, I do. :mad: Hey, obsenely liberal Democrats....we could see cuts (and hopefully the elimination of tax) on stock dividends. Oh, you don't have stock in a company? :( TOUGH, I do. :mad: Why should I suffer because the obscenely liberal Democrats won't read a tiny book on investing, but can tell you every lyric on a Tupac CD. Bah! Why am I wasting my time. The obscenely liberal Democrats are set in their ways as much as I am in mine. Hey, that's what makes this country so great. When Bush took office, they shrieked "God help us!", and I screamed "Thank God!".....Diversity in thought...it's a beautiful thing. It also reminds me of an old joke.

A Republican and a Democrat were walking down the street when they came to a homeless person.

The Republican gave the homeless person his business card and told him to come to his business for a job. He then took twenty dollars out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person.

The Democrat was very impressed, and when they came to another homeless person, he decided to help. He walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the welfare office. He then reached into the Republican's pocket and gave him fifty dollars. :D

Classic! :D :D


Oh, as for the soldier issue, let's pray that we don't have to make a decision like that. However, if it did happen, we would need to be realistic about how to safely and logically handle (or dispose of) the remains. Either way, what's your point? :confused:

Emperor Howdy
02-08-2003, 03:18 AM
Originally posted by Jedi Clint
I don't hate people who are more well to do than myself.

Bingo, Jedi Clint! You have just described the absolute essense of the Democratic party! :D

2-1B
02-08-2003, 05:05 AM
Wow.
It's not something I had thought of before, but I see why it might be impossible to bring the bodies back to the soldiers' families. :cry:

I hate to pose a morbid question, but I genuinely wonder - how would they be able to cremate fallen soldiers? Am I mistaken in thinking it takes thousands of degrees to cremate a body?
Jeez, the thought of mobile crematoriums . . . :cry:

LTBasker
02-08-2003, 05:59 AM
Well they may not even be cremated, but just burnt to ashes. True it is a depressing thing, but really the body isn't really there for enough significance to justify them risking infecting everybody else. Actually I think it'd be just like a soldier who dives on a bomb to save even just one of his friends.

stillakid
02-08-2003, 11:59 AM
Let's just hope it doesn't come to that. I'm not familiar with the effects of chemical weapons on a human body, but I'll wager that it isn't as quick and relatively painless as a grenade at close range. Part of what's sick about all this is that I'm reading an article in the LA Times this morning about how the citizens of Iraq want to bask in all that the US has to offer, from movies to our education system, yet they will willingly fight our soldiers. Clearly the actual citizens of these countries aren't interested in fighting one another. It's always those in the governments causing trouble. I guess we can never learn from history, can we?



And JC, your post has been running through my thoughts since I read it. While the situation with the bottom-feeders is indeed unfortunate, I found there to be several, uh, problems(?) with your philosophy and the way you've chosen to view life and society. However, after careful consideration, I realized as well that your beliefs are most likely too engrained and any true discussion of political/socio-economic issues would be pointless. While you freely brand any alternative thinking as being liberal rhetoric, your beliefs can equally be considered typical Conservative rhetoric. Neither stream of thought in that vein is useful in solving the ills of society. They only serve to further separate people and drive further wedges into our defacto class system.

I only bring up this much for any of the potential youth who might wander into this forum and believe that every word of what you say is representative of typical thinking. Based just on your post, it's clear the reasons why you think the way you do, and it's unfortunate that people like that exist and it's unfortunate that you've come to the black and white conclusions expressed here.

Jedi Clint
02-08-2003, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by stillakid
And JC, your post has been running through my thoughts since I read it. While the situation with the bottom-feeders is indeed unfortunate, I found there to be several, uh, problems(?) with your philosophy and the way you've chosen to view life and society. However, after careful consideration, I realized as well that your beliefs are most likely too engrained and any true discussion of political/socio-economic issues would be pointless. While you freely brand any alternative thinking as being liberal rhetoric, your beliefs can equally be considered typical Conservative rhetoric. Neither stream of thought in that vein is useful in solving the ills of society. They only serve to further separate people and drive further wedges into our defacto class system.

I only bring up this much for any of the potential youth who might wander into this forum and believe that every word of what you say is representative of typical thinking. Based just on your post, it's clear the reasons why you think the way you do, and it's unfortunate that people like that exist and it's unfortunate that you've come to the black and white conclusions expressed here.

It's unfortunate that I exist? What a lovely sentiment.
Why don't you tell me why I think the way I do?

"Alternative thinking".......indeed. I called it as I saw it. Suggesting that the President wants to burn the bodies of our soldiers in order to cover up the number of soldiers lost in a potential war shows ignorance (either intentional or otherwise) of the reality that said method of disposal will not cover up the number of lives lost.

I don't care if you label me a conservative. Which "black and white" conclusions have I come to?

I don't really care how you choose to define "typical thinking", and neither should any "youth" reading this. They should be thinking for themselves.

2-1B
02-08-2003, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by LTBasker
Well they may not even be cremated, but just burnt to ashes.

That is cremation - burned to ashes.
When people die in house fires, I believe the body is just burned really really really badly, but not to the point of ash. Much of the tissue will burn away, but some will remain along with the skeletal structure. There will still be bodies.

:cry:

Lord Malakite
02-08-2003, 04:26 PM
Burning the body is only part of the cremation process. The deceased is placed in a combustible box, which is used during refrigerated storage, and then placed intact in the cremation chamber. After burning the deceased to ash, the remains are processed further by pulverization in order to crush the unburnable parts, such as teeth, to dust. Then the remains are placed in the desired container.

Zionfreedomfighter
02-08-2003, 04:40 PM
Leave it to a die hard mechanical mind to pick a dark lord avatar: how fitting- in real life defending one evil empire; on the net, defending another. Either it is a message from your subconscious, Emperor Howdy, or a terribly conscious recognition of where your loyalties lay.

So, a Republican and a Democrat are walking down to where their kids attend day care. As they approach the door, a young Latino kid is standing outside, crying.

The Democrat gets down on one knee, pulls a sugarless lollipop from his pocket, and gives it to the kid. Once the youngster stops crying, the Democrat manages to find out the child can't find his mother. So the Democrat helps the kid find his mom.

"Huh," the Republican grunts derisively. While sneering. The Republican searches for his own kid, and finds him crying too.

"Hold on Snow White! I know just what to do!" He rushes out of the daycare center, finds the Latino kid, and pulls the lollipop from the kid's mouth. Then he runs back in and puts the lollipop in his own kid's mouth.

Now, of course, there are errors in this joke:
1) A Republican wouldn't stroll down the street. That is what Hummers are for.
2) A Republican wouldn't put his kid in a day care center that accepted Latinos. Or Democrats.
3) After the Latino child had the lollipop, a Republican wouldn't touch it with a latex-gloved hand, let alone give it to their kid.

Logic? Reason? Dark Lords of the Bu****es need not these things. Give into your anger, Emperor Howdy. Give yourself up to your righteous indignation.

What is really wrong with this joke, and the rest of this letter, is the same thing that is wrong with your venom filled spew. Instead of reason, you heap vitriol. Instead of rationality, you offer hate and ridicule. That doesn’t advance the American cause at all, and it doesn’t help solve the very pressing problems that beset us today. Americans, especially with views as similar as those of Democrats and Republicans, ought to be able to be able to present dissenting views without being maligned. Got a problem with an idea? Fine- But don’t contribute to a problem by making dialogue impossible.

And if you’re still steaming ‘cause I schooled you, I only did to make the point that such tactics are ultimately fruitless.

2-1B
02-08-2003, 04:48 PM
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmm thanks for the info Malakite. :cry:

QLD
02-08-2003, 04:56 PM
It's OK Zion, George W. Bush and Emperor Howdy still love you.

I'll be back, I have to go steal money from the poor and give it to the rich.

derek
02-08-2003, 05:23 PM
so, .......................who's "Zionfreedomfighter"?

1. tycho?
2. eric?
3. stillakid?
4. overlord?
5. none of the above?



:crazed: :crazed: :crazed: :crazed: :crazed: :crazed: :crazed: :crazed: :crazed: :crazed: :crazed: :crazed: :crazed:

2-1B
02-08-2003, 05:28 PM
I think Zion is the Ghost of Tom Joad. :D

2-1B
02-08-2003, 05:29 PM
Or maybe DeadEye. :crazed:

derek
02-08-2003, 05:37 PM
or the ghost of deadeye?:crazed:

The 'Xir
02-08-2003, 06:17 PM
Nice soap box rant Emperor Howdy!!! Very well presented, and alot of truth to it! And I say good for you that you've reached that level of success! sounds like it was well earned and deserved, and I truely hope you reach your goal for this year!!!!!

However...what if there was a better way...? OH THE HORROR OF THE THOUGHT that everyone should be treated equally and have a share in the opportunites of this "great" nation! The people in a democratic republic of CAPITALISTIC states can never truely be free! Even if it may be the best system man has come up with to date(don't know about that though)

I recommend to everyone though a book by Noam Chomsky called 'The Chomsky Reader' edited by James Peck.
For Tycho: this book will probaby just reaffirm beliefs you may already have but atleast lend credible evidence for them!
For Emperor Howdy: I'm sure you'd love to learn what our wonderful little Empir..I mean Republic is built on! ;) Definetly NOT the sweat 'n' toil and hard work of honest men!

As far as Tyhcos' original concerns about soldiers, hey Bush is the "commander-in-chief" and if that's what he orders that's what is done(for the most part) And seeing as how most Americans have had to compromise their rights for security since 9-11 I'm sure the general masses will go along with it, although there is always a minority outcry against!

Jedi Clint
02-08-2003, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by Zionfreedomfighter
Leave it to a die hard mechanical mind to pick a dark lord avatar: how fitting- in real life defending one evil empire; on the net, defending another. Either it is a message from your subconscious, Emperor Howdy, or a terribly conscious recognition of where your loyalties lay.


I suppose no one of the liberal persuasion has a dark lord avatar? And no conservative would have the opposite? I'm sure it feels good to seat oneself on an intellectual pedestal and shout insults at the peons :rolleyes:


Originally posted by Zionfreedomfighter
So, a Republican and a Democrat are walking down to where their kids attend day care. As they approach the door, a young Latino kid is standing outside, crying.

The Democrat gets down on one knee, pulls a sugarless lollipop from his pocket, and gives it to the kid. Once the youngster stops crying, the Democrat manages to find out the child can't find his mother. So the Democrat helps the kid find his mom.

"Huh," the Republican grunts derisively. While sneering. The Republican searches for his own kid, and finds him crying too.

"Hold on Snow White! I know just what to do!" He rushes out of the daycare center, finds the Latino kid, and pulls the lollipop from the kid's mouth. Then he runs back in and puts the lollipop in his own kid's mouth.

Now, of course, there are errors in this joke:
1) A Republican wouldn't stroll down the street. That is what Hummers are for.
2) A Republican wouldn't put his kid in a day care center that accepted Latinos. Or Democrats.
3) After the Latino child had the lollipop, a Republican wouldn't touch it with a latex-gloved hand, let alone give it to their kid.

Logic? Reason?


Logic and reason are not present in the material quoted directly above. :D However! I did catch a good wiff of animosity and ignorance mixed with a conceited attitude and wrapped in a tasteless attempt at humor.


Originally posted by Zionfreedomfighter
Dark Lords of the Bu****es need not these things. Give into your anger, Emperor Howdy. Give yourself up to your righteous indignation.

We might not "need" it, but it's always nice to have it....especially when dealing with self righteous idignant liberals :)


Originally posted by Zionfreedomfighter
What is really wrong with this joke, and the rest of this letter, is the same thing that is wrong with your venom filled spew. Instead of reason, you heap vitriol. Instead of rationality, you offer hate and ridicule. That doesn’t advance the American cause at all, and it doesn’t help solve the very pressing problems that beset us today. Americans, especially with views as similar as those of Democrats and Republicans, ought to be able to be able to present dissenting views without being maligned. Got a problem with an idea? Fine- But don’t contribute to a problem by making dialogue impossible.

And if you’re still steaming ‘cause I schooled you, I only did to make the point that such tactics are ultimately fruitless.

I'm so used to "venom filled spew" from the left, that I find Howdy's venom refreshing ;) Words motivated by hate do not facilitate productive discussion. In this, you are correct.

Emperor Howdy
02-08-2003, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by Zionfreedomfighter
Leave it to a die hard mechanical mind to pick a dark lord avatar: how fitting- in real life defending one evil empire; on the net, defending another. Either it is a message from your subconscious, Emperor Howdy, or a terribly conscious recognition of where your loyalties lay.

Oh......I see...umm.....exactly where you're coming from. I guess I should..errr......huh? :confused:

Jeeez. :rolleyes: "Um, yeah, Zion....I had no choice....SirSteves was fresh out of swastika avatars". :rolleyes:


So, a Republican and a Democrat are walking down to where their kids attend day care. As they approach the door, a young Latino kid is standing outside, crying.

The Democrat gets down on one knee, pulls a sugarless lollipop from his pocket, and gives it to the kid. Once the youngster stops crying, the Democrat manages to find out the child can't find his mother. So the Democrat helps the kid find his mom.

"Huh," the Republican grunts derisively. While sneering. The Republican searches for his own kid, and finds him crying too.

"Hold on Snow White! I know just what to do!" He rushes out of the daycare center, finds the Latino kid, and pulls the lollipop from the kid's mouth. Then he runs back in and puts the lollipop in his own kid's mouth.

Now, of course, there are errors in this joke:
1) A Republican wouldn't stroll down the street. That is what Hummers are for.
2) A Republican wouldn't put his kid in a day care center that accepted Latinos. Or Democrats.
3) After the Latino child had the lollipop, a Republican wouldn't touch it with a latex-gloved hand, let alone give it to their kid.

Oh boy. :rolleyes:

God, I love it! :D

Racial insinuations. How typical of the obscenely liberal Democrat. He keeps refering to the injustices of Latinos (for some weird reason :confused: ), yet has no idea that a Mexican friend of mine came over for dinner last night. We had a few beers, played poker, and he crashed on my couch. Obscenely liberal Democrat doesn't realize that many of my closest friends are of different ethnic groups. Obscenely liberal Democrat has no idea that my stepfather, a man I love and respect very much, is Venezuelan......and, most importantly, what my little obscenely liberal Democratic Zionist doesn't know is that I'm Jewish! LOL :D. I'm just not amongst the high percent of Jews who pretend to believe that Republicans are anti-Semitic (the truth being that Jews are just business-savvy investors that know Democrats hand out great government kickbacks!). No, my family taught me to earn what I have through hard work....not by milking the system like the lazy beggars of the Democratic Party.



What is really wrong with this joke, and the rest of this letter, is the same thing that is wrong with your venom filled spew. Instead of reason, you heap vitriol. Instead of rationality, you offer hate and ridicule. That doesn’t advance the American cause at all, and it doesn’t help solve the very pressing problems that beset us today. Americans, especially with views as similar as those of Democrats and Republicans, ought to be able to be able to present dissenting views without being maligned. Got a problem with an idea? Fine- But don’t contribute to a problem by making dialogue impossible.

Hate and ridicule? Are you kidding!?!? Look at what your party represents! I'm not spewing "venom", man....I'm simply telling you how it is. Look, I'm not an over-zealous Republican buying into everything the party preaches. You won't find signs in my yard or stickers on my car. I don't "campaign", I'm not super wealthy, and there are several issues (health care, environmental issues, etc.......even the exausted argument on abortion) that I lean more to the left. However, it doesn't take a genius to see what the Democrats are all about.....and I disagree with it.....period.

Don't be so sensitive. I like you, man. Really, I do. I bet we'd be great neighbors. :) I just think your ideas of how to advance the American cause are laughable, unfair, and pretty much...for the most part.....suck.


And if you’re still steaming ‘cause I schooled you, I only did to make the point that such tactics are ultimately fruitless.

Oh, you "schooled me" alright! I learned once again that whenever a Democrat opens his mouth, the country is reminded of how lucky we are that Bush has another term. Steamed!? On the contrary, thanks for the education, Zion. It sends happy little shivers up and down my spine! :D

sith_killer_99
02-08-2003, 11:01 PM
I am from Colorado, it's my home. Being in the military I move around a lot, but I vote in Colorado and pay taxes there. Both of our Senators are Republicans and environmentalists, one is a Veterinarian and the other is a Native American. I grew up in a predominately Hispanic community.

I am not rich and I support many of the views of the Republican party. I also subscribe to both the DNC and RNC active e-mail lists and read what both parties have to say.

Though I do tend to get tired of reading the DNC's unsubstantiated Bush bashing. I have noticed some trends in reading what both parties have to say:

1. The RNC proudly lays out their platform on their website as well as in their e-mails.

2. The DNC bashes everything the RNC lays out without offering any solutions, or platform of their own.

3. The RNC seems better organized and sends out e-mail on key issues with helpful information and ways that we can help. While, again, the DNC just bashes everything the RNC has to say.

One particular case is with the DNC threatening to filibuster the nomination of Miguel Estrada the first Hispanic to possibly sit on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

This is a case of the DNC holding down a minority for political reasons. To them, this guy is just another pawn in the game. Mr. Estrada is completly capable and has been unanimously rated as "Well Qualified" by the American Bar Association, and endorsed by 16 Latino groups to include the League of United Latin American Citizens, our nations oldest and largest Hispanic civil rights organization.

So don't fool yourself into thinking that the "Democrats" are so wonderful to minorities while the "Republicans" are beating them all down.

Zionfreedomfighter
02-09-2003, 02:24 AM
Oh, you guys and gals are funny. I even put my name down, and you still get it wrong. And proving that I'm smarter than you, you've gotten just about every assumption wrong- branding me a liberal democrat, pinning a list of false identities, and lastly, totally misinterpreting my posting. Ha ha ha.

Since for some of you, being a member of the Dark Lords requires drinking lead until a significant portion of your brain cells are dead, I'll spell the intent out for you, in small words.

My posting was a demonstration that, heck, anyone can use cheap slurs to attack any position. You can call the Dems "tax and spenders", they can call you "Nazi dictators". You can malign them (that means say something bad about them), they can roast you. You claim they slurred you, so this past behavior justifies your present behavior, which justifies their future behavior.
But of course, this spiral of animosity is easy. Thinking and critical discussions are hard.
For instance: for someone who says problems begin in our homes, Lord Emperor Howdy, you seem pretty quick to blame your problems on others: if it ain't the Democrats, it is "brats" goofing on your equipment. Get that dander good and raised, because I am calling you a hypocrite.
See- when someone else says that their problems come from some other source, oh, say Republicans changing the clean water laws so their kids get leukemia or something, well, they are a bunch of whiners. But when YOU run down a little kid, well, dang nabit, that's the fault of someone else!
Your little joke about the Dem pulling the money out of the Republican's pocket? Oh, how very droll. But out of, say, the five still living former Presidents (just for the sake of argument), how many are dedicating their time to, say, building homes for people who need a hand up?
I don't have a problem with Republicans. In a just world, John McCain would be President today, an Bush would be able to play with his video games five more hours a day. No, Emperor Howdy- I have problems with Republicans who spout off like you and then blame everyone else for their problems- but won't accept the same excuse from nearly anyone else.

Last point: you blame the spew and venom you've heard from liberals as the cause for your own nasty expression of your ideas. God, man. Can't you take responsibility for even that?

Emperor Howdy
02-09-2003, 05:10 AM
Originally posted by Zionfreedomfighter
Oh, you guys and gals are funny. I even put my name down, and you still get it wrong. And proving that I'm smarter than you, you've gotten just about every assumption wrong- branding me a liberal democrat, pinning a list of false identities, and lastly, totally misinterpreting my posting. Ha ha ha.

Since for some of you, being a member of the Dark Lords requires drinking lead until a significant portion of your brain cells are dead, I'll spell the intent out for you, in small words.

My posting was a demonstration that, heck, anyone can use cheap slurs to attack any position. You can call the Dems "tax and spenders", they can call you "Nazi dictators". You can malign them (that means say something bad about them), they can roast you. You claim they slurred you, so this past behavior justifies your present behavior, which justifies their future behavior.
But of course, this spiral of animosity is easy. Thinking and critical discussions are hard.
For instance: for someone who says problems begin in our homes, Lord Emperor Howdy, you seem pretty quick to blame your problems on others: if it ain't the Democrats, it is "brats" goofing on your equipment. Get that dander good and raised, because I am calling you a hypocrite.
See- when someone else says that their problems come from some other source, oh, say Republicans changing the clean water laws so their kids get leukemia or something, well, they are a bunch of whiners. But when YOU run down a little kid, well, dang nabit, that's the fault of someone else!
Your little joke about the Dem pulling the money out of the Republican's pocket? Oh, how very droll. But out of, say, the five still living former Presidents (just for the sake of argument), how many are dedicating their time to, say, building homes for people who need a hand up?
I don't have a problem with Republicans. In a just world, John McCain would be President today, an Bush would be able to play with his video games five more hours a day. No, Emperor Howdy- I have problems with Republicans who spout off like you and then blame everyone else for their problems- but won't accept the same excuse from nearly anyone else.

Last point: you blame the spew and venom you've heard from liberals as the cause for your own nasty expression of your ideas. God, man. Can't you take responsibility for even that?


This guy is just trying to start a flame war. :rolleyes: Run along, kid.

**Emperor Howdy downs a beer and burps in Zion's face**

Tycho
02-09-2003, 05:25 AM
Wow. Are we on Crossfire?

First I want to address Estrada's Court of Appeals Justice nomination. The Democrats are not holding back Latino ascension by blocking Estrada's nomination (hopefully successfully too). They are preventing the promotion of one Latino who could one day help secure the stagnation of the rest of the Latinos in this nation.

I'm sure there are sell-outs who want to climb to power, make themselves rich and famous, and forsake what they know is right for their people. I could see Estrada making the effort to kill affirmative action, or racial / class assistance of any kind, to fulfill the expectations of the whites he has to thank for bringing him to power. His stance on abortion will also set back women's rights - if anyone here cares about those. And how about a child's right to a broad-exposure public curriculum, versus private school choice programs that ensure religious indoctrination.

It's like the KKK allowing entry of a black man into their organization because he wants to be the Grand Dragon for a non-white deportation platform, but lets the rest of them say they are an all-inclusive party.

Meanwhile, there is no evidence that a majority of Jews are Republican or Democrats. I think it's probably a 50-50 split. But if there is anti-Semitism amongst any in the Republican Party, it is burried in favor of their stronger religion they all are zealous aherents of: mercantilism.

In any case, anyone care to disclose or presuppose how many Muslems are in the Republican Party?

In any case, I'll get back into my views on the economic policies, helping hands versus handouts, etc. tomorrow - (I'm really tired right now).

I'll just leave with this thought: the rich need the government and want to get it at as cheap as cost to them as possible, since it's basic function of law enforcement and emergency services is what protects their property rights in the first place.

stillakid
02-09-2003, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by Jedi Clint
It's unfortunate that I exist? What a lovely sentiment.
Why don't you tell me why I think the way I do?

"Alternative thinking".......indeed. I called it as I saw it. Suggesting that the President wants to burn the bodies of our soldiers in order to cover up the number of soldiers lost in a potential war shows ignorance (either intentional or otherwise) of the reality that said method of disposal will not cover up the number of lives lost.

I don't care if you label me a conservative. Which "black and white" conclusions have I come to?

I don't really care how you choose to define "typical thinking", and neither should any "youth" reading this. They should be thinking for themselves.

First of all, I need to profusely apologize. Due to circumstances I can't explain at this time, I was referring not to your post JC, rather to Emperor Howdy's, in particular his incident with the children. I will take extreme steps to make certain I won't do that again.

And, yes, I agree entirely with your final thought above. I believe that as children, we are born into certain environments and situations which taint our views of how the world really is. Whether it is our culture (Americans, Europeans, Asians, etc), our religion (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc), our politics (Republican, Democrat, Freedom, Socialist, Monarchy, etc), or our race (white, black, asian, latino, etc) we are born into each thing by pure chance. Our biology determines some of it. Our parents, family, and society determine the rest. Just like the racists of the Nazi Party or the KKK, many of us are just as guilty of some nasty -ism as they are when it comes to political beliefs or religious "belief-ism."

Just reading through some of the posts here one trend is painfully obvious. All "sides" feel free to use sweeping generalizations and "humor" to demonize the other side, yet accuse the "other side" of doing the same, then use very specific examples culled from "personal experience" in an attempt to debunk the accusation. If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny.

Which is what led me to say what I said before, that there isn't any point. Just about everyone posting here has their own pov regarding practically any issue and attempts to "correct" their thinking by the other side are fruitless. There are some good points being brought up by both sides, but the "opposing" side universally refuses to even consider the thoughts expressed. What's this mean? I don't know, but I believe it means that people are not thinking for themselves. We are all guilty of a certain amount of brainwashing from all that we are exposed to.

We are conceived in our mother's womb as blank slates. The moment after we are born, the onslaught of ideas begins. Everyone wants us to think the way they do, for good or bad. Whatever happens, whatever we think, in the end, we will all just become dust like the potential unfortunate soldiers on the battlefield because they are fighting for...what? It all starts here. If we can't even have mature discussions on a toy web site forum, then how could we ever expect nations to do the same?

Are all Republicans cold, heartless, wealthy racists? Of course not. Some are though and the basic philosophy of the party seems to be "I got mine, you get yours." If it's not true, then the Party has some work to do to alter that perception.

Are all Democrats bleeding heart liberals out to give deadbeat crack*****s a handout at every chance they get? Of course not. Some see the benefit in it though. The basic Dem philosophy seems to be "the playing field isn't level and to keep society together we need to make some concessions." If it's not true, then the Party has some work to do to alter that perception.

I guess it all depends on how you decide to view life in general. Should we live as an interconnected society, which sometimes means showing compassion and helping out those that need it? Or should we live in a Darwinistic society, which means that the strongest survive? Is there a happy middle-ground? Based on the other posts here, one wouldn't think so. It is one way or the other. Thoughts?


And again, sorry JC. My fault entirely.

sith_killer_99
02-09-2003, 11:29 AM
They are preventing the promotion of one Latino who could one day help secure the stagnation of the rest of the Latinos in this nation.

Yes, of course, that's it. That must be why he has the backing of the largest and oldest Hispanic civil rights organization in the nation, plus 15 others.:rolleyes:

Please, I hate it when people resort to those KKK comparisons simply because someone has conservative views.

Estrada, along with the president, also opposes partial birth abortions. A practice in which labor is induced and the baby is partially delivered, just enough for the head to pop out. Then a sharp instument is rammed into the base of the skull and the brains are sucked out with a vacuum. Oh yeah, women should have every right to have this procedure done.:rolleyes:

Believe it or not there are some minorities who believe that affirmative action is a slap in the face of minorities. What you are basically saying is that a person should recieve special consideration for hiring based on the color of their skin. Any way you slice it it's discrimination used to end discrimination.:rolleyes:

Jedi Clint
02-09-2003, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by derek
so, .......................who's "Zionfreedomfighter"?
1. tycho?
2. eric?
3. stillakid?
4. overlord?
5. none of the above?


http://www.sirstevesguide.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=220835#post220835



Originally posted by stillakid
First of all, I need to profusely apologize. Due to circumstances I can't explain at this time, I was referring not to your post JC, rather to Emperor Howdy's, in particular his incident with the children. I will take extreme steps to make certain I won't do that again.

And, yes, I agree entirely with your final thought above. I believe that as children, we are born into certain environments and situations which taint our views of how the world really is. Whether it is our culture (Americans, Europeans, Asians, etc), our religion (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc), our politics (Republican, Democrat, Freedom, Socialist, Monarchy, etc), or our race (white, black, asian, latino, etc) we are born into each thing by pure chance. Our biology determines some of it. Our parents, family, and society determine the rest. Just like the racists of the Nazi Party or the KKK, many of us are just as guilty of some nasty -ism as they are when it comes to political beliefs or religious "belief-ism."

Just reading through some of the posts here one trend is painfully obvious. All "sides" feel free to use sweeping generalizations and "humor" to demonize the other side, yet accuse the "other side" of doing the same, then use very specific examples culled from "personal experience" in an attempt to debunk the accusation. If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny.

Which is what led me to say what I said before, that there isn't any point. Just about everyone posting here has their own pov regarding practically any issue and attempts to "correct" their thinking by the other side are fruitless. There are some good points being brought up by both sides, but the "opposing" side universally refuses to even consider the thoughts expressed. What's this mean? I don't know, but I believe it means that people are not thinking for themselves. We are all guilty of a certain amount of brainwashing from all that we are exposed to.

We are conceived in our mother's womb as blank slates. The moment after we are born, the onslaught of ideas begins. Everyone wants us to think the way they do, for good or bad. Whatever happens, whatever we think, in the end, we will all just become dust like the potential unfortunate soldiers on the battlefield because they are fighting for...what? It all starts here. If we can't even have mature discussions on a toy web site forum, then how could we ever expect nations to do the same?

Are all Republicans cold, heartless, wealthy racists? Of course not. Some are though and the basic philosophy of the party seems to be "I got mine, you get yours." If it's not true, then the Party has some work to do to alter that perception.

Are all Democrats bleeding heart liberals out to give deadbeat crack*****s a handout at every chance they get? Of course not. Some see the benefit in it though. The basic Dem philosophy seems to be "the playing field isn't level and to keep society together we need to make some concessions." If it's not true, then the Party has some work to do to alter that perception.

I guess it all depends on how you decide to view life in general. Should we live as an interconnected society, which sometimes means showing compassion and helping out those that need it? Or should we live in a Darwinistic society, which means that the strongest survive? Is there a happy middle-ground? Based on the other posts here, one wouldn't think so. It is one way or the other. Thoughts?


And again, sorry JC. My fault entirely.
Accepted and appreciated Stillakid. I think your concern over the lack of middle ground in the political ideological divide is well founded. Some issues spawn more middle ground than others where the grey area is minimal to non-existent.


Originally posted by Tycho
First I want to address Estrada's Court of Appeals Justice nomination. The Democrats are not holding back Latino ascension by blocking Estrada's nomination (hopefully successfully too). They are preventing the promotion of one Latino who could one day help secure the stagnation of the rest of the Latinos in this nation.

I'm sure there are sell-outs who want to climb to power, make themselves rich and famous, and forsake what they know is right for their people. I could see Estrada making the effort to kill affirmative action, or racial / class assistance of any kind, to fulfill the expectations of the whites he has to thank for bringing him to power. His stance on abortion will also set back women's rights - if anyone here cares about those. And how about a child's right to a broad-exposure public curriculum, versus private school choice programs that ensure religious indoctrination.

It's like the KKK allowing entry of a black man into their organization because he wants to be the Grand Dragon for a non-white deportation platform, but lets the rest of them say they are an all-inclusive party.


It's like the Democratic party creating dependence in order to succeed at the polls :) So if someone is ideologically opposed to you and they are in a racial minority, then they are some type of...race traitor? That is a great way to "malign" those folks.
(see "Zionfreedomfighter" even inferior peons can use fancy words :rolleyes: )


Originally posted by Tycho
In any case, anyone care to disclose or presuppose how many Muslems are in the Republican Party?

The number will be approximately equal to that of those who want to join :D

sith_killer_99
02-09-2003, 02:16 PM
Just reading through some of the posts here one trend is painfully obvious. All "sides" feel free to use sweeping generalizations and "humor" to demonize the other side, yet accuse the "other side" of doing the same...

I don't believe I have used sweeping generalizations unless waranted, i.e. the DNC or the RNC. In all cases where I sited the DNC or the RNC I used actual official e-mail information.

Unlike some would have us believe, I actually do the research on issue and make up my own mind about things. I do not agree with the RNC on every issue and have spoken out about the Death Penalty and other conservative issues.

I do wish others would bother to research issues before they speak out, but that is their choice. Things I have yet to see mentioned about the RNC or the Bush agenda include:

1. Freedom Corp
2. Bush's comprehensive energy plan (including the Clean Air initiative)
3. Citizen Service Act
4. Bush's 600 million dollar program to help addicts get treatment.
5. The 15 Billion dollar fight against AIDS in Africa.

Or didn't anyone here watch the State of the Union address. If not JLMK, the DNC's Deputy Chairman, Jack Oliver e-mailed me a copy. I would be more than happy to send it along to anyone who is interested in what the president actually has to say, vs word of mouth or the "News" and other peoples "interpretation" of what was said.

But let's talk more about the cold-hearted meanie Mr. Bush and his agenda of...hate?

derek
02-09-2003, 02:40 PM
jedi clint,

you linked to a post made by darthvyn. is he zionfreedomfighter?

stillakid
02-09-2003, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Clint
Some issues spawn more middle ground than others where the grey area is minimal to non-existent.

While it's vital to first recognize which philosophy of life you and your "opponent" subscribe to (Darwinistic or Compassionate), perhaps one of the overriding factors in defining a middle-ground is in agreeing which issues are candidates for actually having a gray area. While all sides will suggest that they are trying to promote a "better" society, their definitions of what that really is can be radically different and then, of course, how they wish to accomplish it.



--------------------------------------------------------------------
Democrats seem to want to help those less fortunate with the intention of strengthening the foundation of the society from the bottom to lessen the possiblity of collapse. Sometimes maybe they want to give too many chances to people that frankly don't deserve it.

Republicans seem to want to let everyone fend for themselves. Let the weak falter as they don't deserve unwarranted aid from those more fortunate (either through their own hard work or from rich parents). They'll hide behind their wrought iron gates while the rest of the world goes to hell. "Bleeding heart liberals" are all lazy sob's anyway.

Are we all one or the other? I doubt it. By many of the posts here, it's clear that some people certainly lean to one or the other side. But fully subscribing to either philosophy fully for a society would inevitably cause society to self-destruct and collapse. We can't just hand out welfare checks all willy-nilly. But at the same time, if we just propagate the class system, those self-righteous wealthy will eventually find themselves staring down the barrel of a gun. Historically this has ALWAYS happened. The rich simply cannot continue to bleed money from the masses without giving back in some meaningful way. Call it Communism, Trickle-Down Economics, Top Down Theory, or Bush's new tax proposal, this theory has never ever worked in practice. If it did, I'd be the first to line up to support it, but history has shown that it doesn't. The rich get extra cash in their pockets and keep it there out of fear of becoming like "them." Yes, there are a few kind benefactors out there who make meaningful steps to contribute to society, but not enough.

I was just reading another story about Colombia this morning in the LA Times. The reporter and photographer were finally released and a first hand account of captivity was printed. Aside from the general lack of education shown by these rebels ("Hitler was probably the worst American president"), the other striking thing in the article was the disdain the rebels had for those in power. The wealthy elite who were draining money from the country and the people. How long until we see that kind of reaction on a widespread scale in 1st world countries? Maybe never, but why chance it? What's the harm in "leveling" the playing field a bit? Why not tax the wealthiest 5% of society heavily? I mean, my loaf of bread costs the same as theirs. Most of us work almost everyday to earn between $30,000 and $80,000 a year, yet a scant few (ie. the cast of FRIENDS) can "work" for a week and "earn" $100,000,000. I won't begrudge anyone the opportunity to find financial success, but the world can't continue on this path indefinitely. Maybe not in our lifetime or our children's. But someday this idea of financial opportunism will collapse.

But I guess that's okay as long as we all "get ours." Screw everybody else.

EricRG
02-09-2003, 06:51 PM
derek,

I wouldn't conceal my name. Plus, this guy wanted McCain for Pres. We all know whom I wanted.

Jedi Clint
02-09-2003, 07:18 PM
"If I have to give it away. Why work for it?"
"If I don't have to work for it, why should I?"
Perhaps if you tax "the rich" enough, they will adopt statement number one. And if you hand "the poor" enough they will adopt statement number two.

Is there a middle ground? We live in it. To say that the methods of one group will cripple society while the methods of the opposite are it's salvation is not accurate. Either way taken to the extreme has the possibility of failure.

The methods used by proponents of each could be altered. Increase the incentive for altruistic behavior rather than the penalty for ability. Decrease dependence by increasing individual ability. Neither of those approaches is given due breadth of application IMO. The current tug-o-war is monopolizing all the intellectual and temporal resources available for such changes as has been observed.

Kenedy and Reagan were both successful in lowering taxes but increasing tax income to the Gov't.

I don't intend to remain at my current income level. I take responsibilty for my situation. So while I might be "poor" today, I am potentially "rich".


Originally posted by derek
jedi clint,

you linked to a post made by darthvyn. is he zionfreedomfighter?

I found the text to be of more interest than the author.

derek
02-09-2003, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by EricRG
derek,

I wouldn't conceal my name. Plus, this guy wanted McCain for Pres. We all know whom I wanted.

yep, that rules you and tycho out.;)
i was joking with my list, just naming SSG's known "lefties" off the top of my head. i honestly didn't think it was any of the folks i listed, as none of them are known to be bashful or afraid to speak their mind.:)

but zion is obviously a long timer. no one just decides to register yesterday for the sole puropse of flaming howdy.:) when dar or JT get on, they'll do an IP trace and smoke out this coward.:crazed:

sith_killer_99
02-09-2003, 08:10 PM
I see noone wanted to touch on my 5 points.

That's ok.


Republicans seem to want to let everyone fend for themselves. Let the weak falter as they don't deserve unwarranted aid from those more fortunate (either through their own hard work or from rich parents). They'll hide behind their wrought iron gates while the rest of the world goes to hell. "Bleeding heart liberals" are all lazy sob's anyway.

Does the phrase "No child left behind" mean anything to anyone. The RNC happens to believe that it starts with education. Teach a man to fish. What about the RNC's "grass-roots" organization to get people involved in their community. Mentoring programs?

You see the RNC happens to believe that getting involved is better than the DNC's old standby...

Throw money (tax payer dollars) at it and it will go away. As if a check can replace a role model or a mentor. The DNC opposes tax cuts because it means that they have no money to throw at the poor and the minorities. No money to help clear their guily concience. Whatever would they do?

Still don't beileve me?

Check this out:

http://www.usafreedomcorps.gov/

JediTricks
02-09-2003, 10:02 PM
The conduct of nearly half of the users of this thread sickens me and it is truly a displeasure to moderate situations like this. In the 2 days this thread has existed, I've counted at least 20 personal attacks by various users and at least that many uses of ridiculous propeganda and generalizations; this seems to be less of a discussion thread and more of a p***ing contest.

Get it straight, these threads aren't about bashing your fellow forumites or starting flame wars, you're not going to make the world better by belittling others and/or their ideas; these threads are about discussing issues in a civil manner, if any of you can't find it within yourselves to do that then just don't bother to post here at all.

Lord Malakite
02-09-2003, 10:16 PM
Originally posted by JediTricks
The conduct of nearly half of the users of this thread sickens me and it is truly a displeasure to moderate situations like this.

Agreed JT. Can't we all just get along.

Emperor Howdy
02-09-2003, 10:58 PM
Zionfreedomfighter is Uri Gellar? :(





Originally posted by derek
zion is obviously a long timer. no one just decides to register yesterday for the sole puropse of flaming howdy.:)


Yeah, but wouldn't it be cool if that was the case? :p



Actually, I'm pretty sure Zion is Caesar. He likes to pick on me and badmouths my mother constantly. :(

Emperor Howdy
02-09-2003, 11:14 PM
Originally posted by JediTricks
The conduct of nearly half of the users of this thread sickens me and it is truly a displeasure to moderate situations like this. In the 2 days this thread has existed, I've counted at least 20 personal attacks by various users and at least that many uses of ridiculous propeganda and generalizations; this seems to be less of a discussion thread and more of a p***ing contest.


You know what, you're absolutely right. Reading back on my posts, I see I was part of the problem. Unfortunately, I tend to take jabs when speaking my mind. That's a bad thing. My intentions aren't to p*** anyone off....or maybe they are....who knows.....but I apologize to anyone that I did offend. My "obscenely liberal Democrat" comment to Tycho and my "I want to marry Saddam/Saddam sympathizer" comments to EricRG were in bad taste. Sorry dudes. If you were here, I'd give you my last two beers.

2-1B
02-10-2003, 01:06 AM
Howdy,
I should get those 2 beers for putting up with your accusation. :mad:



:crazed:

The 'Xir
02-10-2003, 04:47 AM
I could come up with some lame excuse like, my post was one of the more civil and diplomatic, but F! That!

I should get the 2 beers just because I need 'em!!!!! :D :crazed: :dead:

The Overlord Returns
02-10-2003, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by derek
so, .......................who's "Zionfreedomfighter"?

1. tycho?
2. eric?
3. stillakid?
4. overlord?
5. none of the above?



:crazed: :crazed: :crazed: :crazed: :crazed: :crazed: :crazed: :crazed: :crazed: :crazed: :crazed: :crazed: :crazed:

Hey! I really resent this!!

Considering the history of Howdy and I's back and forth relationship, what makes you think I would ever feel the need to hide when arguing him.........

I...I'm speechless........you have WOUNDED me sir.... ;)

In all seriousness.....ZFF is not me.........


P.S. ..... if ANYONE here should get Howdy's last 2 beers....it should be me.....

Hmm...I wonder if I can convince Howdy to trek on up to the frozen north for a night of drinking........Whatya say EH?

stillakid
02-10-2003, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Clint
"If I have to give it away. Why work for it?"
"If I don't have to work for it, why should I?"
Perhaps if you tax "the rich" enough, they will adopt statement number one. And if you hand "the poor" enough they will adopt statement number two.

Is there a middle ground? We live in it. To say that the methods of one group will cripple society while the methods of the opposite are it's salvation is not accurate. Either way taken to the extreme has the possibility of failure.

I might not have written my statement well enough, but that's pretty much what I was getting at. Throwing the system toward either end of the spectrum is a recipe for disaster. Despite the eternal internal dissent in this country, that's what checks & balances is all about.


Originally posted by Jedi Clint
The methods used by proponents of each could be altered. Increase the incentive for altruistic behavior rather than the penalty for ability. Decrease dependence by increasing individual ability. Neither of those approaches is given due breadth of application IMO. The current tug-o-war is monopolizing all the intellectual and temporal resources available for such changes as has been observed.
I believe you touched on one of the most important points I've been trying to make (not here) for years. There is a bad habit among law makers to change the wrong rules to fix a problem. Let's take the motorcycle helmet law for instance. Enacted supposedly with the interest of lower insurance rates for all of us, a rider of a motorcycle in many states is required to wear a helmet lest he wind up a welfare supported vegetable. While moderately admirable as an attempt to help us, I think they got it wrong. First off, I say let motorcycle riders ride without a helmet. We need to cull the herd anyway and anyone dumb enough to fly down the asphalt ribbons without adequate protection doesn't need to be contributing to the general gene pool. So, instead of alterating the law to compel them to wear a helmet to protect our insurance rates, why not change the rule that says that a guy who takes a spill without a helmet deserves to be covered by insurance? Simple, huh? But no, more "personal freedom" is infringed upon because of this supposedly "altruistic" goal.

Anyway, when you say "Increase the incentive for altruistic behavior rather than the penalty for ability," I think this is exactly the kind of change our society needs. There is really no major incentive for someone to be altruistic. I don't know how it would work exactly, but a more fair system for everyone would be to dissolve the INCOME tax and restructure SALES tax. This would not penalize anyone for the money they earn. At the same time someone, somewhere should take a hard look at our commodities and determine which products/services are "necessary for survival" and which are luxury items. The "survival" items should be taxed at significantly low rates so that those people who scrape by month to month have a chance to do more than that. The 'luxury" items should get taxed significantly higher and there could even be tiers for that. For instance, let's take food. Bread is bread and belongs in the "survival" category. But "beer" is definitely NOT required for survival, so it belongs in the "luxury" column. See how this works? I'm not just talking about Ferraris and caviar. Then with this system, anyone who doesn't make much money has the choice to make on their own: buy only the low cost "survival" items and try to work toward a better life, or splurge and blow their scant income on non-essentials. Then it's their fault alone.

Then, those with more cash at the end of the day don't feel like they need to save every penny to pay their income tax bill every April. There's actually more money sitting in their account to spend "altuistically" if they desire. How to inspire that kind of behavior? Well, people are generally big babies and only do something with a reward in mind, so a tax refund at the end of the year (gather up the sales receipts) has always been a moderately successful incentive.




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
Kenedy and Reagan were both successful in lowering taxes but increasing tax income to the Gov't.
Perhaps, but didn't Reagan leave us with the biggest deficit this country had ever seen? (please correct me if I'm wrong, though I'm sure I don't need to ask ;) ) Which Bush compounded? Which Clinton got us out of? Which W is putting us back into? See the pattern? Credit card (deficit) spending hasn't been wildly successful in my personal life and it's not a good idea for the federal government either. The proletariat can only live fat off the labor of the masses for so long. Without periodic corrective measures (Dem's in office every few years) or a wholesale alteration of the system, it will eventually collapse in on itself.


Originally posted by Jedi Clint
I don't intend to remain at my current income level. I take responsibilty for my situation. So while I might be "poor" today, I am potentially "rich".
I'm with you there. :) Just saw Ted Turner on the Today show this morning complaining that he can't do as much "charity" as he wants now because AOL Time Warners stock dropped significantly. We need more rich guys like him. Just imagine what kind of world this would be if more wealthy individuals just started writing checks with no concern for "tax breaks" or other selfish concerns. Just start writing checks. It's really that simple.


Originally posted by sith_killer_99
I see noone wanted to touch on my 5 points.

That's ok.



Does the phrase "No child left behind" mean anything to anyone. The RNC happens to believe that it starts with education. Teach a man to fish. What about the RNC's "grass-roots" organization to get people involved in their community. Mentoring programs?

You see the RNC happens to believe that getting involved is better than the DNC's old standby...

Throw money (tax payer dollars) at it and it will go away. As if a check can replace a role model or a mentor. The DNC opposes tax cuts because it means that they have no money to throw at the poor and the minorities. No money to help clear their guily concience. Whatever would they do?

Still don't beileve me?

Check this out:

http://www.usafreedomcorps.gov/

I also remember something like "a thousand points of light" and "read my lips, no new taxes." Look, I appreciate that some conservatives may genuinely want to do good for society, but how many "catch phrases" and slogans do we have to put up with until we see honest change from that camp? It's not about just blindly throwing tax dollars at a problem. But just blindly throwing potential tax dollars back into the pockets of the wealthy isn't going to help matters either. There are just too few honest to goodness benefactors out there who will "reinvest" their tax savings back into real-world help. Too many mansions to buy. Too many villas in the South of France. Have you seen that new Ferrari Modena? Awesome!! I'd like one myself. And what about that new Hummer?!! I have eaten at the Palm restaurant in Vegas and it really is worth every dollar I spent. Those new plasma HD screens are just killer. How can we live without them? And, of course, that THX certified home theater system is a must. You get the picture here?

Like it or not, we have to "throw" some money at the "poor and minorities" because they are the working foundation that prop up the wealthy elite. Your rash generalization about the methods and intentions of the "liberals" is just inflammatory and has no useful purpose but to divide people. It solves nothing.


Addendum
Just found this in the paper today:

February 10, 2003

WASHINGTON OUTLOOK
Our Children Will Pay the Bill for Bush's Budget
By Ronald Brownstein, Times Staff Writer


It was easy to laugh at the lockbox.

But now that it's gone — blasted to bits by President Bush's federal budget — it's worth pausing to consider what the lockbox represented. It was a promise between generations, a rare, perhaps unprecedented effort by the baby boom generation to put another's interests above its own.

Now that promise is broken. And the bright young things in Gen X and Gen Y will pay the price for years.

For those a bit rusty on the details, the lockbox was the idea first advanced by President Clinton and then endorsed by Bush and Democrat Al Gore in the 2000 presidential race.

It said Washington should balance its budget without tapping any of the surplus tax revenue temporarily accumulating in Social Security before the first wave of baby boom retirements.

That would allow government to devote the Social Security surplus solely to paying down the national debt. And that would substantially reduce the federal government's annual interest costs, leaving Washington more money to help pay for Social Security and Medicare when the baby boomers begin retiring at the end of this decade.

In effect, the lockbox offered the baby boom generation a chance to help prepay for its retirement so the crushing costs wouldn't fall so heavily on its children.

Under the lockbox vision, the reduction in federal interest costs would largely offset the increased costs of Medicare, Medicaid (which funds nursing-home care for low-income seniors) and Social Security as the baby boom generation retires. And that would reduce the pressure to raise taxes on families in the work force 10 and 20 years from now.

The generational accounting in the lockbox strategy was straightforward. Today's earners, dominated by baby boomers, would resist the temptation of voting themselves big tax breaks or expensive new programs out of the projected federal surpluses so they could reduce the tax burden on their children.

In other words, as a country we would do what many parents do every day: defer gratification in the interest of the next generation.

The payoff for maintaining that discipline could have been enormous.

In 2000, the publicly held national debt stood at $3.4 trillion and the federal government paid $223 billion in interest to service that debt. Before Bush took office, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected that if the federal government held to the lockbox strategy, it could virtually pay off the publicly held national debt by 2008 — making the nation debt-free for the first time since the Andrew Jackson administration in the 1830s.

That would reduce federal interest payments to about $50 billion a year by the end of this decade, and eventually eliminate them.

Consider that the road not taken.

Amid war, recession, the $1.35-trillion, 10-year cost of Bush's 2001 tax cut, the $1.45 trillion in additional tax cuts he's proposing for the next 10 years, and his proposals to increase spending on defense and a Medicare prescription drug benefit, the administration projects federal deficits through the decade. Under Bush's plan, Washington will not only spend all of the Social Security surplus the lockbox promised for debt reduction, but borrow billions more on top of that.

In 2008, the year the Congressional Budget Office initially projected that the publicly held federal debt could be eliminated, Bush's new budget anticipates that debt will soar past $5 trillion, the highest level ever.

That means if Bush serves two terms, he will increase the federal debt more in absolute dollar terms (though not as a share of the economy) than President Reagan did during his eight years.

All of this guarantees billions in higher interest costs for future generations.

Remember the estimate that Washington could reduce its interest costs to about $50 billion a year by the end of this decade? Bush's budget says Washington will be forced to spend $250 billion a year to service the debt by 2008. By 2020, when Washington might have been debt-free, Bush projects that interest costs will consume almost 9% of all federal spending.

And precisely as we're handing our kids the bill for this massive debt, we'll also be asking them to bear the cost of our retirement. The number of people receiving Social Security is on track to rise from just more than 45 million today to 69 million by 2020. The number of seniors receiving Medicare is expected to jump to 60 million from 40 million over the same period.

More beneficiaries (and relentless medical inflation) means soaring costs. Measured as a share of the economy, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will cost 50% more in 2020 than they do today, the administration estimates.

At the same time, defense spending is sure to rise steadily as the nation confronts the open-ended threat of terrorism.

In 10 years, today's young workers could face a triple witching hour — with a kicker. They will have to foot the bill for the baby boom generation's retirement, a big defense buildup and soaring federal interest payments, even as the cost of the tax cuts Bush has already won or proposed hits $330 billion a year, by the calculation of Brookings Institution economist William Gale.

Bush's budget does one favor for the next generation. Though he hasn't tipped his hand on specifics, Bush at least acknowledges the necessity of bringing the long-term costs of Medicare under control, which most Democrats still refuse to do.

But any savings Medicare reform might provide future taxpayers are overwhelmed by the increases in the national debt that Bush's proposed tax cuts would produce.

In fact, a tax cut that increases the national debt doesn't deserve to be called a tax cut. It's really a transfer of tax obligations from this generation to the next.

Our children will pay the bill, through the increased national debt, for the tax cuts we're voting ourselves today.

And while we're at it, by cutting taxes during wartime — something America has never done — we'll also hand the next generation the bill for defending the nation.

After Sept. 11, 2001, part of the budget's deterioration was beyond Bush's control. But his decisions have deepened the deficit hole.

In his State of the Union address, Bush insisted, "We will not pass along our problems to ... other generations."

His budget fails his own test. It not only evades problems that will confront the next generation, it compounds them.

If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latimes.com/archives.

JON9000
02-10-2003, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by Emperor Howdy
Stock a grocery, wait a table, hammer a nail, or get a law degree....I don't care...just stop blaming "the man for holdin' ya down" while the "rich get richer and the poor get poorer". Grow up. We're tired of the lazy man's cliches. No one's listening, ok? Yeah..I know...damn capitalists! :rolleyes: I've said it a thousand times. No one EVER gave me a damn thing. I started my business with a crappy little pick-up truck and a push-mower. I spent many a nights on friend's couches, eating raman noodles, and borrowing $20 from girlfriends. :rolleyes: Now, I have zero debt (except a new 2002 Silverado) and grossed over $79,000 in 2002. My goal is the $90,000-$100,000 range in 2003. I'll do so by advertising, working more hours

Now, Emperor Howdy, I want you to know I mean this in the most pure form of jest...

But your description of your prior life could not have been spoken any better by Joseph Bounderby, the "bully of humility" from Charles Dickens' "Hard Times."

http://www.online-literature.com/view.php/hardtimes/5?term=bully%20of%20humility

or if that doesn't work, Chapter 4 of the novel.

To point the jest right back at myself, I saw a bit of Thomas Gradgrind in myself in my younger days!

By the way, why can't I be Zion Freedom Fighter? Have I not solidified my commy rep enough?

:sur:

Tycho
02-11-2003, 01:13 AM
Sorry I missed out on some of the fun. I'm back.

I've been working on a post in Word. I'll drop it in after I've read up on everybody's position and made sure I responded to everything.

No worries Emperor Howdy.

And I might watch Attack of the Clones before I get back to posting here...

Just enough time for a movie before bed.

Jedi Clint
02-11-2003, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by stillakid
Perhaps, but didn't Reagan leave us with the biggest deficit this country had ever seen? (please correct me if I'm wrong, though I'm sure I don't need to ask ;) ) Which Bush compounded? Which Clinton got us out of? Which W is putting us back into? See the pattern? Credit card (deficit) spending hasn't been wildly successful in my personal life and it's not a good idea for the federal government either. The proletariat can only live fat off the labor of the masses for so long. Without periodic corrective measures (Dem's in office every few years) or a wholesale alteration of the system, it will eventually collapse in on itself.

Tax cuts are not inferior to spending increases. The national debt has increased every year no matter who we've had in the oval office. Reagan had a Democrat controlled congress, as did Bush 1, and Clinton.



Originally posted by stillakid
I also remember something like "a thousand points of light" and "read my lips, no new taxes." Look, I appreciate that some conservatives may genuinely want to do good for society, but how many "catch phrases" and slogans do we have to put up with until we see honest change from that camp?
It's not about just blindly throwing tax dollars at a problem. But just blindly throwing potential tax dollars back into the pockets of the wealthy isn't going to help matters either. There are just too few honest to goodness benefactors out there who will "reinvest" their tax savings back into real-world help. Too many mansions to buy. Too many villas in the South of France. Have you seen that new Ferrari Modena? Awesome!! I'd like one myself. And what about that new Hummer?!! I have eaten at the Palm restaurant in Vegas and it really is worth every dollar I spent. Those new plasma HD screens are just killer. How can we live without them? And, of course, that THX certified home theater system is a must. You get the picture here?

Actually increases in the child tax credit and E.I.C. don't exactly "throw tax dollars into the pockets of the rich". It is redistribution of wealth, and I'd think G.W. would get the recognition and credit he deserves from proponents of "progressive" tax programs for promoting a tax package that included such provisions.


Originally posted by stillakid
Like it or not, we have to "throw" some money at the "poor and minorities" because they are the working foundation that prop up the wealthy elite.

In this country, the "poor and minorities" can become the "wealthy elite" unless tax programs progress to the point that the incentive to earn is eliminated. Every time a change in the tax code is passed into law it doesn't have to be increasingly more "progressive".

stillakid
02-11-2003, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Clint
In this country, the "poor and minorities" can become the "wealthy elite" unless tax programs progress to the point that the incentive to earn is eliminated.

I don't really know anybody that doesn't want to earn more money than they already have. I just helped shoot a story on homeless people in the Los Angeles area and believe it or not, all except the lowest of the low who had already "given up" all got up and did what they needed to do everyday to either fill their cup or to qualify for some program or another that would eventually improve their situation. It's far too easy to demonize everyone who exists outside the standard definition of civilized society, but again, those are usually just false generalizations used to support a conservative "plan."

Of course we like to think that everyone can achieve greatness and that everyone has an equal chance of doing so, but the reality is that it isn't the case. Sometimes, for reasons that are entirely out of a person's control, events transpire that bury them deeper and deeper. It all comes back to how we as human beings choose to decide how to treat one another. Either let every fend for themselves and live or die by their own efforts or failings, or do we offer aid (within reason)? What kind of society do we want to live in?

Plus, on the wealth side of the equation, I return to the idea that people are fundamentally greedy and scared. Out of what amounts to greed, they amass as many resources (money, shelter, etc) as they can and then out of fear of losing those things, they hoard any spare resources they have (money). Not enough significant tax kickbacks are reinvested back into the society that enabled those wealthy people to get rich in the first place. This isn't a fault of the idea of trickledown economics. It's a great idea. But when coupled with basic human nature, it has proven itself to fail every time. Bush's current plan may pay lip-service to the cause of compassion, but it's basic foundation still operates on the failed idea that the wealthy elite will pass their tax savings on to help society in any meaningful way. Don't get me wrong, I'm dying for more "Ted Turner's" to prove me wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.

plasticfetish
02-13-2003, 03:11 AM
Originally posted by Emperor Howdy
Zionfreedomfighter is Uri Gellar? :(

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

Oh, ouch ... I had a wisdom tooth out the other day ... this thread is making my head hurt so bad that I might just go get that Vicodin the doctor prescribed to me.

Howdy ... that line made my eyes hurt.