amerika israels pupet

digitalwanderer

It doesn't really matter, King George the Second is after the whole world and the bad guy countries are all on the list first. It's just a matter of time. (I do NOT agree with the idea, just have a depressing feeling that's the list on a memo pad in the Shrubs office. )

JavaFox

Indeed, I agree with that. And to a large extent, we do. In President Bush's State of the Union address, you'll remember, he pointed to three rogue nations that he viewed as a threat to the United States: Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. Well, of these, only one can be considered a true Muslim theocracy. NK is clearly a secular nation, and Iraq, too, for a long time, has been under a secular --and not a fundementalist Muslim-- dictatorship. So in this way, you are wrong in saying that the US should not merely focus on Muslim nations because they so clearly do not.

Now, I have said this before and I will say it again -- while it is indeed true that most Muslims are not terrorists, it is also true that most terrorists --at least the ones that hate us-- are Muslims. It is no great coincidence, then, that we do go after such nations. It is not racist for me to say this, because it is factual, and it is also true that most fundementalist Muslim regimes are dangerous to us. We should fight those that fight us -- and if the majority of them happen to be Muslim nations, then so be it.

JavaFox

Indeed, DW, why in the world would we want a president with moral clarity and a sense of what it will take to make America safe? Instead, let us allow our enemies to amass weapons that could easily wipe out millions of Americans! Let's act like the Europeans -- by turning our heads while giving the benefit of the doubt to murderously unstable world leaders! We should do nothing while our enemies probe our system for weaknesses; we should match their vigilance and preparation with rhetoric and idleness! INDEED!

It is clearly this kind of thought that lead to the attacks of 9-11, and it saddens me that so many Americans continue to buy into this kind of "doubt-America-but-trust-despots" acquiescence on a global scale.

Some things never change.

Highwood

Replacing Castro with a democratic government might be better for the people of Cuba, however if you look at recent history the U.S. very rarely if ever builds democracies. The U.S is much more likely to go in remove Castro and leave, if that happens chances are it won’t be democracy that replaces Castro and there is a good chance that what ever form of government replaces Castro will be much worse. Remember it wasn’t Castro who ended democracy in Cuba; it was the good friend of the states, Batista who did that.

The only reason that America has never lifted the trade sanctions against Cuba is that the narrow minded egomaniacs who make those decisions can’t admit that they, or there predecessors, were wrong, and can’t stand the fact that Castro bested them on more than one occasion.

I have been to Cuba, Mexico, several South American countries, and several parts of the States. The living conditions in Cuba are far better than they are in most South American countries. Cuba has a very high level of literacy, infect most Cubans speak more than one language. I felt much safer on the streets of Havana at night than I have in most of the larger U.S cities.

David

I am curous how many of you guys that are bitching about american policy and voted in this last election? If you didnt Shut your mouth you have no right to bitch.

Vampyromaniac

OK, I don't have a real problem with that line that always gets said at some point in a political discussion, David.

Except what do you say to those people who did vote, but their candidate(s) lost?

And what do you say to people who disagree with both candidates, eventually either not voting, or voting for one of those they don't really agree with anyway?

JavaFox

I agree with Vampy on that point; sometimes not voting is a political statement in itself. For example, in the 2000 Election, one could have said, "The candidates are both rich and white, and I don't see how either could represent me" -- that is legit, in my eyes. There are many ways you can be political and cause change without voting -- for example, examine the Civl Rights movement. Some blacks couldn't vote -- do you fault them? While voting is an important civic duty that everyone should participate in, dismissing the opinions of those who have not voted is absurd and ignorant at best.

Vampyromaniac

I didn't mention the idiots who vote, "just because." I don't want tards who don't know much about the candidates/propositions to vote at all. They should make you attend a class, or take a test before you vote, to see if you even know what you are voting for.

digitalwanderer

I voted. I've voted in every election I could since 1984. I agree that people who don't vote shouldn't bitch, even when not voting is your chosen statement.

My side didn't win, but I wasn't really all that happy with me sides candidate either. (I'm still wondering just HOW the hell Gore could have shot himself in the foot so badly SO many times!)

I have nothing against a president who's priority is to insure the safety and welfare of our people, but I really don't think that has a whole lot to do with our current administrations plans. I know it's what they're saying, but it just doesn't jibe with the facts.

I don't know what Rove's adgenda is, but I know we're following it.

JavaFox

What facts would those be? And just to be clear, by facts I don't mean partisan obfuscations, equivocating morality, or weak-willed apologetic agendas. Just so you know.

digitalwanderer

The secretive nature of the White House, their stubborn insistance that they have proof of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq but their total unwillingness to share that info with the American people, the blurring of religion/government, the hopelessly corrupt business scruples of his main advisors; you know, little things.

JavaFox

Well, DW, you know I love discussing these issues with you, but something tells me that my words fall on deaf ears. But it is Christmas, after all, so one can always hope for a miracle.

Liberals do celebrate Christmas, don't they?

Firstly, there is perfect Constitutional basis for secrecy as it relates to national security, and I sure hope you don't disagree that we are better served by a government that doesn't give away all of our plans. See, you demonstrated twice in your rant above that you are apparently unaware that CNN is a global news network. You may have forgotten. But this is true, and that fact is relevant inasmuch as THEY GET CNN IN IRAQ! Why, sir, would we want to tell the press what information we have, when that would make it available to our enemies? For example, say we know of two plants making VX gas in Iraq just north of the Southern No-Fly Zone line. What do we about it? Should we give up that tactical advantage and tell our enemies what buildings we're going to target simply because? That is absurd. The fact is, we live in a very advanced world in which information is --in all reality-- unhindered by geographical distance. As such, we need to be careful about giving away potential target sites, or warning enemies about our next move.

THAT said, the US Government IS working closely with UN Weapons inspectors and its Allies to make sure the appropriate information goes to the appropriate people. Seems to me that that makes a whole lot more sense than simply telling Wolf Blitzer, and, consequently, the whole damn world. Do you disagree?

Blurring of religion and government? In what way? Are you referring to faith-based initiatives? Because if you are, your ignorance of the subject gives this American pause. The validity of the program is clear, and it can be explained by a simple quotation, I feel. "If a charity is helping the needy, it should not matter if there is a rabbi on the board, or a cross or a crescent on the wall, or a religious commitment in the charter[....]" Do you disagree with that? To put it bluntly, if an organization is helping to feed the hungry, house the poor, or treat the sick, who the fuck cares if they are a religious organization or not? Groups doing GOOD for people don't deserve federal cash simply because they have religious opinions? If you are serious about that, then maybe there are some OTHER organizations you have been neglecting to critisize!

Now, if by "blurring of religion and government" you actually mean "Bush is a Christian and has a speechwriter from Wheaton," I ask you: so what? Bush has never tried to force his religion on anyone. And his personal beliefs don't really have that much to do with you or I. Christian leaders are not new, and are kind of guaranteed to exist, considering there are as many Christians in the US as there are Muslims in Indonesia.

I am a vehement proponent of seperation of church and state (contrary to popular belief, however, this phrase appears nowhere in any governmental document), but I have no problem with faith-based initiatives. Why? Simply because there is nothing wrong with the idea. Let's face it, faith-based organizations do a lot of good, and denying them some funding simply because they have religious attitudes is not only nonsensical, it is wholly hypocritical.

If you want to elaborate on who you're referring to in regards to your accusations regarding unscrupulous business practices, I'd love to entertain them.

ToshiroOC

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Are you somehow insinuating that it is a bad thing if we don't? I happen to be very liberal and very atheist (just one smidgeon away from being rabid, like some other atheists I know), and I find this to be rather annoying.
Yes, lets all join hands and hope for a miracle during another Christian celebration forced on everyone else in America! And of course, no Christmas would be complete without some idiot assuming that people who hold strong views are unwilling to listen to others! And that unmistakable patronizing tone is always welcome in debates between peers!
Of course, we wouldn't want to give targets away, so we would have no reason at all to let anyone but the warmongering American military leaders see the 12000 page report! The only people who have access to the full military report are the five nuclear powers and the permanent members of the UN Security Council. The US wants war because it's Commander-in-Chief needs reelection and needs to meddle, Russia wants war because Iraq backed out of a multi-billion dollar oil deal that Russia wanted badly, and the rest of the council is still saying that they need proof of wrongdoing before initiating another civilian slaughter in the Middle East. This means that there was no direct proof in the report, despite the intimations of the US and Russia. I personally don't mind not knowing the locations of targets, but given that everyone in the UN who doesn't have a very large personal stake in destroying Iraq is still saying that there is no reason to invade, I think that is proof enough that the US needs to either make its case to a trust-worthy third party (the UN) or reveal enough information to the general public that we can know without a doubt that the war in Iraq was necessary for more than political reasons.
Of course everyone who doesn't share our views is ignorant! Idiot... faith-based initiatives are a blurring of religion and government, for the exact reason that the funding from the government isn't strictly restricted to non-religion-based functions! The way the money is distributed may make it seem like the money is solely intended to help other people, but until the government actually starts enforcing this by retracting funding from religious groups that use the funding for various religious agendas and force said groups to prove that the money is being used for the common good, without discrimination based upon race or religion for the recipients of the help, it is essentially the government giving money to religious interests for religion, and blurrs extremely important distinction between the church and state. Those "other organizations" that you seem to think that we would be pointing fingers at and critizing are not a problem in my book. It is most definitely the sort of information that the general American populace needs, as this program appears to be most definitely not religiously based, but historically based (as far as that can go with religious figures. Jesus probably existed, but he was a Rabbi named Joshua, and probably looked like the current residents of Iraq, not this pale white skinned European so prevalent in Christian literature...). This program appears to have Muhammad represented by an actor, which in and of itself shows that this program isn't religiously based, as the Muslim faith says that one should not ever show a visage of their prophet, as it will invariably be imperfect. The actor is breaking this rule... I also like the fact that you decided to attack a production aimed at improving understanding of Muslims instead of some of the extravagant and expensive tax-payer funded Christmas celebrations all across the country... Read this: http://www.tylwythteg.com/enemies/Bush/bush19.html and you will understand why so many people believe that Dubya gives less than a damn about the separation of church and state.
There are various unscrupulous business practices throughout Bush's Administration, and if you want a debate on them I will be more than welcome to accomodate you.


ToshiroOC

www.democraticunderground.com

EDIT: Oh, and here's a bit more to chew on: http://www.ngltf.org/federal/wwfaith.htm

EDIT EDIT: Heres a nice excerpt from the above link:

digitalwanderer

Hell, I hope all the time! No reason for miracles to just happen at x-mas. I ain't got deaf ears, I just think you're wrong on most of your views on this subject.

If I see any, I'll be sure to ask 'em. Personally I love celebrating x-mas, it's me fave time. It's always sort of cracked me up how the christians moved Jesus' BD from Aug/Sep to Dec 25th to try and steal the midwinters day celebration of winter soltice, but I enjoy it none the less. Heck, don't you watch South Park? Didn't you know that x-mas is the celebration of Jesus giving his life to save Santa Claus from the evil Iraquis? Now that's worth celebrating!



Yeah, so why the hell are all the officials giving press releases about the war every day on it? Why did they start discussing their "secret plans" to invade Iraq MONTHS before it happened, yet the can't give us one little smidgen of proof? I do understand the need for security, but there's a reason for our freedom of information too; and I feel this administration is well over one side of that line.

Dude, you're the one with the rosy-colored lenses on this one. It's because it's your team that he's blurring the distinction with that you're defending him, nothing more. I don't feel like even starting to debate this one with you, you can't get the neccessary perspective on it.


No, it's one of our governments greatest strengths and I think weakening even a little is one of the greatest mistakes so far of this presidents term. I won't "face it" that faith-based initiatives do a lot of good, because I personally feel a lot of them are only doing it to add more to their own flock. They NEVER just help without reminding you of their particular organizations message, it's technically the funding of religious propaganda in me book.

Jeeze, that's too easy! Cheney/Bush oil dealings, the financial secretary who just resigned...hell, what about Mr. "I'll spend a few weeks and govt dosh flying around raising a bazillion dollars for the Republican Party just for giggles while trying to sell a take-over" tour? I know it's legal, but it's so tacky!

JavaFox

Wow, so much animosity, Toshiro. I thought conservatives were the hateful ones. At any rate, I have a lot of disdain for the liberal agenda so it's sometimes hard for me to contain it, but the Christmas-related comments were made tongue-in-cheek, and I am sorry if they offended you.

However, I wholeheartedly disagree with your contention that Christmas is a religious holiday. Here is why. Jesus was a philosopher. He said things like "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Treat others you way you want to be treated." Those are significant philosophical statements. Any many of the teachings of Jesus are manifest in the laws and ideals of America, so discounting Jesus as a philosophical teacher simply because a large group of people think he's the Son of God is pretty absurd, really. Are not many of our laws based on Judeo-Christian laws? Isn't there a Biblical basis for civil rights? The First Amendment? Due process of law? Aren't many of these things, indeed, influenced by the Bible? I would argue that they are. Now, don't misunderstand me. I don't mean that this makes the Bible valid or that Biblical principles should be forced on Americans. Again, let me say that I am a strong proponent of the seperation of Church and State. But let me say that there is a HUGE case to be made that the Bible and indeed, the teachings of Jesus, have influenced America in monumental ways. No secular historical text will deny the exisitence of Jesus of Nazereth. His teachings have fundementally altered the course of history. This doesn't prove his divinity, mind you, but it is undeniable fact. Jesus and his teachings have fundementally changed the course of history and human thought. Why, then, can we have Columbus Day and Martin Luther King Day, but scoff at the idea of a Jesus Day?

Why is it that everyone sees the UN as some objective, trust-worthy party? It is not. All it is is an avenue for many countries to express their interests, nothing more. Look, Russia had problems with our Iraqi War because, as you correctly mentioned, they wanted oil-contracts with that nation, and because Iraq owes them something along the lines of $8,000,000,000. But, look at France. France has been trading with Iraq for years, and they also have extensive oil contracts with those countries. Russia wants us to ignore their dealings with the Cheyens, and the Chinese want basically the same thing (they have a similar situtation with Muslims). Basically, my point is this: Get rid of your liberal notion that the UN Security Council is an objective, humanitarian, or even moral body, because it is not. Members of the UN do not put their differences aside for the good of humanity -- they want their demands met. In the words of Jonah Goldberg, "altruism and charity aren't the coin of the realm on the Security Council; blood and oil are."

Your contetion that other nations don't have a large stake in destroying Iraq is absurd. Russia and France surely do, and it is FOR THAT reason, and THAT REASON ALONE, that they do not support our efforts! Why can't you see that? No country except the US is being alturistic about this effort! Every other country only cares about their interests! Look at Iraq's trading partners (France 22.5%, China 5.8%, Russia 5.8%) and THEN try to tell me that France, Russia, and China are acting out of purely humanitarian motives!

I urge you -- please don't be stoneheaded about this. The members of the UN can be greedy, too. And that's what they're doing now.

I can't believe you, Toshiro. If you are against the governmental funding of religion, then you HAVE to be against PBS. And you, DW, you didn't address this point. All I am asking for is consistency. This PBS special has been called "an advertisment for Islam" and you shouldn't support if it you're against faith-based initiatives. Me, personally, I believe the study of religion is incredibly important, and that includes Christianity. Every major world religion has cultural significance. But, instead of just talking about the life of Muhammed, this program also discusses the teachings of Islam, and uses such phrases as: "[Muhammed] brought peace to the warring pagan tribes of Arabia." Now, just because we are now fighting a war against Muslim peoples, doesn't mean the government should be funding religion, does it? So, again, I issue my challenge: if you are against federal funding of religious ideas, why are you not rallying against PBS, an organization that receives $250,000,000 a year from federal and state grants.

DW, I am dissapointed by your response. Though I disagree with you frequently, I still regard you as an intellectual, and to refuse to debate with me because "I lack perspective" is a slap in the face. I have never backed down from a debate on DH, regardless of how tiring the subject became.

digitalwanderer

I shouldn't have insulted you like that...sorry. I'll debate with you some more, but first I gotta run out and brave a blizzard to get me kitties some kitty food before they rebel on me and then help the kids put some more toys together...THEN I'll be ready to debate with ya a bit.

EDITED BITS: Oh, and I'm not an intellectual. I'm an overly opinionated f-cker who just has a large vocabulary. (Me mother taught english at the local college before she went to law school when I was 16, it was forced on me. )

I do sometimes feel that the extreme opposite views from mine lack perspective, just 'cause I don't see how any other rationally minded person can't see it my way. (I do NOT mean that to imply you are irrational, it really isn't meant as any form of insult...I'm just trying to explain how I feel and I haven't had enough coffee yet and still need to get kitty food.... )

ToshiroOC

First off Javafox, I want to apologize. I am going though some very serious family trouble right now and for some stupid reason I got pissed at almost everything you said for no rational reason. I truly did not intend to insult you or get mad, and I promise you that it will not happen again. Thank you for having a mature and responsible response to my comments, which were out of line. I will try and have a rational, above-the-table, and polite debate with you later - after I go to Fry's electronics with my grandfather. They have $50 80gb hard drives (and who can't use some of those? even my grandfather wants one...)

ToshiroOC

My parting comment for now: PBS is not religious, so funding PBS is not funding religion. Point to prove - PBS is doing a show on Muhammad from a very non-religious perspective, portraying Muhammad with an actor, and is overall describing it from the perspective of the average secular viewer (though I must admit that the word "pagan" in there makes me wonder about the objectivity of the abstract writer). However, the discussion of the teachings of Islam, in my opinion, take priority over Christian teachings here in this predominantly Christian country, especially in light of the recent obvious lack of understanding of Islam and the racism evident almost everywhere against Muslims. It, in my opinion, from a secular perspective, is more important to dispell misunderstandings that might lead to racist comments and actions in America than to provide more education on any other topic. A Sikh was killed very soon after 9/11 because he wore a turban. The reason? Ignorance. Sikhs are nonviolent to the core, and it was soley because someone who did not understand Islam OR Sikhism (I believe that is the word, forgive me if it is not...) was not taught the truth. I will return..