Qbasicnews.com

General => General/Misc => Topic started by: Diroga on February 19, 2004, 02:39:53 AM



Title: death penalty
Post by: Diroga on February 19, 2004, 02:39:53 AM
what is your opinion


Title: death penalty
Post by: Rhiannon on February 19, 2004, 09:48:37 AM
it's more expensive to send someone to death row than life in prison.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Agamemnus on February 19, 2004, 10:30:11 AM
No.


Title: death penalty
Post by: toonski84 on February 19, 2004, 10:37:39 AM
yes, aga.  It's called the appeals process.  But this is if the person has a good lawyer and some money.  If a bum kills a guy, there won't be much fuss over his execution.

But screw costs.  Either way, it's going to cost a lot to keep a dangerous person from society.  I'm against the death penalty soley because the court isnt perfect, and there's been a ridiculous amount of innocently executed people in the past 20 years.  If you could be sure, I'd be cool with it, but it's better to have 10 guilty men locked up than 1 innocent man executed.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Agamemnus on February 19, 2004, 10:50:42 AM
Yeah, I agree precisely on that point.


Title: death penalty
Post by: na_th_an on February 19, 2004, 10:57:36 AM
Death penalty is animals' stuff.

A shame that you, "the guardians of freedom" allow it in so many states. Shame.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Zap on February 19, 2004, 11:45:04 AM
Even more so because it's hard to get some one back from the death if you suddenly find out they didn't commit the crime. From my point of view, death penalty is like torture.


Title: death penalty
Post by: na_th_an on February 19, 2004, 11:57:18 AM
Exactly my point. In Spanish, when a judge gives a veredict, it is called "fail", it is something like "The judge's fail is 'guilty'" or "The judge's fail is 'innocent'", assuming that humans can make mistakes. Anyhow, if you are judging someone 'cause he decided that he could kill someone (and that's wrong) and then you kill that person if you find him or her guilty, you are commiting the same crime. "An eye for an eye" doesn't work nowadays, from my point of view. It is just a nonsense from its basis. Who has the will to decide upon another human being right to live?

This is a messy territory, I know. Everyone who has suffered of a kill in his or her family is obviously biased and wants "justice". I just think that there are several ways to apply justice. If you are out of the trouble, you can always think that everyone can make mistakes and probably many people will feel remorseful after that, and that fact obviously changes if you are related to an assassined person. But even in that situation, I strongly feel that a life on jail is far a bigger punishment than death penalty, and it is more "human" for the solely reason that you are not becoming what the offender is: an assassin.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Agamemnus on February 19, 2004, 12:50:55 PM
The death penalty is a tricky issue and one that is embroiled in the a general problem of the US government (and I'm sure other governments too).

Even if a person is "for the death penalty", the potential for ambiguity is enourmous. For instance, what constitutes incriminating evidence? First one can consider the case of blood on the hands of the criminal with a knife in hand and no one else (except the police) for miles. That would definetly say S/HE'S GUILTY. But then you add all other sorts of things and it becomes increasingly likely that S/HE'S NOT GUILTY.

This rambling could now continue into a discussion of the welfare state in the US, but it would just be rambling from that point...


Title: death penalty
Post by: oracle on February 19, 2004, 06:11:03 PM
I'm just interested by the fact that of all the developed countries in the world, only the U.S. kills children by death penalty. Even China doesn't kill under 18s!

The US even kills retarded people!!!!

That's one reason why I'm against GB. How many people did he execute? Directly or indirectly?


Title: death penalty
Post by: Plasma on February 19, 2004, 06:31:04 PM
Er, no. Minors never get the death penalty, unless they are tried as adults for extreme reasons. And retarded or insane people can plea that they are mentally stable.

Furthermore, even IF the things you said were true (and they're not), the President has nothing to do with them.


Title: death penalty
Post by: oracle on February 19, 2004, 06:41:43 PM
Quote from: "Plasma"
Er, no. Minors never get the death penalty, unless they are tried as adults for extreme reasons.


Thus, minors can be executed. I don't care whether they're tried as adults or not, they're still <18.

Quote from: "Plasma"
And retarded or insane people can plea that they are mentally stable.


Pah. People can say they're sane or mental in the US, all they need to do is find a psychiratrist (sp?) to say they are. That's the sad thing about the US system - if you've got the money, you can say what you like and you'll be believed.

Quote from: "Plasma"
Furthermore, even IF the things you said were true (and they're not), the President has nothing to do with them.


He does not abolish the death penalty, thus he condones it. And he comes from Texas, the "kill em all" state of america. He supports the death penalty, thus he's a bad man.

If crims have no right to kill, the state has no right to kill.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Plasma on February 19, 2004, 07:11:04 PM
What age constitutes adulthood? 16? 18? 21?

And you just disproved your second statement...

Maybe you should learn more about how the US government works before flaming. The President doesn't have the power to overturn the death penalty. (Your preconceived notions about Texas probably aren't helping a whole lot either.)


Title: death penalty
Post by: Zack on February 19, 2004, 07:18:22 PM
Hm, I must say, I believe that generalizing Texas as the "kill em' all" state is being a little harsh.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Agamemnus on February 19, 2004, 07:20:48 PM
Every President has favored the death penalty. Even Kerry, the leading Democrat, favors the death penalty. Oracle, you need to get your facts straight.

Also, all you Bush haters out there, guess how many democrats favor private/religious school vouchers? (ie: money that would have gone to a public school going back into the taxpayer's pocket to pay for a private/religious school) 0.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Rokkuman on February 19, 2004, 07:36:19 PM
This is why I hate the fact that I live in America. I have to put up with other countries referring to us as "you guys", even though the smarter percentage of the country is sick of the government as well. I know people don't really mean everyone in particular, but when it's generalised that way in a sentence, it's annoying to looks at...


Title: death penalty
Post by: adosorken on February 19, 2004, 08:06:56 PM
I dislike the word "Americans". Foreigners: GET IT RIGHT. We are United Statesians, not Americans.

As far as the death penalty goes, it's lame. Not to mention the fact that it does nothing except cost the taxpayers a tremendous amount of dollars. But 18 or not...if they act as an adult, they can be treated as an adult.

But wow oracle...just when I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, you say such ignorant things. Wow. :( I don't condemn nosepicking in public, but that doesn't mean I condone it. Things aren't always so black and white. It's not very smart to say such comments in front of so many United Statesians, you know ;)

Agamemnus, take a good look at what they are. Then you will know why. I think it's BS. Public schools are suffering badly, and now GWB and every other religious freak candidate wants to take even MORE money from them. It's horseshyte. Obviously, conformity and forced religion means more to these idiots than our individual freedoms and the power of creative thinking, which is what we need to excel as a country. But noooooooooo...they're insistent on making everyone conform and become drones. The USA will always have a subpar educational system because of this selfish anti-humanitarian act. In a country deemed religiously free, they're going to do everything in their power to take it away from us all. Starting with the impressionable youth. It's disgusting. :(


Title: death penalty
Post by: barok on February 19, 2004, 09:29:00 PM
oracle: bone up your studies on the subject before you go making those accusations, stereotypes, etc. etc.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Agamemnus on February 19, 2004, 09:40:47 PM
I think you're being a little hypocritical, adosorken.

I don't think GWB is a religious freak candidate. I also don't understand why you're saying anything about "forced religion" or "conformity"??? I am lost on your line of thinking.

I do know that most parents prefer private or religious schools over public schools for a reason: they're better. And they're not just better because they're "private" schools: cronyism in public schools can be a big waste of money, and that simply doesn't happen in a private school. Besides a lack of cronyism and a lack of a governmental morass, there is usually no difference between a public and private school.

The general point for school vouchers is that it encourages efficiency in the US school system. That can't be a bad thing can it?

It's the parent's tax money anyways.


Title: death penalty
Post by: na_th_an on February 19, 2004, 09:52:07 PM
I don't think that GB saying "God bless America" everywhere and every hour is very polite. Specially when the Sept 11th. Specially when that single phrase, that doesn't mean anything bad, can be so discriminant to muslims the way it is used. There are muslim people in the USA. Lots. And they are as United Statesians (;)) as GB.


Title: death penalty
Post by: webberboy on February 19, 2004, 09:59:49 PM
about giving money to the public schools or putting it back into the taxpayers pockets...

I, being from a family of 11 (yes, 11), am fully for money back in taxpayers pockets.  The schools can survive without it.  My family needs the money more than the schools do.  If they have to start charging people money to play sports, then so be it.

about the god bless america thing...

He didn't say which god.  you could interprit it as "'insert gods name here' bless america".


Title: death penalty
Post by: Rhiannon on February 19, 2004, 10:02:40 PM
Actually, that money for the vouchers is coming from my pocket, therefore, i should have a say what should be done with that money, and i certainly dont want it to be used to send kids to private (mostly christian) schools, when that money can be used to fund public schools. and as for bush, have you followed his brilliant career moves in terms of religion? Basically:
    he has been pushing to allow public funds to go to private religious organizations for "activities that benefit the public". However, these organizations will include their religion in their services, on the taxpayer's dime. Also these organizations would be allowed to discriminate against people who are not of their religion, gays/lesbians, consensual partners, etc, all using federal funds.

    he has been sticking his nose in the marriage laws, pushing for an amendment to the constitution to ban same-sex marriages, a clearly discrimiatory act. On top of that, he has been making campaigns which encourage heterosexual marriages which have religious overtones.


Geez, if that aint pushing religion i dont know what is. I want my tax dollars in public schools and worthy public programs, not in religious activities and schools. If parents want to pay double sending their kids to a private school that is their problem, not mine. Keep my money out of it.

[Edit to avoid double post]
Quote from: "webberboy"
about giving money to the public schools or putting it back into the taxpayers pockets...

I, being from a family of 11 (yes, 11), am fully for money back in taxpayers pockets.  The schools can survive without it.  My family needs the money more than the schools do.  If they have to start charging people money to play sports, then so be it.


Uh.....that's a selfish viewpoint first of all. Secondly, the money isnt going back to you. It's being given out to others to send them to religious and private schools.
Quote from: "webberboy"
about the god bless america thing...

He didn't say which god.  you could interprit it as "'insert gods name here' bless america".

God is the name of the Christian god. Allah is the name of the Muslim god, and the Jewish god's name is unpronouncable out of respect, altho commonly known as Yahweh. Hindus have different gods, Pagans have different gods, Buddists and Shintos have no god. He is specifically referring to the Christian god.


Title: death penalty
Post by: na_th_an on February 19, 2004, 10:07:45 PM
Wery well said. You always hit in the head of the nail.

Seriously, if I was asked who I would like to be the president of the USA, I would answer Rhiannon. Without a shadow of doubt.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Agamemnus on February 19, 2004, 10:49:03 PM
I'm not going to respond to all your points, just two:

Quote

Actually, that money for the vouchers is coming from my pocket, therefore, i should have a say what should be done with that money, and i certainly dont want it to be used to send kids to private (mostly christian) schools, when that money can be used to fund public schools.


Sorry, but if you or your children are not in the public school system, that money isn't going to benefit you. Essentially, everyone attending public school is "given" money from the government and then "pays" that back to attend it. If a public school can't perform, it can't perform. You're just going to pour more money into it without giving a lot of poor parents alternatives? It has nothing to do with religious schools. It purely has to do with economics. And economics gives you bajillions of examples in how the private sector can allocate resources more efficiently than one giant irresponsible organization. (ie: the government)

Quote

God is the name of the Christian god. Allah is the name of the Muslim god, and the Jewish god's name is unpronouncable out of respect, altho commonly known as Yahweh. Hindus have different gods, Pagans have different gods, Buddists and Shintos have no god. He is specifically referring to the Christian god.


In English, God is the name of the Jewish god, the Christian god, and basically any god that exists. Sorry.. :|


Title: death penalty
Post by: Diroga on February 19, 2004, 11:05:31 PM
Does giving schools more money improve them? Money does not make a teacher better. It gives teachers better tools and environments to work in. Tools and environments can go only to a cretin extent. Locally where I live a private Christian school had higher SAT scores than five school public schools. Of those five schools, two schools are considered "preppy". I have been to three of those schools and they are looking good as for the building. They have TV's, computers, projectors and whole wings dedicated to science. At the private school they only have one hall way and no expensive equipment like the public school. Yet they got better score. It could bet just chance or maybe the quality is better. Granted there are many variable is play, but the prominent fact is that public schools do not reward good teachers. There is no incentive for the teachers to do a good job. Also education is monopolistic. All schools offer basically the same thing. If schools offered more money to teachers with better skills then those good teachers would pick the school that paid more. Then the school that offered more money would have better teachers. Parents would see that the school had better teachers; therefore a greater potential for their kids to get a better education. So kids stop going to the schools with the lesser quality of teachers, which results in the schools loosing money. The schools need money to exist so they must start competing by offering more money to better teachers so that better teachers will go to their school which will attract more paying parents to send their kids their. Schools that pay more to teacher that have better teaching skills than other teachers create incentives for teachers to better their skills. If teachers do not better their skills then they are faced with the option of getting a lower paying teaching job or find a different field.

Please productively criticize me. I would like to know the errors in my reasoning.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Zack on February 19, 2004, 11:08:41 PM
God is not the name of the Jewish God - we have lost any capability of pronouncing the name, over the generations, but we refer to it as Ad-nay, and replace the "-" with an "o".
God is the English word for a divine being. So I believe it can be applied to Muslims, Jews, and Christians. With other religions which put their faith in several gods - Pagans, Hindus - no. God isn't an appropriate term.
Btw Rhia, I have never seen any place where anyone (Jewish or not) says "Yahweh". Here's a quick explanation...
Hebrew has an alphabet. Aleph, Beyt, Gimel, Heyh...See? Aleph-beyt. Alphabet. (Hebrew to greek to English, I believe). Anyway, there are also vowels. They are dots and lines place around the letters to accent them. A Segol (three dots, like an triangle pointing down) under a letter tells you to pronounce "Eh" after you pronounce the letter. Note that vowels are used usually only for beginners, because once you learn Hebrew well, you can tell how the word sounds from the context.
Jews have lost the proper vowels to pronounce the name of their god. The letters are Yud Heyh Vav Heyh (English equivalent YHVH). But we don't know what vowels are there. So we now say "Ad-nay", as stated above, which can be translated as many things, but usually as Sir or Master (in a sense of respect, not a "slave-master" type of context).


Title: death penalty
Post by: Rhiannon on February 19, 2004, 11:16:18 PM
Yahweh (or Jehovah) is the name that Christians use. In politically correct sites that give info about Judaism, they use the term "G-d"


Title: death penalty
Post by: adosorken on February 19, 2004, 11:17:23 PM
Most strains of Christianity refer to their God as "God".

"Yahweh" is rooted in Judaism, hence why the name was worked into the Christian religion back at the turn of the eras (read: stolen from the Jews). I do not believe that "Yahweh" is a correct translation though. From what I understand, it is a mispronunciation of another word, of which the name eludes me at the moment. :(


Title: death penalty
Post by: Zack on February 19, 2004, 11:21:35 PM
Like I've said - the correct pronounciation is unknown.


Title: death penalty
Post by: adosorken on February 19, 2004, 11:23:20 PM
Not really surprising...much has been lost or destroyed over the centuries, especially within the first three centuries of the common era.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Zack on February 19, 2004, 11:26:41 PM
Precisely. The Roman disaster destroyed the knowledge of the pronounciation, I believe - or at least, around that time.


Title: death penalty
Post by: PlayGGY on February 19, 2004, 11:37:43 PM
I am certainly for it... my only problem with it is the fact that innocent people could get convicted.

On the other hand, they could also be falsely convicted and be sent to jail for the rest of their life.  Even if they are released 10 or 15 years later, those are 10 or 15 years gone from his life.  Plus, death penalty cases come under much more scrutiny from the media, so a mistake, though still possble, is more unlikely.

It really comes down to this:  Should someone who has raped, brutally tortured, then killed his children and wife, should we the taxpayers be forced (at gun point, actually) to pay for his food and shelter for the rest of his life?


Title: death penalty
Post by: Zack on February 19, 2004, 11:42:24 PM
I am with you on that on, PlayGGY. But it is true that if someone is ever wrongly convicted and sentenced to death, it is indeed terrible.
My idea would be that there has to be a set "assurance level" - that is, there have to be a level of confidence in the evidence above which issuing of the death penalty would be allowed.
Like, if the person is caught standing above the murder with a knife dripping blood, and 2 eyewitnesses...then yes, death penalty could be issued.
But if you go down to relying on if the guy dropped his business card there and his fingerprints are on the victim's shoes...then no, that isn't very solid evidence.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Rhiannon on February 19, 2004, 11:48:38 PM
Diroga:
I would like to address your post, not necesary a criticism, more like an extension of what you have said. As a person deeply immersed in pedagogy, surrounded by teachers and living with one, and coming from a long time of teachers, I would like to offer the following insights.

We have all heard the argument that private schools are better than public schools and how their scores on standarized tests are higher, etc. Ok. One thing that should be made clear is that you cannot compare public and private schools because of these (and other) factors:

Private schools are free to accept or reject any student. Students deciding to enter a private school usually need to take a proficency test, participate in an interview, or any other method that will weed out any "bad" students. Hence, they can have the cream of the crop in their classrooms. Public schools dont have this luxury. They are required under law to accept any and every student that comes to their door. Also, private schools can decide not to accept students with learning or physical disabilities (unless it is a school specifically for disabled children, like schools for the blind and deaf). Public schools must accept these students and provide for them, providing them with the same quality education as a "regular" student gets. Hence, which private schools can take their money and dedicate it to teaching their students and paying teachers good salaries, while providing them with materials, equipment, and small classes, public school teachers must settle for less, with a lower salary, huge classes (sometimes 40 or more students) and little support from parents. Parents with children in private schools will care about their children's education becuz they are paying for it. Many times in public schools, teachers have to double as babysitters, substitute parents, disciplinarians etc., which leaves less time for teaching. Private schools can simply expell any problematic student, public schools must do everything possible to correct the problem.

So, after weeding out "dumb" and "problem" students, and any other student that would take too much resources, private schools can freely dedicate themselves to teaching and imparting a quality education. Public schools are left with everything else.

Now, dont think that just becuz private schools give a "better" education, that the teachers are somehow better. Studies have shown that US public school teachers are equally or more qualified than private school teachers. Many public school teachers have at least one to two BAs, some with MAs, and a few with PhDs. This is no small potatoes. A PhD isnt exactly something you order from a catalog.  I know of private schools that have teachers without certifications or a BA.

So Diroga, in a way you are correct. Money wont make a better teacher. However, if there is a better environment somwhere else, where you have a better chance of keeping your sanity and reaching retirement, i'm sure you'd go, which is what is happening to US public school teachers.

As for standarized tests, they prove nothing more than the ability to answer (or guess) a multiple choice test, and how well you memorize shyt. They dont prove what you learned, or how you apply that knowledge, which is part of what the real purpose of education is.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Diroga on February 20, 2004, 12:25:28 AM
How do people get PhD's BA's or MA's? Taking tests most the time, right? By your reasoning tests = "they prove nothing more than the ability to answer (or guess) a multiple choice test, and how well you memorize shyt." therefore PhD's BA's or MA's are meaning less. Ok I was playing around with that :D but think about it.  What Iím saying is that you need to create incentive so that the teacher with those PhD's BA's or MA's can be gathered up at a school to make it have higher potential of educating. That makes sense right? The more educated PhD's BA's or MAís teachers you have the Ďbetterí they should be. PhD's BA's or MA's are good but you donít need one to be educated enough to teach someone. It shows you should be able to teach.

Yes it is hard to compare public school to private school.

Parents need to care about their kids. Public schools need to raise the bar on standards too. If students donít do work, act accordingly and are not productive then they are wasting time and money therefore should not be in school. The alternate? Well send them to some other place. I know it sound bad but I canít think up any thing at the moment, doesnít mean Iím not concerned for them. The government is not meant to be reasonable for parents to raise their kids the right way, but has to deal with them because of poor parenting.  

If a public school is short on paper, they should have paper; give them the money for the paper. If they donít have enough cookies in the teacher room then donít give them money to buy cookies. You fallow? Over crowding of schools need to be dealt with. The simple answer is build more schools get more good teachers. Iím for that. It seems that schools keep asking for more money, they get it, but nothing happens! Thatís my side of it.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Agamemnus on February 20, 2004, 12:32:49 AM
Rhiannon: what you say about the "weeding out process" is probably true for many private schools. However, it still remains a fact that pouring money into a publick school doesn't give you results: it gives you more "stuff" and more over-paid administrators.

    All those TVs, computers, etc, etc, etc. are worth nothing without an incentive to use them. Technology spending can be especially wasteful: I have seen it. A private school, however, would not dare waste its resources without using them to its full extent.

    It is both economic theory and a fact that I have experienced in my (private) middle school. Our computers were not high-tech at times, but everything was utilized to full power. IE an old apple computer fitted with the LOGO language (SP?) and an old LEGO construction kit. In a public school, the LEGOs may just have rotted somewhere and the LOGO may never have been even installed.

    Also I would like to mention that higher levels of funding <> smaller classes. My (private) university sometimes has huge classes, and sometimes tiny classes, and cannot distribute its professors properly, it seems. The reason for that: I (or someone else) got in, started taking classes, paying money, pursuing a degree, etc. and now it is less viable to switch to another university just because of that.

    On the other hand, in my middle school, the classes weren't small and often did have all of our grade (7th or 8th) in one room! It didn't matter, though, because there were no "discipline" issues as occurs in a public school with large classes...

Quote

Private schools can simply expell any problematic student, public schools must do everything possible to correct the problem.


    I find that highly amusing as it is again completely contrary to my experience.

Quote

So, after weeding out "dumb" and "problem" students, and any other student that would take too much resources, private schools can freely dedicate themselves to teaching and imparting a quality education. Public schools are left with everything else.


    That's just your hypothesis, but I wouldn't call it a fact. In my high school, a great deal of resources was devoted to disabled students, which I applaud. "dumb" students, though? They are often segregated from the smart students in fact by the varying levels of difficulty in classes. Yes, "problem" students also drain resources (ie: group discipline issues), but there is still no evidence to back up your claim. I have had "problems" with other students in my private middle school, so don't think private schools are immune to this.

    Also, what you said about the quality of the teachers is correct. Many good teachers exist in the public schools. The problem is not the teachers, the problem is public.


Title: death penalty
Post by: SCM on February 20, 2004, 01:11:07 AM
I know a women who taught in private schools for many years. She recently started teaching in public schools.  She was delighted with the change.  She sees her new coworkers as professionals, and is learning from them despite her many years of experience.  Public school teachers are credentialed. They have been taught to teach.  Private school teachers are not required to have teaching credentials.

I work as a substitute high school math and science teacher. I am fully qualified in subject matter, but I am not half the teacher that many experienced public school teachers are.  Not all public school teachers are great.  Not all are even good, but you will find many of the best teachers in public schools.

Why would private schools score better than public schools? A lot of it has to do with the home. Almost all parents of students in private schools are going to support their education.  That is the reason they put their kids in them, and they are paying directly for their education. The students peers are also more likely to value academic success. In public schools, teachers have to teach those that want to learn as well as those that don't. In some of these cases, if you contact the parent of a student that is having or being a problem, you find that they are more interested in their child being right than their child learning. As Rhiannon wrote, teachers often have to be baby sitters. It can take a lot of time away from teaching.


Title: death penalty
Post by: PlayGGY on February 20, 2004, 01:17:36 AM
Right now we have "beyond a reasonable doubt" as the guilt measure.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Rhiannon on February 20, 2004, 01:19:49 AM
Quote from: "Diroga"
How do people get PhD's BA's or MA's? Taking tests most the time, right? By your reasoning tests = "they prove nothing more than the ability to answer (or guess) a multiple choice test, and how well you memorize shyt." therefore PhD's BA's or MA's are meaning less.

Uh.....i think you missed what i said. Standarized tests are for the schools, aka elementary, middle and high school. Once you are in college, evaluation is different. Also, in the MA and PhD level, there are usaully little to no tests. The evaluation is done with papers, reflexive work, portfolios, presentations, etc.

Quote from: "Diroga"
Ok I was playing around with that :D but think about it.  What Iím saying is that you need to create incentive so that the teacher with those PhD's BA's or MA's can be gathered up at a school to make it have higher potential of educating. That makes sense right? The more educated PhD's BA's or MAís teachers you have the Ďbetterí they should be. PhD's BA's or MA's are good but you donít need one to be educated enough to teach someone. It shows you should be able to teach.


In the public school system, a BA in pedogogy and in a certain concentration (elementary education, science, english, etc) is required in order to be certified to teach in a school. Teachers who are not certified can be substitute teachers, but cannot teach in a regular classroom.

Quote from: "Diroga"
Yes it is hard to compare public school to private school.

Parents need to care about their kids. Public schools need to raise the bar on standards too. If students donít do work, act accordingly and are not productive then they are wasting time and money therefore should not be in school. The alternate? Well send them to some other place. I know it sound bad but I canít think up any thing at the moment, doesnít mean Iím not concerned for them. The government is not meant to be reasonable for parents to raise their kids the right way, but has to deal with them because of poor parenting.  


Many discipline problems are caused by boredom. Vocational schools could solve this problem in its mayority, but in some places these schools dont exist.

Quote from: "Diroga"
If a public school is short on paper, they should have paper; give them the money for the paper. If they donít have enough cookies in the teacher room then donít give them money to buy cookies. You fallow? Over crowding of schools need to be dealt with. The simple answer is build more schools get more good teachers. Iím for that. It seems that schools keep asking for more money, they get it, but nothing happens! Thatís my side of it.


Becuz of standarized tests, many poor performance schools are getting less money, and higher performance schools are receiving more money. Also, there have been massive educational budget cuts becuz this money has been redirected to the military and other "federal programs" that Bush has decided that should receive money.  Schools just dont demand money and automatically get it. Have you ever done a project proposal for Title I, V or other federal program? The requirements and processes are so lengthy it'll make you cry.

Aga:
Obviously i am not comparing every private and public school. There are exceptions to the rule. I was in a private catholic school for a year, and I received a decent education. I went to public school almost all my life in Texas, Florida and PR. I remember when Daddy Bush decided to do the whole voucher thing, affecting the school I was attending, which was a special public school for advanced students. Most of what the school had was through corporate donations, and not govt funding. Vouchers werent very helpful at all and we all protested against it.

As for private universities, they are no longer under the scutiny of the govt, hence are free to do what they like as long as they follow federal regulation in terms of usage of the pell grant and other federal helps for students. Since attending universities is by choice, you accept whatever you pay for in that uni.  You cant compare private schools and private colleges.

As for discipline problems in private schools, there are discipline problems everywhere. However the problem is amplified in public schools becuz of the population difference between a public and private school. A private school may have the number of students that one grade has in a middle or high school.

As I had said before, federal law requires schools to give everyone a free education, no matter what.  If a student is suspended or expelled, the parent can push hard to make the school board overturn their decision. In a private school, they arent subjected to a school board, and by being a private organization, they are allowed free association with whomever they please, and there isnt a damn thing the govt can do about it.  As for evidence, you can just look up articles in educational journals, there are plenty that address this issue.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Diroga on February 20, 2004, 01:42:29 AM
Quote from: "SMC"
A lot of it has to do with the home

moral, values, THE BIBLE :king:

Quote from: "Rhiannon"
Uh.....i think you missed what i said. Standarized tests are for the schools, aka elementary, middle and high school. Once you are in college, evaluation is different. Also, in the MA and PhD level, there are usaully little to no tests. The evaluation is done with papers, reflexive work, portfolios, presentations, etc.

ok i get. i was just playing with words really.


Quote from: "Rhiannon"
Many discipline problems are caused by boredom. Vocational schools could solve this problem in its mayority, but in some places these schools dont exist.

yes, i know a guy and that was the solution for him. they are getting more popular


Quote from: "Rhiannon"
Becuz of standarized tests, many poor performance schools are getting less money, and higher performance schools are receiving more money. Also, there have been massive educational budget cuts becuz this money has been redirected to the military and other "federal programs" that Bush has decided that should receive money. Schools just dont demand money and automatically get it. Have you ever done a project proposal for Title I, V or other federal program? The requirements and processes are so lengthy it'll make you cry.


is any of that true?


ok so here's a novel idea privatize education. take the positize sides of both public and private education and merge them.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Rhiannon on February 20, 2004, 01:47:45 AM
Quote from: "Diroga"
Quote from: "Rhiannon"
Becuz of standarized tests, many poor performance schools are getting less money, and higher performance schools are receiving more money. Also, there have been massive educational budget cuts becuz this money has been redirected to the military and other "federal programs" that Bush has decided that should receive money. Schools just dont demand money and automatically get it. Have you ever done a project proposal for Title I, V or other federal program? The requirements and processes are so lengthy it'll make you cry.


is any of that true?


No, i just like pulling info out my ass :roll:


Title: death penalty
Post by: Agamemnus on February 20, 2004, 12:15:06 PM
The standardized test thing (this is for public schools) is true is Massachusetts, and because of that, schools spend more time forcing more students to "prepare" for these tests than teaching other students more advanced stuff. It's not a lot of money that is diverted to better ranking schools, but it's there.

Rhiannon, I agree with you on most of those things, but you're still saying something completely opposite my experience with regards to "discipline issues".


Title: death penalty
Post by: adosorken on February 20, 2004, 01:11:40 PM
Quote from: "Diroga"
moral, values, THE BIBLE :king:

 :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:

Get real.

Aga...like she said, exceptions to the rule exist. That's true of anything. :D For example, you're an exception to the rule that all coders who use GOTOs suck. You don't suck but you use GOTOs. Get the idea? :D

OK it was a bad/inaccurate comparison but it illustrates my point regardless. :D


Title: death penalty
Post by: Zap on February 20, 2004, 01:15:06 PM
Boredom: I'm still in school, and I can tell you that boredom highly affect concentration/dicipline. I can tell it from myself, and from all other students I have seen, that if the subject is boring they start doing other stuff (becoming 'undiciplined').
   Also many students (boys in my age ecspecialy) tends to have a lot of extra energy, and would much rather be running around than doing french grammar, so instead of getting shouted at, the teacher will send the persons on a run around the school, and voila it's suddenly much more easy to concentrate, without internal anoyances.

About the money thing, I suppose you're speaking of US, in many european countries, every school gets the same amount of money per student, and extra for 'problem' students.

Also schools in DK has begun to teach from the principel 'seven intelegences', instead of just the mathematigel-logical intelligence (the stuff an ordinary IQ test tests). That way, the teaching is structered so it fits every student more than the standard-pensum-for-all princip. For example, in the lower grades, a kid with a higher physical inteligence (<- not exact word but describes what I mean), will work 10 minutes, and go outside kicking a ball for 3, and then he'll be working again.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Rhiannon on February 20, 2004, 01:32:20 PM
Yup, that was Gardener's multipe intelligence theory, where he believed that there were seven (now 8, last one added was emotional i believe) different intelligences.  Here is a good article about it: http://www.ericfacility.net/ericdigests/ed410226.html


Title: death penalty
Post by: Agamemnus on February 20, 2004, 01:35:32 PM
Yeah, yeah.

I took the test.

I had no idea how to score it... It confused the hell out of me.. until I figured out that the answer sheet should have been attached to the questions..


Title: death penalty
Post by: oracle on February 20, 2004, 07:45:32 PM
Quote from: "Plasma"
What age constitutes adulthood? 16? 18? 21?


My point was, around the world, people under 18 are not executed in developed countries, except the US. So 18 would be the age for adulthood in this case. Although when I buy a plane ticked it's 12...

Quote from: "Plasma"
And you just disproved your second statement...


No I didn't. The witness proved he was retarded, and the US still killed him.

Quote from: "Plasma"
Maybe you should learn more about how the US government works before flaming. The President doesn't have the power to overturn the death penalty. (Your preconceived notions about Texas probably aren't helping a whole lot either.)


Which state executes the most people? Particularly black people? Thus, to the world, Texas is percieved as a bloodthirsty state, even if they're not. This is a generalisation we make from the evidence given, not some random saying. Anyway, I'm sure your president has the power to overturn the death penalty. If he can't, who can? OK, so maybe it needs 2/3rds vote in the senate. Surely your politicians can get that many votes if the public wanted it? But they don't want it, do they.

Anyway, nobody seems to have rebutted the point that the state is commiting a hypocracy when it kills those who it has deemed wrong for killing.

I'm sorry if it sounds like a flame, but you must realise some day that USofAians' government is not even close to perfect on these things, and you need to start being a bit more proactive about it, instead of throwing in a new government at each election...

(And the "American" thing - I've explained this in another thread - around the world people do not associate "American" with Canadians/Mexicans/other "actual" americans, thus there's no need to be offended so badly. Just point it out nicely, and eventually people will start using it correctly.)

Quote from: "PlayCGY"
It really comes down to this: Should someone who has raped, brutally tortured, then killed his children and wife, should we the taxpayers be forced (at gun point, actually) to pay for his food and shelter for the rest of his life?


Why not make him do work for the rest of his life? In a corn field surrounded by high fence or something? Plenty of prisoners could be made to work (or even given the option - I guarantee you prisoners would rather work than be locked in a cell). This, of course, wouldn't apply to psychaiactrially (sp?) unstable prisoners, but I'm sure this would go some way to helping pay their food/"accomodation". And it teaches good habits for those who will be released.


Title: death penalty
Post by: SJ Zero on February 20, 2004, 10:06:59 PM
My response to the original question:

Nobody has the right to take the life of another person. Nobody.


Title: death penalty
Post by: RST on February 20, 2004, 10:56:31 PM
For the most part, I'd have to agree, if only because juries are imperfect, prejudice does play a role in justice, and people have been proven innocent... posthumously.

Just some things I'd like to clarify:
The US President doesn't have the power to make laws; he only has the power to veto ones that are proposed. If he does veto them, then they go back to Congress where they may be passed with 2/3 majority. He does, however, have the ability to grant pardons.

In any case, the state governments, not Congress, decide whether or not to have the death penalty. The Supreme Court might be able to rule death sentences as "cruel or unusual punishment", making it unconstitutional and illiegal.

Whether it's more expensive to imprison someone for life or execute them is debateable. If I have time I'll find some numbers. But should money really play a role (or at least, more of a role than it does today) in the justice system?

Someone made a remark about a certain amount of assurance needed for conviction - Juries are told to convict only if they feel the persons guilt is "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Those who argue about eyewitnesses should look up "confabulation" at some site that talks about psychology. Eyewitnesses have, when asked, described guns - even if none were present. They're not lying, per se, but the human memory is more complex than a lot of people think.

IMHO, "adult" should not be defined by age, but by the persons mental maturity. If the issue is in question, they should be tried as juviniles (sp).


Title: death penalty
Post by: PlayGGY on February 20, 2004, 11:03:04 PM
Quote from: "SJ Zero"
My response to the original question:

Nobody has the right to take the life of another person. Nobody.


Does anyone have the right to make people spend the rest of their life in a prison?



And what about self-defense?  If someone is trying to kill you, or trying to kill someone in your family, are you seriously saying you don't have the right to kill them?  This sounds like leftist dreaming to me.  (No, I am not a right-winger, I am a libertarian).


Title: death penalty
Post by: Diroga on February 21, 2004, 12:32:12 AM
The point of execution is that the person is such a risk to society he can no long live.  With all crimes they have negative impacts on society. So the criminal is punished so that he will not commit the crime again. So if the objective is to prevent the criminal from committing the crime again, then just remove them from society, not kill them. But what if it is too costly to separate the person(trial, housing, etc). Under most laws the criminal must be keep in humane conditions. So some arguer if the offence is great enough kill them. If the guy is dead he cant commit the crime again. But what if the guy has reformed, really made a 180 with his life, is it right to kill him for what he did?


Title: death penalty
Post by: Z!re on February 21, 2004, 09:23:28 AM
Quote from: "Diroga"
The point of execution is that the person is such a risk to society he can no long live.

I'd say that the president (GWB) is a serious risk to society. And I don't think I'm alone on that point, so who do we execute?

It's just plain stupid to kill someone because he killed someone:
Code:
numKills = numKills + 1 'MURDER!!!!!! <----
DO
IF numKills THEN
 execute = 1
 numKills = numKills - 1
END IF

IF execute THEN
 numKills = numKills + 1 'Err? Now what? Justice?
END IF
LOOP UNTIL numKills = 0
PRINT "If we get here it is a Perfect world"


Title: death penalty
Post by: Seker359 on February 21, 2004, 10:29:47 AM
Kill them all, let God sort them out.  :wink:

Just a line from a movie. But seriously...I'm curious what the response would be from some of the anti-death penalty people if they were asked the following...

It's up to you. We either execute Mr Serial Killer or we move him into a house next to yours. What's it going to be?

I bet 99 out of 100 would say the same thing I'd say. Hang'em high.

Personally I don't know what the big deal is. If I was given the choice between execution or life in prison I'd say get it over with quick. Between the two I'd say the execution is actually merciful. I can't imagine being locked up for 50 years with some of the biggest rejects of society.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Z!re on February 21, 2004, 10:42:09 AM
I'm for death penalty, if it can be made 100% sure, and without any doubt that the person is guilty, as it is now. It is just ridiculous.


Title: death penalty
Post by: na_th_an on February 21, 2004, 10:43:57 AM
Seker, your question is just fantasy. And the answer doesn't reply a thing. Nobody is gonna put a serial killer next door. They will go to maximum security jails.

Imagine this situation, now: You are out a night with your friends at the country. Then you go for a piss, and while you walk in the dark you stumble with something and you fall upon the corpse of the guy you always fight at school. That same afternoon, in the hockey match, you shouted him in front of 5,000 people that you were gonna kill him 'cause he is such an ass.

Imagine that your beer bottle broke on the fall, and that the guy was killed with another bottle used as a blade. Now you are with a corpse which you promised to kill with tons of little pieces of crystal. You are covered by the victim's blood.

Then someone arrives. You are guilty, by all means, all the evidences point at you. Some time later, you die in the gas chamber.

I know that's a very weirds story, but it can happen. And it has happened.

If instead of the death penalty you were in jail, maybe someday you would have been able to prove your innocence and all you would have lost would be several years, but not your life.

See? Death penalty seems to work well when you assume that "when (s)he looks like guilty, (s)he's guilty". That happened recently in my country. A woman was taken to prison 'cause she killed two girls. Four years later, it has been demonstrated that she was completely innocent. If we had the death penalty, she would have been dead now.

Anyhow, at least in my country, jail is not a punish, but a way to reinsert people in society. I know that's utopic in most cases, but it works here.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Seker359 on February 21, 2004, 01:06:15 PM
Quote from: "na_th_an"
Anyhow, at least in my country, jail is not a punish, but a way to reinsert people in society.


And that's what it's supposed to be in the U.S. but that's not the way it works. Very little is done in the way of rehabilitation. It has become nothing more than a storage facility for offenders. And in a lot of cases people come out of those places more dangerous than when they went in. It's a weekly news item in the U.S. where some offender just got parolled and re-offends immedialely.

Problems with the entire justice system aside, and to the point of the original poster, if they're guilty of a crime worthy of the death penalty then send them on their way with all speed.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Z!re on February 21, 2004, 01:22:25 PM
Quote from: "Seker359"
if they're guilty of a crime worthy of the death penalty then send them on their way with all speed.
Who should decide if the crime is "worthy" of death penalty?

Is killing someone "worthy"?

What if someone breaks into my house and I kill them?

What if I drive drunk and kill someone?

What if I neglect to de-ice my driveway and someone slips and dies?

Or, what if I prepeare a dinner, for a party, and someone sufficates? I made the dinner, so I killed him/her?


Where should the line be drawn?, and who should decide?


Title: death penalty
Post by: Seker359 on February 21, 2004, 01:51:33 PM
Quote from: "Z!re"
Where should the line be drawn?, and who should decide?


Laws are "usually" put in place to reflect the attitudes of society. Put in place by the local, state, or federal government.


Title: death penalty
Post by: PlayGGY on February 21, 2004, 02:05:29 PM
Quote from: "na_th_an"
Seker, your question is just fantasy. And the answer doesn't reply a thing. Nobody is gonna put a serial killer next door. They will go to maximum security jails.

Imagine this situation, now: You are out a night with your friends at the country. Then you go for a piss, and while you walk in the dark you stumble with something and you fall upon the corpse of the guy you always fight at school. That same afternoon, in the hockey match, you shouted him in front of 5,000 people that you were gonna kill him 'cause he is such an ass.

Imagine that your beer bottle broke on the fall, and that the guy was killed with another bottle used as a blade. Now you are with a corpse which you promised to kill with tons of little pieces of crystal. You are covered by the victim's blood.

Then someone arrives. You are guilty, by all means, all the evidences point at you. Some time later, you die in the gas chamber.

I know that's a very weirds story, but it can happen. And it has happened.

If instead of the death penalty you were in jail, maybe someday you would have been able to prove your innocence and all you would have lost would be several years, but not your life.

See? Death penalty seems to work well when you assume that "when (s)he looks like guilty, (s)he's guilty". That happened recently in my country. A woman was taken to prison 'cause she killed two girls. Four years later, it has been demonstrated that she was completely innocent. If we had the death penalty, she would have been dead now.

Anyhow, at least in my country, jail is not a punish, but a way to reinsert people in society. I know that's utopic in most cases, but it works here.


Nathan, you just finished saying that someone's scenario was hypothetical, and then went on to make the biggest hypothetical I have ever seen.



To those against the death penalty, would you have supported it for Hitler?  Or would you have forced tax payers to pay for keeping him clothed and fed?


Title: death penalty
Post by: aetherfox on February 21, 2004, 02:59:16 PM
I couldn't not post here.

The the main question: Read the bottom after my comments, you might understand where I'm coming from.

Other points raised.  Diroga I think it was said monopolistic about schools.  Maybe I am wrong, but economically a market that is monopolistic is one where there is one company/body that owns the majority of the market share.  Ie. in the UAE there is only one ISP, Etisalat, which belongs to the government.  There cannot be another ISP, however that will change soon as the WTO I think said that's got to stop.  Schools are not monopolistic ever.  There is always going to be more than one school.  Schools also have a capacity.  Schools cannot be price makers, as monopolies in a market can.  Taking Etisalat's example, they can charge say 1 Dh 80 fils (3.678 Dhs to the dollar) per hour of Internet connection or they can charge a hundred.  There is no other competition, so the price can be set by them.  Schools don't work like that.  Even if the best school sets the price as high as it wants, there will always be a school that will have students in it, and maybe its cheaper, and maybe its grades are better.

Other things.  Should Hitler recieve the death penalty?  I can't answer that.  He didn't personally kill all those people, but it was because of him.  What happened to the Jews that I saw on videos and documentaries as a little kid gave me nightmares.  However, he gave preWW2 Germany the boost they needed.  With unemployment soaring, inflation topping, economy in insane recession, he did what it took to get his country back, even if he failed.  Millions of Germans agreed with him.  Were they wrong?

It's selfish at times, and unappropriate to make judgements like this.  This is the age-old argument, and it will never stop.  Evaluating a situation like this means too many sides to the story.  Should someone die?  Well nobody has the right.  Well the family of the murdered child won't get justice.  But they are being immoral.  But its wrong.  But so is killing someone anyway. etc.etc.

There's a lot more I had to say, but it slipped.

*disappears*


Title: death penalty
Post by: PlayGGY on February 21, 2004, 03:04:32 PM
Quote
Other things. Should Hitler recieve the death penalty? I can't answer that. He didn't personally kill all those people, but it was because of him. What happened to the Jews that I saw on videos and documentaries as a little kid gave me nightmares. However, he gave preWW2 Germany the boost they needed. With unemployment soaring, inflation topping, economy in insane recession, he did what it took to get his country back, even if he failed. Millions of Germans agreed with him. Were they wrong?


You are one of the sickest people I have ever seen.  :normal:

If you know about WWII history, you would know what policies he did:

His National Socialist party spend millions on the war effort, including the torture camps, which imporved the German economy (and gave it a staggering debt).  So even that in the long run hurt.

And OF COURSE the millions of Germans who agreed with Hitler, and went to his warm and fuzzy marches, were wrong.  He completely devasted Germany, caused the torture and death of millions, and would have taken over all of Europe if it weren't for the UK and the US.

Yes, people who agreed with Hitler were wrong.


Title: death penalty
Post by: KiZ on February 21, 2004, 04:30:13 PM
Its like those stupid advertising campaigns they used to have for cigarettes:

Can X Million people be wrong?

...

Of course they can!!!! DUH!


PlayGGY: I disagree with you about Aetherfox being sick. I just think maybe he sees the image in a slightly different way than you do. I dont think that Aetherfox is condoning Hitler, just stating that despite the fact he ordered the death of millions of people, he gave Germany a massive economic boost, and provided job for the millions of people who were unemployed after the recession after WW1.

(Btw, I certainly dont like Hitler one bit (so dont get the impression that I do) He should have been strangled at birth because in the long run, he destroyed Germany as a country)


Title: death penalty
Post by: na_th_an on February 21, 2004, 05:20:55 PM
Quote from: "PlayGGY"
Nathan, you just finished saying that someone's scenario was hypothetical, and then went on to make the biggest hypothetical I have ever seen.


Of course, exactly how I stated, but, unlike his assertion, mine was completely possible.

There are cases of innocent people which have been killed by a death penalty. I think that people who support the death penalty are the same kind of people who support having arms and the same kind of people who love ol' John Wayne's films and voted Schwarzenegger for governor. I really would like to tell all those people that we are on the XXIth century. Please, evolve. You are in the most dangerous rich country. Maybe you should change your mind about how things are.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Seker359 on February 21, 2004, 05:46:53 PM
Quote from: "na_th_an"
unlike his assertion, mine was completely possible


I think you missed my point. No, serial killers aren't going to be let go to move in next to a specific person. My point was that many of the people that are against the death penalty would change their tune if they had to deal directly with the charming individual they are defending.


Quote from: "na_th_an"
There are cases of innocent people which have been killed by a death penalty


Any innocents put to death is a problem with the legal system, not the death penalty.
 

Quote from: "na_th_an"
Maybe you should change your mind about how things are.


I'll just adopt an equally self righteous tone and tell you to change your mind about how things are. My view is the only view. Didn't you know that?


Title: death penalty
Post by: PlayGGY on February 21, 2004, 06:01:35 PM
Nathan, are you saying that the government is the only thing that should be allowed to have guns?  Talk about dangerous.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Agamemnus on February 21, 2004, 06:20:42 PM
Quote
.....and the same kind of people who love ol' John Wayne's films and voted Schwarzenegger for governor.


  :normal: .............:o ............  :lol: ................ :rotfl:


Title: death penalty
Post by: adosorken on February 21, 2004, 06:29:49 PM
PlayGGY, your history is a tad inaccurate. Although the US and the UK played a role in defeating the Nazis, the real cause for their defeat was the Russians and their "Scorched Earth Policy". And I agree with aetherFox in what he said about pre-WW2 Germany...Hitler DID do all those things. You are simply referring to the atrocities he machined DURING the conflicts, ignoring what he accomplished before the war. That makes you biased and one-sided.

And to those who want to yell about "oh but he killed six million people"...you're all wrong. It was twelve million, half of wihch were Jewish and the other half a mixture of other races and religions, predominantly, if memory serves, Catholic.

People who agreed with Hitler were not wrong. If you use that point of view, any United Statesian who agrees with George W Bush is wrong, because GWB is doing the exact same thing Hitler did...just in a less obvious, far more devious way. GWB said all the same things Hitler said...talking on about how the country should be defended from "evil forces", how their people were the best in the world, etc. You can draw thousands of parallels. But I'll leave such research up to you to do. Should you simply choose to ignore these things, I get to discount you as a biased fool. :D


Title: death penalty
Post by: Agamemnus on February 21, 2004, 06:36:04 PM
You can also draw thousands of parallels between Mao and Mickey Mouse.


Title: death penalty
Post by: PlayGGY on February 21, 2004, 06:39:48 PM
The only thing that b]Hitler did[/b] to help the German ecomony was the war, which ended up bankrupting it.


And there are too many differences to say between Bush and Hitler, but mainly the fact that Hitler attacked free countries and tried to enslave them, Bush attacked an enslaved country and freed them.


Title: death penalty
Post by: na_th_an on February 21, 2004, 06:50:05 PM
Quote from: "PlayGGY"
Nathan, are you saying that the government is the only thing that should be allowed to have guns?  Talk about dangerous.


In Europe, only law inforcers have guns. Normal people may have guns, but they are not so easy to get. Some people have riffles but they use them for haunting.

I haven't seen a gun in my life (out of its cartridge hanging from a policeman's belt).

In my country, we prefer to build a good bolt instead of a gun. Better a door closed. I can take a walk in the capital city at 3 AM. Can you walk at 3 AM in Chicago?


Title: death penalty
Post by: KiZ on February 21, 2004, 06:55:06 PM
Quote from: "na_th_an"
Some people have riffles but they use them for haunting.


*laughs*


anyway, in the UK, only the special armed police have weapons. Normal police officers dont carry weapons. I think it is all to do with making sure people are all calm. Even in tough situations, officers here always prefer to use non-lethal weapons. There is a complete handgun ban here, and the only weapons you ever see are for hunting, as nath said.


Title: death penalty
Post by: PlayGGY on February 21, 2004, 06:55:13 PM
I have never been to Chicago, but I know that in Houston, a city of similar size, you can.  That is because almost everyone there has guns, and people will think twice before trying to do something to you.


Title: death penalty
Post by: adosorken on February 21, 2004, 06:58:33 PM
Quote from: "PlayGGY"
And there are too many differences to say between Bush and Hitler, but mainly the fact that Hitler attacked free countries and tried to enslave them, Bush attacked an enslaved country and freed them.

Don't believe the crap you watch on Fox News. The US had no business in Iraq, and those in the know are very well aware of this. And they didn't free anyone...the Iraqi people didn't want the US there. All we did was go in and attempt to destroy a culture. Now, Iraq is being flooded with our propaganda, and some of the Iraqis are buying it up as if it were candy in a penny store. Did you ever see the vast number of Iraqis burning large pictures of GWB? What? No??? Oops, did I give something away? That was cut out of national television because it's not what people in the US wanted to see...they wanted a vengeful picture painted of Hussein and his "regime". No mention of the thousands of Iraqis who despised the US's invasion, and yes, it was an invasion. However, we all got to see the same clips over and over again of the three or four Iraqis burning Hussein pictures. Funny that. Don't get me wrong...Saddam Hussein wasn't a very good leader. However, GWB is hundreds of times worse. Both were very good at selling their people a war and telling them what they wanted to hear. Both are profound liars and can manipulate most anyone. GWB is just the only one who takes it upon himself to attack a country without reason. Find a reason why...oh, what? None exist? You can cry "the Iraqis were enslaved!" all you want, it's media blitzing and mommery BS. You heard stories of gas attacks used against the Iraqi people by their own government...wrong again. Lovely case of misconstrued information. Look that one up...it's a very interesting read, to say the least (Iran-Iraq border skirmish).

And whatever happened to Afghanistan? What...you don't know? The country lies in ruins nowadays...the US deserted them, after promising to help rebuild their country. GWB thought it more appropriate to blow the snot out of Iraq instead of using the money to rebuild Afghanistan...another country which had nothing to do with the US or any of the problems we have or had going on. The public needed a scapegoat...what better scapegoat that someone who's openly admitted to hating our country? Someone who'd been getting awful mouthy as of late? Great timing, but there's nothing to support the al Quaida "attack theory". They themselves said they didn't do it, then a nice false tape was made up after the fact that claims that they said they did (watch it closely...you'll see what I mean when I say 'false").

Google is your friend. Search out this information. Actually, it is wise to search out legitimate information before you even say anything like this.

And yeah...I say Bush = Hitler. Oops, I guess that makes me a terrorist under the Patriot Act. Oh yeag, that's right...Bush has taken away not only our right to free speech, but also our right to a fair and speedy trial, our right to the press, and our right to question our government.

Funny that.


Title: death penalty
Post by: KiZ on February 21, 2004, 07:06:47 PM
Quote from: "adosorken"
Did you ever see the vast number of Iraqis burning large pictures of GWB? What? No??? Oops, did I give something away?


Yes, maybe that happened a few times, but did you see all the pictures of the Iraqis saying Thankyou, holding signs saying "Thankyou Mr Bush". A poll carried out said that the majority of Iraqis were thankfull that Saddam was removed from power, all the pcitures of Iraqis stamping on Saddams picture? The people who were buring GWBs picture were obviously Saddam hussien loyalists, akin to Nazis.


Title: death penalty
Post by: adosorken on February 21, 2004, 07:27:05 PM
Nazis were FAR different. I suggest doing some research before making such outlandish claims.

Sure, I trust a poll put forth by the US government. Uh huh. Again, you're being fed what you want to hear. And you're believing it. Try actually talking to a few someday. Might paint a VASTLY different picture. Conduct your own poll on just how many Iraqis applauded the invasion.


Title: death penalty
Post by: PlayGGY on February 21, 2004, 07:38:38 PM
The poll that said the Iraqie's were glad to be liberated was by the AP, not the US.

A few more things:

1.  How the hell do you know about Fox News?  :o
2.  We see all of the pictures that you do.  Iraqis protesting, the explosions from the rebels there, we hear the numbers of our servicemen dying, everything.  In the rest of the world, we are painted as a country of sppon fed idiots, when in fact we are as informed as everyone else.
3.  How do you know that the Iraqis wanted to be kept under a torture regime?  What reason do you have to beleive that?  Iraqis are protesting because they are pissed off to have the west occupying their country.  However, if asked if they would want to go back to old times, they would most likely not want too.  Those same ones that are protesting, however, are probably releived to see the return of capitalism and free speach.


And by the way, none of us are like Bill O'Reilly, if that is who you think we are like.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Agamemnus on February 21, 2004, 07:49:55 PM
Aren't we going...





A LITTLE BIT OFF-TOPIC?


Title: death penalty
Post by: PlayGGY on February 21, 2004, 07:51:06 PM
Quote from: "Agamemnus"
Aren't we going...





A LITTLE BIT OFF-TOPIC?


Not at all...  :rotfl:


Title: death penalty
Post by: Rhiannon on February 22, 2004, 01:29:41 AM
Quote from: "PlayGGY"
How do you know that the Iraqis wanted to be kept under a torture regime?  What reason do you have to beleive that?  Iraqis are protesting because they are pissed off to have the west occupying their country.  However, if asked if they would want to go back to old times, they would most likely not want too.  Those same ones that are protesting, however, are probably releived to see the return of capitalism and free speach.


Since when did capitalism, or free speech for that matter, ever exist in Iraq? In fact, name an Arab country where it has existed.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Diroga on February 22, 2004, 02:29:58 AM
aetherfox i was talking about schools being monoplisitc in compition


Title: death penalty
Post by: aetherfox on February 22, 2004, 10:09:38 AM
Diroga: so was I.  I take it you mean it in an economic sense.  That makes no sense.  I'll explain simpler: Microsoft is a monopoly, it has 90% of the world PC market share (that is old, might be closer to 80 now with the Linux uprise).  Schools are not.  If my economic theory is wrong, somebody better correct me and explain why, I got essays to do on monopolistic competition.

adosorken: Well at least there is one person out of the 1000+ people here who got what I am saying.  PlayGGY, you're too jumpy.  You seem the kind of person that reads the paper, watches Fox and thinks he/she has a vast general knowledge.

Fox News is the most biased channel ever.  I prefer CNN.
I also don't like American newspapers.  I read British newspapers, which contrary to apparant belief, are very good.  I also read the newspapers from here.  I also check news sites on the Internet.

I live in an Arab country.  Free speech does not exist.  Capitalism, I guess, you don't know what that means.  Arab countries are not capitalist societies.  In majority, they aren't even democratic governments.  I wish people would get their facts straight before pulling them out of nowhere, and then after that at least admit to mistakes.  

About this Hitler and George Bush comparison that has been drawn.  Well, I don't think what GWB has done is that different from Hitler.  Sure he didn't have the trains and gas houses and 12 million people, but GWB has destroyed the economies of two countrys to find 2 people, one of which eventually turned up.  However, have any WMD's turned up in Iraq?  No.  Clinton took em all.  70 hours I'm told, in 1998.  
USA helped the Taliban, with which they blew up the WTC and half the pentagon.  Do you know why Taliban did that?

I tell you what.  Educate yourself.  Watch Bowling For Columbine.  Around halfway through that movie is this timeline of events by the US government.  I found that particularly interesting.
However, true freedom of speech doesn't exist, maybe the movie association banned it.  Teh.



Its aetherFox.  Not hard.  It's written slightly to the left of all my posts.  And when you quote.  Like magic.


Title: death penalty
Post by: KiZ on February 22, 2004, 10:14:10 AM
Quote from: "adosorken"
Nazis were FAR different. I suggest doing some research before making such outlandish claims.


Uh, not really. Saddam Loyalists are people who used to regularly torture and exectute people just for speaking out against Saddams regime. Now that is just like the Nazi party back in WWII, who did exactly the same to people who spoke out against Hitler.

Quote from: "adosorken"
Sure, I trust a poll put forth by the US government.

As far as I understand, it wasnt done by the American Government.

Quote
Uh huh. Again, you're being fed what you want to hear. And you're believing it. Try actually talking to a few someday. Might paint a VASTLY different picture. Conduct your own poll on just how many Iraqis applauded the invasion.

For all the pictures of GB there were burned, there were also pictures of Saddam being burned, or hit with shoes (Which is a serious insult in Iraq). Just because you seem to think that the Iraqis hate the US, that doesnt mean that there arent Iraqis who have thankfulness to the Coalition and for removing Saddam from power, because he tortured and murdered their families.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Z!re on February 22, 2004, 11:09:32 AM
Quote from: "aetherfox"
Its aetherFox.  Not hard.  It's written slightly to the left of all my posts.  And when you quote.  Like magic.
... Owned, it's aetherfox <--- LOL :rotfl:

It almost sound like you actually beleive that the US has the intention to rid Iraq of an evil presence?, and in a way you are right, it's just that... the evil presence... it's not named Saddam... it's named... oil... and profit...

Just take a look at what companies has been given contracts to rebuild the country once the war is won (ignore the fact tha GWB claims it to already be won), dont fool yourself into thinking that there is a single non US or US affiliated country.

Sure, great work of ridding the world of this evil man (Saddam), but it was done on the wrong basis.

Here's a verynice story about the Iraqi war: The Boy Who Cried Iraq (http://www.theboywhocriediraq.com/index.asp)


Title: death penalty
Post by: adosorken on February 22, 2004, 01:07:49 PM
Show some legitimate proof of this "torture and murder of families". Also, show some legitimate proof of these "Saddam loyalists" doing the same thing that members of the Nazi military did (note: German citizens made up a small percentage of the 12 million, for your information). Although there are those in Iraq which welcomed the US forces, most did not and almost all of them want the US's big wide ass out of their country. There's always going to be people on both sides of the fence. And no...you don't see the same things I do. I don't limit my information to one or two sources...I get my information from myriads of sources. I refuse to be among the ignorant masses who believe the horseshyte they're told to believe.


Title: death penalty
Post by: aetherfox on February 22, 2004, 01:21:24 PM
Oh sheeit....

That's mighty inconvenient.  Argh.

ARGH.

Well that was before I changed the capitalisation when I met another aetherFox.

Damn haha.

Well, apologies.  But all you guys do AetherFox anyway.

Check my sig then.

Of course America took Iraq over for oil.  They just wanted the coalition because I guess American army troops aren't that spectacular, since during the war more British soldiers will killed as a result of Americans rather than Iraqis.  Tragic.

America changed the name of French Fries to Freedom Fries and French Toast to Liberty Toast.  What the fucks going to happen when somebody sees the Made In France label stuck at the bottom of The Statue Of Liberty?  What, does GWB think it was made in China?  He is a hypocrite.  I guess I can give Hitler that much, as far as I know, he gave his country what he could...and he wasn't a hypocrite.  The current US economy is a classic example.  It's doing really bad, and GWB is keeping it that way so that people are happy as they have more money, and they might vote for him.  If he gets it, then lo behold they will be crappy again, the consumption in the economy will become the opportunity cost to the health of the economy, and he can say, "I had to do it".  If he doesn't win, he can just say "Oh I tried my best, but it's out of my hands now."


Title: death penalty
Post by: KiZ on February 22, 2004, 01:24:32 PM
Quote from: "Z!re"
Quote from: "aetherfox"
Its aetherFox.  Not hard.  It's written slightly to the left of all my posts.  And when you quote.  Like magic.
... Owned, it's aetherfox <--- LOL :rotfl:


haha LOL!!!  :rotfl:
talk about irony =P

Quote
Show some legitimate proof of this "torture and murder of families"

I saw a documentary of Iraqis telling british reporters about the horrors they went through, showing them inside the now bombed out Iraqi secret police headquarters, where they were strung up with electrical cord, and beaten. That is torture. I also saw a documentary, called Horizons, which is a program which takes very large risks to film its documentries, showing where people had been taken to be publicly executed by these "secret police" people. (Saddam loyalists)

And dont tell me that is BS fed by the US government. Because it is NOT!!!

Now I do not wish to get on the wrong side of you, Ado, so i may just leave this here.


Title: death penalty
Post by: adosorken on February 22, 2004, 01:25:40 PM
I still call them French Fries and French Toast, and anyone who says either Freedom Fries or Liberty Toast gets a cold hard slap across the face. There is no excuse for ignorance. :x  :normal:  :evil:

DP: show some weblinks, or something more concrete than "I saw it on TV". I could easily say I watched a documentary called Josephat's Revenge and have it be all about some right-wing militant group trying to overtake New Jersey. Doesn't mean much.


Title: death penalty
Post by: PlayGGY on February 22, 2004, 01:42:07 PM
Quote
DP: show some weblinks, or something more concrete than "I saw it on TV". I could easily say I watched a documentary called Josephat's Revenge and have it be all about some right-wing militant group trying to overtake New Jersey. Doesn't mean much.


So, are you seriously saying that Saddam didn't torture people and fill mass graves?  You are the first person, even from Europe, that I have ever heard say that.

Well, Mr. European here is some proof:

http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/2283602?source=Evening%20Standard

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-04-13-saddam-secrets-usat_x.htm

http://www.newsday.com/features/ny-p2cover3672221feb16,0,4304515.story?coll=ny-features-headlines

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2930739.stm


Title: death penalty
Post by: KiZ on February 22, 2004, 01:43:19 PM
Thankyou PlayGGY! At least someone supports my view on this whole thing.

Ado: There ya go. Proof.


Title: death penalty
Post by: adosorken on February 22, 2004, 02:03:35 PM
At last, someone has the cojones to get off their butt and do some research. :o  It's about freakin' time. Only problem is that these are from US and British sources...the #1 and #2 in the "Coalition". How about some sources from other countries? :D

And I'm not from Europe. Your geography is horribly skewed. Horribly. Puerto Rico is in the Carribean...that's the OTHER side of the Atlantic. :P


Title: death penalty
Post by: aetherfox on February 22, 2004, 02:05:12 PM
You didn't get my point adosorken, it was just to illustrate what I wanted to say, GWB's hypocrisy.  Freedom Fries?  I mean, COME ON!

Whoever says that should be slapped with a dead salted trout.  That will teach them.


Title: death penalty
Post by: adosorken on February 22, 2004, 02:11:11 PM
I got yer point aeth...just tellin' ya what happens in reality when I hear that trash :D Although I think the salted trout might work too...leaves a bigger stink than the lies we hear out of Washington.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Rhiannon on February 22, 2004, 02:17:58 PM
You know, I think Jesus said it best when he said "Remove the plank from your own eye before attempting to remove the speck from your brother's eye".  The US govt has a friggen log in its eye, and it's trying to remove the speck from Iraq's eye. Why do I say this? Well.....first of all, after 9/11, hundreds of Arabs and Muslims were arrested and imprisioned without any rights, no phone call, no lawyer, no trial. Then we get the great Patriot Act, which allows people to be treated in the very same way these poor Arabs and Muslims were treated.  There are 10 states in the US with a 13-17% poverty level, and ten states with 28% of children under 5 living at poverty level. Puerto Rico has a overwhelming 40-50% poverty rate, and I'm not talking about too poor to go to Mcdonalds, I'm talking poor as in washing your clothes in the river, living in a shanty and doing dishes in a bucket kind of poor.  (Yet the funny thing is that there are over 53,000 Puerto Ricans that are somehow involved in the military, whether it be reserves or active). Money is being taken from public schools to be used for vouchers. Healthcare benefits have been cut. Money is being pumped into a war that will only benefit a few, the petroleum companies. Yet the US govt rushes out on its white horse to "save the world from terrorism" when noone in the world really supports us. I think we should point at our own president first (not mine tho, i cant vote for him) and fix our own problems before going to "fix" other people's problems.


Title: death penalty
Post by: PlayGGY on February 22, 2004, 02:49:15 PM
Well, equating the Patriot Act (which I don't like, by the way) to the torture chambers and mass graves is a bit over the top, eh?

And we do have a problem with our economy:  too high taxation and regulation.  However, our "bad" economy is not only the best in the world right now, but it is also the fastest growing (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,1142714,00.html).

I don't know about Puerto Rico, but you have a more socialist state than we do (even though you are "part" of us), so I am not suprised to know that the economy there sucks.

And if there is nothing wrong sending people's money to pay for other people's education in government schools, what is the problem with sending that money to private schools?


Title: death penalty
Post by: Rhiannon on February 22, 2004, 02:57:01 PM
Socialist....wtf are you talking about? Puerto Rico is a commonwealth, look it up. And I do have a problem when my money goes to a select few so they can be educated in a private, and especially in a religious school.


Title: death penalty
Post by: PlayGGY on February 22, 2004, 03:01:50 PM
Quote from: "Rhiannon"
Socialist....wtf are you talking about? And I do have a problem when my money goes to a select few so they can be educated in a private, and especially in a religious school.


I knew you wouldn't adress the first part of my post. ;)  8)



To adress your response:

I said that Puerto Rico is more socialist than the States, which is true.  Higher taxes, much more regulation on businesses, and (I don't know this for a fact) probably more welfare programs.

About vouchers:
The money isn't going to a select few, they would go to whomever wanted to go to a private school.  What is wrong with giving people a choice?


Title: death penalty
Post by: na_th_an on February 22, 2004, 03:04:44 PM
That a country has much money doesn't mean that it "goes well". I mean, you can see some arabic countries whihc are really rich but they are full of poor people. It is more a matter on how money is distributed.

And socialism doesn't have to suck. It saved my country from the 3rd world 20 years ago. We are now going to a more and more capitalist system that I don't like at all. Spain is richer, but not 'cause everyone is richer, but 'cause rich people are richer. That's what happens with high developed countries: They can be extremely rich countries full of poor people.

As I've said many times, it is a matter of common sense. I prefer a poor country with less differences rather than a rich country with big differences. When we were at a fairly more socialist state (in the first and mid 80s), my country was slowly developing but things were cheap and everyone could afford them. Surely we were not strong economically and our money didn't cost a shit, but I liked how you could trust on the government to have your basic services (health, protection, communication, etcetera). Since 1996 we are in a right-wing government that does and praises full capitalism. Our president likes to suck Bush's ding-dong and we got even involved in that nonsense war to find mass destruction weapons that didn't even exist (funny how that has turned with time in "we went there to save the Iraquis"). Well, since then, my country is becoming stronger in the world, but inside our frontiers we live exactly the same. What does that mean? Who wants that kind of development when I cannot see it? Now prices are extremely high (sometimes with 80% to 140% of increase since we use Euros!)... that sucks.

And that comes to illustrate my theory. Is really capitalism a good deal? why? As I see it, capitalism consist on high-developed countries leeching low-developed ones, suck their resources and become richer. Don't you know that we (developed countries) are TO BLAME of the starvation and poberty in Africa?

(http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/apr03/propaganda_shutmouth.jpg)


Title: death penalty
Post by: Rhiannon on February 22, 2004, 03:15:10 PM
Hence the money is going to a select few, else why no just make every public school private, hmm?

As for the socialist part, taxes here are not high, (Massachusetts has insane property tax, California sales tax is around 8%, are they socialists too?) and businesses are loosely regulated.

As for your smartass crack about addressing the first part of your post, the Constitution is a sacred document which the forefathers established in order to prevent idiots like GWB from trampling on our rights as citizens. How would you like it if you were taken from your home, tossed into a jail cell, chained hand and foot like a beast, and abused and tortured by jail guards without having the chance to make a phone call, call a lawyer, or even have a trial? I bet you wouldnt like it huh? Well neither did those Arabs and Muslims, who were supposed to be protected by the same Constitution which GWB lovingly trampled with his Patriot Act.  Hilter was looking for a pure race, and convinced his army of this ideal. GWB wants world domination, and is using US and UK soldiers to feed his own greed and those elite few who will benefit from this so called war, which is more of a slaughter than a war. How many UK soldiers have died from "friendly" fire? How many US soldiers have lost their lives senselessly? Hundreds.

Then of course we have Afghanastan. Poor people were bombed to death, and then left at the mercy of opium druglords. The country is in shambles, and the people are dead in life, with no way to feed themselves or their children, no way to obtain a better life. Wow, that sure makes me want to vote for GWB in 2004 :roll:


Title: death penalty
Post by: PlayGGY on February 22, 2004, 03:30:26 PM
Quote
That a country has much money doesn't mean that it "goes well". I mean, you can see some arabic countries whihc are really rich but they are full of poor people. It is more a matter on how money is distributed.


Yes, then no.

In those countries (India is included), the government owns nearly everything.  That sucks.  They stole it through taxation.

Quote
And socialism doesn't have to suck. It saved my country from the 3rd world 20 years ago.


Have you noticed that all of the dirt poor countires are are socialist?  You couldn't name one that isn't.  And have you noticed how all of the rich countries are capitalist?  And have you noticed that all of the countries with huge economic troubles (and ready to tank, like Germany), are increasing the governments presence in the market?  Socialism doesn't work, and doesn't help economies.  Capitalism has made us the richest country in the world, with possible the lowest unemployment in the world (5.8%, which is high for us right now).  It is also helping China, who is finally easing restrictions on capitalism.

Quote
As I see it, capitalism consist on high-developed countries leeching low-developed ones, suck their resources and become richer.


I am going to have some fun with this one:  Give me an example where our business exploits people in third world countries.  They don't!  They employ them, when no one else would!  In other words, the third world countries gain wealth from having more jobs, and we gain wealth from cheaper products.



You must not understand capitalism.  It is simply an economic system that rewards investment of money and time with profit.  No exploitation.  That isn't to say American capitalism is perfect:  we have tons of regulations, high taxes, and government run monopolies, all of which drain our economy.  But in America there is a sense that other countires really don't have: that taxation is stealing.  So in the long run, we are bound to free up our markets from excessive government intervention.]


Title: death penalty
Post by: Agamemnus on February 22, 2004, 03:35:23 PM
Quote

And that comes to illustrate my theory. Is really capitalism a good deal? why? As I see it, capitalism consist on high-developed countries leeching low-developed ones, suck their resources and become richer.


That's not the case at all. If you look at the cold, hard, facts, in the recent decades capitalist developed countries have accelerated the growth of developing countries everywhere in the world where the market has been open to opportunities.

The reason that many African and South American countries did not grow at all during this period, and continue not to grow, is because of stability issues. Regardless of the reason for instability in many African states, it is there.

The equation for growth in a developing country requires stability and capital, especially from foreign sources. Removing capitalism from the picture now will remove the equation altogether. What must and is being worked on is stability. Once the stability is there, development will follow.

Unfortunately, it is rather difficult to get stability in many parts in Africa, as it is a gun-soaked region.


Title: death penalty
Post by: PlayGGY on February 22, 2004, 03:42:40 PM
Hey, I am on the same side as Agamemnus for once.  Except for this:

Quote from: "Agamemnus"

Unfortunately, it is rather difficult to get stability in many parts in Africa, as it is a gun-soaked region.


So is America.  The difference is, they are in constant civil wars (I have no idea what over).


Title: death penalty
Post by: Rhiannon on February 22, 2004, 03:44:11 PM
:rotfl:

Right.....the US is so nice that they employ third world country people to work for them and giving them such a better chance at life.....beautiful i tell ya.

 :barf:

Ok for real man, what world are you living in? Do you not know of the coal industry, the diamond industry, the sweatshops, etc, etc? "But people are getting paid" youre prolly gonna say. They sure are....they get paid such a misery you couldnt even feed your dog with the salary they get. And I dont think YOU understand capitalism. See, you must cut costs as much as possible and maximize profits. So who cares if you have to employ some Indian children to sew your clothes for 5 cents a day? I'm also sure noone's gonna miss those Africans that risk their lives in the mines every day hunting for gems so that they can be sent to the US to be polished and sold for thousands, while the miners get paid a misery. I really dont see these countries getting richer. Besides, why no employ US workers? They are highly skilled, and would also help our own economy.  Oh...that's right, because it costs more. SO why not go to Mexico, Costa Rica, China, India and Africa, and employ the poor people there who would do anything for a piece of bread to feed their children. The US is just so kind....:roll:


Title: death penalty
Post by: PlayGGY on February 22, 2004, 03:49:23 PM
Quote from: "Rhiannon"
:rotfl:

Right.....the US is so nice that they employ third world country people to work for them and giving them such a better chance at life.....beautiful i tell ya.

 :barf:

Ok for real man, what world are you living in? Do you not know of the coal industry, the diamond industry, the sweatshops, etc, etc? "But people are getting paid" youre prolly gonna say. They sure are....they get paid such a misery you couldnt even feed your dog with the salary they get. And I dont think YOU understand capitalism. See, you must cut costs as much as possible and maximize profits. So who cares if you have to employ some Indian children to sew your clothes for 5 cents a day? I'm also sure noone's gonna miss those Africans that risk their lives in the mines every day hunting for gems so that they can be sent to the US to be polished and sold for thousands, while the miners get paid a misery. I really dont see these countries getting richer. Besides, why no employ US workers? They are highly skilled, and would also help our own economy.  Oh...that's right, because it costs more. SO why not go to Mexico, Costa Rica, China, India and Africa, and employ the poor people there who would do anything for a piece of bread to feed their children. The US is just so kind....:roll:


Again, only adressintg part of my post.  8)

Well, first of all, the mines in Africa are owned by goverments there, not by US businesses.  But lets look at the clothing factories:

What is your problem with them?  We are offering them an opportunity to work!  If we left, they would be unemployed again.  No one is forcing them to work there you know!


Title: death penalty
Post by: na_th_an on February 22, 2004, 03:57:41 PM
Oh, men, you both live in a sort of bubble. Go to Thailand. Visit nike's, reebok's, levi's or another brand's factories. That's what I call true modern slavery. Africa is how it is nowadays 'cause of the big rippoffs that Europe and the U.S.A. did in the past centuries.

Btw, when I say "socialist" I don't mean "communism" like in the USSR, China or Cuba.

Again, yours may be the richest country in the world, but people are starving on the streets. I think that's a problem.

The problem with you is that you live too well. If you were unemployed, or you were poor, or you lived in a hispanic ghetto in Detroit you wouldn't think the same. That problem is the same that many people has in developed countries. They think they are the good boys, and that they have the right to do and undo and to decide what's good and what's wrong and what does a poor country need. You invaded Afghanistan, you invaded Iraq. Sure, those countries were in a bad state, but the problem is that you think that you solved the thing and that they are fine now when that's completely untrue. Iraq is a hell, just a different hell.

And poor countries are leeched by rich ones by one single reason: globalization. Globalization takes poor countries even deeper. They have to pay more for medicine, they have to compete against big powers in a shared market. Their prime materials are being constantly sucked up by our aspirators, paying them 1/100th of what they cost.

Quote
The reason that many African and South American countries did not grow at all during this period, and continue not to grow, is because of stability issues. Regardless of the reason for instability in many African states, it is there.


And now that's fun. You are talking about stability issues in South America. Well, let's try to make some history. Who put Noriega in Nicaragua? Who helped Pinochet to begin the dictatorship in Chile in 1973? Who aids the SPARCs and the ultra-right-wing guerrillas in Colombia? Now talk about mid-west, who helped the Talibans to reach to the power? Who propicied the IRAQ-IRAN war in the eighties? Who sold weapons to Saddam Hussein for that war? Who trained Usama Ben Laden?, I can follow... what was the sense of Vietnam? Why did more than 1,000,000 of innocent people die in that war?

All that lack of stability has been produced by YOUR COUNTRY! Please, don't you ever say that your country works for freedom and peace and stuff, 'cause it does exactly like every country does (or tries to, the thing is that only your country is capable): work for itself stepping over the rest of the world. Free Iraq? Why? Why Iraq and not, for example, Zimbabwe or Ruanda? ah, I see. No petrol there. Oooh...

And now you seem amazed about the fact that the half of the world don't like the U.S.A. very much. The explanation is simple: You've been doing whatever you wanted with the rest of the world for 100 years.


Title: death penalty
Post by: na_th_an on February 22, 2004, 04:00:07 PM
Btw, I am amazed on the way you talk about poor countries and poor people. They are not farm animals.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Rhiannon on February 22, 2004, 04:03:13 PM
*wags her finger at nathan* Youre lucky youre in Spain young man, else i'd report you and have you arrested according to the Patriot Act, you damn terrorist!

:roll:

BTW PlayGGY, in those goodhearted sweatshops, children as young as 7 work alongside brothers, sisters and parents for a misery a day. They just dont tell you that on the news cuz they are too busy going on about the war. Also....when you have a family, and children, and in some cases, parents to take care of, you will work anywhere and at anything to feed them. "They dont have to work there you know". One day you will be where they are and will eat your words.


Title: death penalty
Post by: adosorken on February 22, 2004, 04:14:59 PM
In an upper middle-class suburb of San Francisco, a group of energetic nine- to eleven-year-olds tussle for control of a soccer ball. Their Little League uniforms are pretty well stained by now, as small lungs gasp for air in this fierce competition. It is for the Division Championship. The score is tied with only minutes to go. There is much at stake. The shrill blast of a whistle announces a foul. One side of the field emits a loud groan in unison, immediately followed by angry protests directed at the referee. The free kick could mean the championship. Coiffured heads quiver with rage as inch-long, manicured nails stab the air to emphasize pleas to reconsider the unjust call. Nearby males, in expensively casual sportswear, with $150 sunglasses dangling from shirt fronts, add their bass voices to the rumble of complaints.

On the other side of the field, equally coiffured heads tilt sideways, lazily, as huge smiles greet the announced foul. These manicured nails delicately encircle bottles of imported mineral water. Dainty sips are taken. An occasional male belly-laugh is heard in response to the truly impressive invective echoing from across the field.

Later the winners, with their children in tow (the actual players who won the game for these ecstatic adults) celebrate the victory at a pizza palace. Silence is called for, and someone proposes a prayer of thanksgiving. Impatient children scowl as they bow their heads, eyes firmly fixed on the piece of pizza that will be claimed as soon as the interminable prayer is over. O give thanks unto the Lord, for he is good

In India, a three-year-old girl squats in a shanty. Her tiny fingers are stitching together the six-sided pieces of leather that will ultimately become a soccer ball. She earns six cents an hour for her work. Her hands are too small to manipulate scissors, so her older sister does the cutting for her. At the end of her labors, approximately sixty cents and ten hours later, the shiny new soccer ball will be ready to be shipped to the USA. There, with a major name brand proudly emblazoned on its skin, it will command a price of $30 to $50.

In Pakistan alone, an estimated eleven million children work for similar wages, in equally squalid conditions. The median age of children entering this dead-end workforce is seven. Stitching sheds dot the countryside, filled with children workers who have been sold by their poverty-stricken parents for as little as $15 each. O give thanks unto the Lord, for he is good, for his mercy endureth.

In a luxury apartment overlooking Central Park, an enraged matron screams at her maid for spilling coffee on the hall carpet. Tiffany jewelry jangling with her furious movements, the outraged employer asks the terrified employee if she knows how much that imported carpet cost. The maid stares at the floor, silently shaking her head to indicate no. At the end of the tirade, the maid is directed to fetch cold water and towels, with the full understanding that her employment ends at the precise moment that the coffee stain is deemed permanent.

Sputtering with impatience, the matron flips open her cell phone and calls the caterer. Just how many calls, she is wondering, will it take to arrange for a simple ice sculpture and food and drink for two hundred people? Her daughter's wedding is only two weeks away, and none of the plans has been finalized yet. The florist caused her most recent ulcer flare-up. Why should she suffer just because there was a killer frost in some God-forsaken backwater? She wanted orchids and roses to be an exact shade of pink, and she knew that's why hot houses had been invented. So what was the problem?

Now she slammed her phone closed while the caterer was still trying to explain about some sort of warm spell in Minnesota that made the orange caviar unavailable this season. Warm, cold, this wedding was going to be the death of her. She took two Valium and began to calm down.

The calm was short-lived, however, as she watched the maid's futile attempts on the hall carpet. She had paid $2,000 for that damn rug! Too late to buy another one before the wedding. She had her firing speech all prepared, but decided to postpone it. She needed the maid for the wedding. Afterwards, she would fire her, deducting carpet cleaning charges from the severance pay. There would be no references, of course.

At last, though, the glorious wedding day arrived, sunny and beautiful. As she watched her lovely daughter affirming her marriage vows, she closed her tear-glistened eyes briefly and offered a silent prayer of thanks. Her twenty-year-old daughter had her whole life in front of her, with her handsome, pre-law bridegroom. A flicker of a smile crossed her face as she added an addendum to her short prayer. She thanked God that the stain had been removed from her precious carpet after all-and for only $250. There was no doubt in her mind at all. God had truly blessed her.

Half way around the world, in a gloomy, airless room, a ten-year-old boy squats in front of a carpet loom, tying knots. He will stay in this position for twelve to thirteen hours daily, six days a week. He will earn about two dollars for a week's work, the results of which will be an exquisite carpet that will sell for $2,000 in the USA. He is coughing and hacking as his lungs fill up with carpet lint. His spine is becoming deformed from his perpetual squat. Like many of the boys around him, he will not live to see his twentieth birthday . . . .

O give thanks unto the Lord; for he is good; for his mercy endureth for ever.

I Chronicles 16:34.

From http://www.thehappyheretic.com/


Title: death penalty
Post by: PlayGGY on February 22, 2004, 04:18:42 PM
I am getting extremely tired of this... you skirt around what I said, without responding to it.

Now, do you disagree with this statement that I wrote, one of the many you have not responded to: What is your problem with [businesses that employ people in third world countries]? We are offering them an opportunity to work! If we left, they would be unemployed again. No one is forcing them to work there you know!



I will give you the courteousy of responding to what you said, even though you and Rhiannon consistently don't adress the points I have made.

1.  Yes, our government is screwed up.  We'll support one leader, he'll turn on us, and then we will fight a war with him.  Yes, that sucks, but it isn't the doing of the free market, it is the doing of an overbearing government.

2.  Opening up countries to foreign investment is about the best thing you can do to a rotting country ready for change.  If the economy is in shambles, people will be willing to work for less.  Companies, eager to turn higher profits will go in and employ as many of the people as they can.  As more companies come in and compete over the cheap labour, wages naturally rise.  With this influx of money, prices will also rise, and more a more developed economy emerges.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Rhiannon on February 22, 2004, 04:24:48 PM
Really.....so it's ok to employ children and have them work in infrahuman conditions? Or do you think they work in nice buildings with comfy chairs and A/C? And I already answered your question, the problem is they exploit people, and why dont you answer this question: Why not employ US workers, who are more skilled than third world workers?


Title: death penalty
Post by: PlayGGY on February 22, 2004, 04:26:02 PM
Adosorken, I will re-itterate to you (whom I might add denied that Saddam commited the attrocities untill I showed you proof from several different news siites  :normal:), the poverty you describe is the result of socialism and corrupt government.  What do you think is the source f their poverty?


Title: death penalty
Post by: adosorken on February 22, 2004, 04:28:04 PM
Quote from: "PlayGGY"
Now, do you disagree with this statement that I wrote, one of the many you have not responded to: What is your problem with [businesses that employ people in third world countries]? We are offering them an opportunity to work! If we left, they would be unemployed again. No one is forcing them to work there you know!

If you do not see that this is incorrect BY NOW, you are seriously BLIND. The societies they live in force them to work like this. They do not have the luxury of demanding a higher wage. So yes...they ARE being forced to work there. Being forced to work there does not mean "at gunpoint", it means, in this case, "or else you die for your own resistance". And besides...WHY ARE WE OFFERING OTHER COUNTRIES TO WORK WHEN OUR OWN UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IS SKYROCKETING!

Quote from: "PlayGGY"
1.  Yes, our government is screwed up.  We'll support one leader, he'll turn on us, and then we will fight a war with him.  Yes, that sucks, but it isn't the doing of the free market, it is the doing of an overbearing government.

Keep in mind that in the USA, government and business are strongly intertwined. Or did you think that one gets the presidency by holding a bake sale?

Quote from: "PlayGGY"
2.  Opening up countries to foreign investment is about the best thing you can do to a rotting country ready for change.  If the economy is in shambles, people will be willing to work for less.  Companies, eager to turn higher profits will go in and employ as many of the people as they can.  As more companies come in and compete over the cheap labour, wages naturally rise.  With this influx of money, prices will also rise, and more a more developed economy emerges.

In a perfect world, maybe. However, in reality, this is not the way it works. Why do you think companies tend to isloate countries? My dad worked at Goodyear for 16 years before being laid off as they moved the factory overseas. To a country where no other US companies had involvement. Why? No competition. Dirt-cheap laborers who could be paid, pretty much, in peanuts. Although there are some countries who are targetted by multiple US companies, most are not. And don't go trying the China example...China rebuilt their staggering economy on their own strength, not on ours.

Quote from: "PlayGGY"
Adosorken, I will re-itterate to you (whom I might add denied that Saddam commited the attrocities untill I showed you proof from several different news siites  :normal:), the poverty you describe is the result of socialism and corrupt government.  What do you think is the source f their poverty?

Might I suggest reading glasses or a more advanced English course. Nowhere did I deny that Saddam tortured his own people...I said I wanted some proof of it. And it's about time someone actually took the time to go research it, rather than just sitting here on the forum flapping their gums in the breeze. (I actually had to reread pages of this post looking for this mystery denial).

The source of poverty in general is rooted in how a government administrates...nothing to do with its type. Here in the USA (and yeah, I'm in the USA), poverty runs rampant in big cities. What? We're a capitalist nation? So then why do we have poverty?


Title: death penalty
Post by: Rhiannon on February 22, 2004, 04:29:07 PM
Arab countries dont have a socialism, they have a monarchy or dictatorship. Also, why is over 20% of US children living in poverty? The US isnt socialist either.


Title: death penalty
Post by: PlayGGY on February 22, 2004, 04:30:39 PM
Rhiannon, I don't know why you don't understant this: THE COMPANIES ARE NOT FORCING ANYONE TO WORK FOR THEM!!  IF THE COMPANIES LEFT AND WENT BACK TO THE US/EUROPE/ASIA, THOSE PEOPLE WOULD BE WORSE OFF THAN THEY ARE WITH THE COMPANIES THERE!!

And I will tell you why the companies get cheaper labor from other countries rather than the more skille labor here:  The jobs they are exporting are not jobs that require many skills.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Agamemnus on February 22, 2004, 04:31:12 PM
Oh yeah. One other thing I forgot to mention.

Many markets should be regulated.

Unfortunately you are painting a rather one sided picture of things.


Title: death penalty
Post by: PlayGGY on February 22, 2004, 04:38:25 PM
Quote
Arab countries dont have a socialism, they have a monarchy or dictatorship.


What!?  Socialism is an economic system, it can co-exist with a monarchy/dictatorship.


Quote
Also, why is over 20% of US children living in poverty? The US isnt socialist either.


You do realize that the standard for poverty level is computed relative other's income.  Since income is higher before tax in the US than it is in Europe, our poverty level standard is higher.  So, anywhere from 14-16% of children are at poverty level here, but they wouldn't be considered at poverty level if they were in Europe.


Title: death penalty
Post by: adosorken on February 22, 2004, 04:38:37 PM
Quote from: "PlayGGY"
THE COMPANIES ARE NOT FORCING ANYONE TO WORK FOR THEM!!  IF THE COMPANIES LEFT AND WENT BACK TO THE US/EUROPE/ASIA, THOSE PEOPLE WOULD BE WORSE OFF THAN THEY ARE WITH THE COMPANIES THERE!!

"Associative Slavery"

Nice new word I just made up. :D

But i'm sure a real word exists that goes a little something like this:

If you don't work, you will be worse off. Therefore, you are OPTIONLESS. You HAVE to work, or else you and your country will die. What part of this do you not understand?


Title: death penalty
Post by: Agamemnus on February 22, 2004, 04:40:01 PM
Quote

And now that's fun. You are talking about stability issues in South America. Well, let's try to make some history. Who put Noriega in Nicaragua? Who helped Pinochet to begin the dictatorship in Chile in 1973? Who aids the SPARCs and the ultra-right-wing guerrillas in Colombia? Now talk about mid-west, who helped the Talibans to reach to the power? Who propicied the IRAQ-IRAN war in the eighties? Who sold weapons to Saddam Hussein for that war? Who trained Usama Ben Laden?, I can follow... what was the sense of Vietnam? Why did more than 1,000,000 of innocent people die in that war?

All that lack of stability has been produced by YOUR COUNTRY!


That's not quite true, you know: Vietnam and Afghanistan was a military confontation between Soviets and everyone else. Even in Vietnam, Russians provided logistics and weapons to the enemy of the US, and other things too. It was a call that was made between dictatorship and the spread of Communism.


Title: death penalty
Post by: adosorken on February 22, 2004, 04:41:52 PM
IMO, chalk Vietnam to be YET ANOTHER war the US had no business getting involved with. And hell...look what it did to the soldiers who were "fortunate" to survive it... :(


Title: death penalty
Post by: Rhiannon on February 22, 2004, 04:42:00 PM
Quote from: "PlayGGY"
Rhiannon, I don't know why you don't understant this: THE COMPANIES ARE NOT FORCING ANYONE TO WORK FOR THEM!!  IF THE COMPANIES LEFT AND WENT BACK TO THE US/EUROPE/ASIA, THOSE PEOPLE WOULD BE WORSE OFF THAN THEY ARE WITH THE COMPANIES THERE!!

And I will tell you why the companies get cheaper labor from other countries rather than the more skille labor here:  The jobs they are exporting are not jobs that require many skills.


That's not a reason to not employ US workers who are in desperate need of jobs. Also, no need to write in caps, i can see, read and understand just fine.

So basically what you are saying is that US companies are a gift from the Goddess to these people, and that US companies are closing operations in the states, leaving thousands of people unemployed, to take those jobs to third world countries becuz they need the jobs and since the jobs arent skilled then they can do it?


Title: death penalty
Post by: adosorken on February 22, 2004, 04:43:46 PM
God Bless America :roll:  :roll:  :roll:


Title: death penalty
Post by: PlayGGY on February 22, 2004, 04:47:36 PM
This is getting insane.

You are mad that the companies are going to thrid world countries for labor.  You said "Being forced to work there does not mean "at gunpoint", it means, in this case, "or else you die for your own resistance"".  So, I will say it again:  Will those people who either work or die be better off when their jobs leave their country to go back to the US/Europe/Asia?  Please answer this.



You also stated that China is recovering by itself.  You and I both know that you are lying.  While they are inacting capitalist reforms which are greatly imporving the future for its people, there are so many jobs that western companies give them (Ever seen Made In China?) that it is rediculous to say that we aren't helping.

Quote
The source of poverty in general is rooted in how a government administrates...nothing to do with its type. Here in the USA (and yeah, I'm in the USA), poverty runs rampant in big cities. What? We're a capitalist nation? So then why do we have poverty?


I have no clue what you mean by your first statement.

But you next ones:

We aren't anywhere close to pure capitalism.  We have so many government programs that trap people that it is sad.  But evenb then, the poverty you speak of would be bliss for most of the world.


Title: death penalty
Post by: PlayGGY on February 22, 2004, 04:52:13 PM
Quote
That's not a reason to not employ US workers who are in desperate need of jobs. Also, no need to write in caps, i can see, read and understand just fine.


I wrote in caps because it seems that no one understands that.  As for employing US workers: We don't have very high unemployment compared to the rest of the world.  But if those companies did dome and hire US workers, we would have very high prices on our goods, meaning we could buy less goods.  Our standard of living would drop.

Quote
So basically what you are saying is that US companies are a gift from the Goddess to these people, and that US companies are closing operations in the states, leaving thousands of people unemployed, to take those jobs to third world countries becuz they need the jobs and since the jobs arent skilled then they can do it?


Sort of...[/quote]


Title: death penalty
Post by: Agamemnus on February 22, 2004, 04:54:01 PM
Yes, let's divert to China now.

Because of globalization, China is now dependent on wheat from the US.


Title: death penalty
Post by: adosorken on February 22, 2004, 04:57:12 PM
I feel like I'm talking to a freakin' brick wall, but anyways...

Quote from: "PlayGGY"
You are mad that the companies are going to thrid world countries for labor.  You said "Being forced to work there does not mean "at gunpoint", it means, in this case, "or else you die for your own resistance"".  So, I will say it again:  Will those people who either work or die be better off when their jobs leave their country to go back to the US/Europe/Asia?  Please answer this.

First of all...probably. Because without the US involvement, they would have to come up with their own methods of making an economy. It would be painful to start out but no more painful than the forced crap they have to deal with already. Of course, it's a risk, and one they're not willing to take, as humans have a tendency to take the easier path when faced with difficulty. But to leave them in their current state is not beneficial to them or to us as a whole...it only benefits big business, and you KNOW it.

Quote from: "PlayGGY"
You also stated that China is recovering by itself.  You and I both know that you are lying.  While they are inacting capitalist reforms which are greatly imporving the future for its people, there are so many jobs that western companies give them (Ever seen Made In China?) that it is rediculous to say that we aren't helping.

I did not say that we are not helping. I said that we are not the cause. Again, read carefully.

Quote from: "PlayGGY"
Quote
The source of poverty in general is rooted in how a government administrates...nothing to do with its type. Here in the USA (and yeah, I'm in the USA), poverty runs rampant in big cities. What? We're a capitalist nation? So then why do we have poverty?


I have no clue what you mean by your first statement.

But you next ones:

We aren't anywhere close to pure capitalism.  We have so many government programs that trap people that it is sad.  But evenb then, the poverty you speak of would be bliss for most of the world.

What I meant by that first statement was that it does not matter what economic system a country uses...what matters is where the money goes, who's in charge of what, and so on and so forth. Poverty happens because these elements are out of place. And as there is no such thing as perfect communism, such there is no such thing as perfect capitalism either. Both systems work excellent in theory, but both fail in implementation because they are tainted by the human factor. Humans are greedy. Humans are materialistic. Humans want to get ahead of the other humans. It's basic high school psychology.


Title: death penalty
Post by: PlayGGY on February 22, 2004, 05:06:27 PM
Quote
First of all...probably. Because without the US involvement, they would have to come up with their own methods of making an economy. It would be painful to start out but no more painful than the forced crap they have to deal with already. Of course, it's a risk, and one they're not willing to take, as humans have a tendency to take the easier path when faced with difficulty. But to leave them in their current state is not beneficial to them or to us as a whole...it only benefits big business, and you KNOW it.


What is it about having foreign companies there that keeps them from still using their own methods of making an economy?

Quote
What I meant by that first statement was that it does not matter what economic system a country uses...what matters is where the money goes, who's in charge of what, and so on and so forth. Poverty happens because these elements are out of place. And as there is no such thing as perfect communism, such there is no such thing as perfect capitalism either. Both systems work excellent in theory, but both fail in implementation because they are tainted by the human factor. Humans are greedy. Humans are materialistic. Humans want to get ahead of the other humans


Well, that is exactly what an economic system is:  deciding where money goes.  In capitalism, money goes to those who earned it: to those who invest their time and labor in echange for money.

And you can have pure communism and capitalism.  The question is, whether it would be what it promises.  Communism cannot, because it (like socialism) goes against the nature of people: the love of competition, and the desire to have more than others.  Capitalism harnasses that nature to its fullest.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Rhiannon on February 22, 2004, 05:07:48 PM
Yes, it must be bliss to have to go wash your clothes in the river, haul water back so you can cook a little food, and then walk your kids to school. Real bliss.

Also, just to prove that people are forced into working for these companies, here you go:

India
http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Library/9175/inquiry1.htm
http://www.indianembassy.org/policy/Child_Labor/childlabor.htm
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/india/

Asia (China, Japan, etc.)
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/china010308_explosion.html
http://hrw.org/reports/2000/japan/

USA and the Americans
http://www.vachss.com/help_text/archive/ibrahim.html
http://www.vachss.com/help_text/archive/restavek_haiti.html

Africa
http://www.vachss.com/help_text/archive/chocolate_slaves.html


Title: death penalty
Post by: PlayGGY on February 22, 2004, 05:09:39 PM
Could you show links from websites that don't have a motive?  From the embassy link (the only one that isn't addmitedly biased), you learn that the businesses don't force kids to work, their parents do.

EDIT:  The link about China from ABC is unbiased (a news site), and it showed that the government was forcing the kids to work, not US businesses.


Title: death penalty
Post by: adosorken on February 22, 2004, 05:12:08 PM
Quote from: "PlayGGY"
What is it about having foreign companies there that keeps them from still using their own methods of making an economy?

 :roll: Why do I even bother...

As I've outlayed at least three times so far...

The United States of Aggression, as I will from now on refer to our beloved country as (thank you, Judith Hayes), is in enough economic trouble. These jobs need to be returned to OUR COUNTRY to fix OUR OWN ECONOMIC PROBLEMS. And where do you get this "still using their own methods" thing from? Wow, that one's dizzying to even look at.

Quote from: "PlayGGY"
Well, that is exactly what an economic system is:  deciding where money goes.  In capitalism, money goes to those who earned it: to those who invest their time and labor in echange for money.

And you can have pure communism and capitalism.  The question is, whether it would be what it promises.  Communism cannot, because it (like socialism) goes against the nature of people: the love of competition, and the desire to have more than others.  Capitalism harnasses that nature to its fullest.

You cannot have purity in either one. Like I said before, the human element distorts this. Whether something works in theory or not is baseless when put into implementation in the hands of imperfect humans.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Rhiannon on February 22, 2004, 05:16:05 PM
If the govt isnt stopping it, the govt is allowing it, and are prolly getting paid very well to do so.  And it must be hard for a parent to give up one of their children in order for the rest to eat, or do you really think it's just that easy? You seem to have no human compassion whatsoever, a true capitalist pig. And i'm guesing you didnt read all the links, since some are from newspapers.

Now i dont know about you, but I sure wouldnt want to use products that i know were made with children's blood. I applaude these organizations that are trying to defend the very people exploited by captialist pigs.

And please define socialism, cuz you dont seem to understand what it is, and are confusing it with communism, which is very different.


Title: death penalty
Post by: PlayGGY on February 22, 2004, 05:17:08 PM
Quote
And where do you get this "still using their own methods" thing from? Wow, that one's dizzying to even look at.


I got those exact words from you, actually.  8)

And you didn't answer the question at all that I posed, instead just saying that we need our jobs back here.

Quote
You cannot have purity in either one. Like I said before, the human element distorts this. Whether something works in theory or not is baseless when put into implementation in the hands of imperfect humans.


Right, but it is imperfect humans that makes capitalism work.  The whole friggin' system is set up on the fact that people are greedy.  People want money, and will work for it.  In communism, people are not rewarded for their work, so there is no motive.


Title: death penalty
Post by: PlayGGY on February 22, 2004, 05:23:21 PM
Quote
And please define socialism, cuz you dont seem to understand what it is, and are confusing it with communism, which is very different.


Socialism is a mix between capitalism and communism. The government owns the major industries, and heavily regulates and taxes the rest.

Quote
If the govt isnt stopping it, the govt is allowing it, and are prolly getting paid very well to do so. And it must be hard for a parent to give up one of their children in order for the rest to eat, or do you really think it's just that easy? You seem to have no human compassion whatsoever, a true capitalist pig. And i'm guesing you didnt read all the links, since some are from newspapers.


1.  I read all of them, including the one from ABC.

2.  The governments their are getting taxes from the businesses, but that is entirely irrelevant (why did you even bring that up...?).

3.  Yes, it must be hard for parents to make their kids work every day to live, but it must be even harder watch them die because the jobs they used to work at are now gone.


Title: death penalty
Post by: PlayGGY on February 22, 2004, 05:29:21 PM
Good, no one is replying right now.  I need to go work on my programming.  I will check back here a bit later.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Rhiannon on February 22, 2004, 05:45:42 PM
Quote from: "PlayGGY"

The governments their are getting taxes from the businesses, but that is entirely irrelevant (why did you even bring that up...?).

You must be really naive. Ever heard of bribes?

Quote from: "PlayGGY"
Yes, it must be hard for parents to make their kids work every day to live, but it must be even harder watch them die because the jobs they used to work at are now gone.

How is this different from what US workers are going thru? Are their children worth less? They may not exactly be dying from hunger (altho who knows, I will find out) but I am sure life must be exceedingly difficult for a mother or father to choose between spending the money on food or spending it on kerosene for heat.

(btw, noone was holding you down here in the first place)


Title: death penalty
Post by: oracle on February 22, 2004, 06:52:04 PM
Quote from: "PlayGGY"
Have you noticed that all of the dirt poor countires are are socialist?  You couldn't name one that isn't.  And have you noticed how all of the rich countries are capitalist?  And have you noticed that all of the countries with huge economic troubles (and ready to tank, like Germany), are increasing the governments presence in the market?  Socialism doesn't work, and doesn't help economies.  Capitalism has made us the richest country in the world, with possible the lowest unemployment in the world (5.8%, which is high for us right now).  It is also helping China, who is finally easing restrictions on capitalism.


NZ is a capatalist country, yet out employment is at 4.6%, the highest for two years. Our corruption index is third best in the world (9.5, behind I think Finland and Sweden at 9.7). Yet we can't get a trade deal from the US, because we stood up for what we believed in as a country. You should have heard the US ambassador to NZ in his speech to Victoria University students, practically chiding us because we didn't help. Now, how in hell are we supposed to get a trade deal? By giving in to the US? Why can't we get one for having a good economy, good track record in economic terms, and products you guys want?

Anyway, how is the US economy supported these days? China buys US Treasury bonds. See the irony?


Title: death penalty
Post by: Agamemnus on February 22, 2004, 06:56:13 PM
No, I don't.

Everyone is buying treasury bonds from the US.


Title: death penalty
Post by: oracle on February 22, 2004, 06:57:15 PM
A sign of you weak economy if everyone is buying them. The main buyers these days are China and Japan.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Agamemnus on February 22, 2004, 07:04:42 PM
Bond buying is not a sign of a weak economy. It simply means that the US government has a deficit.

The strength of the economy in the US is itself a subject that has to be carefully analyzed for years before a conclusion can be reached.

For instance, here is a question: why is there no inflation for many goods and services in the US?? (there IS incredibly high inflation in various unique items though, such as university costs and housing costs, which are themselves separate subjects)


Title: death penalty
Post by: oracle on February 22, 2004, 07:07:57 PM
A defict will lead to trouble for you guys... NZ is paying off debt at record rates, and you guys are just piling it on with your wars that will have little benefit for your people... hydrogen hybrid cars are now available for buying, even in NZ, and if oil companies started harvesting hydrogen instead of oil the world could change for the better.


Title: death penalty
Post by: na_th_an on February 22, 2004, 07:26:41 PM
Quote from: "Agamemnus"
Quote

And now that's fun. You are talking about stability issues in South America. Well, let's try to make some history. Who put Noriega in Nicaragua? Who helped Pinochet to begin the dictatorship in Chile in 1973? Who aids the SPARCs and the ultra-right-wing guerrillas in Colombia? Now talk about mid-west, who helped the Talibans to reach to the power? Who propicied the IRAQ-IRAN war in the eighties? Who sold weapons to Saddam Hussein for that war? Who trained Usama Ben Laden?, I can follow... what was the sense of Vietnam? Why did more than 1,000,000 of innocent people die in that war?

All that lack of stability has been produced by YOUR COUNTRY!


That's not quite true, you know: Vietnam and Afghanistan was a military confontation between Soviets and everyone else. Even in Vietnam, Russians provided logistics and weapons to the enemy of the US, and other things too. It was a call that was made between dictatorship and the spread of Communism.


1.- You didn't argue about the USA having caused all that lack of stability in South America and the Middle East. So you agree. nice.

2.- Okay, you were fighting the soviets, but you were selling that war as a liberation of Vietnam. That was a lie. Like on Iraq.

3.- Your efforts against the spread of Communism were just 'cause the more communist countries, the less money you got. It was just an economic war (like *every* war), not something idealistic against opression or dictatorship.

Therefore what I said was right.

War supporters have stated that the war was OK 'cause it prevented Iraq to nuke the rest of the world with its mass destruction weapons. You know, the country with the biggest amount of mass destruction weapons is the U.S.A.. In 1984, I recall that people here were actually frightened about your country and the U.S.S.R. continuosly attempting to press the red button. Everytime I saw news on TV about U.S.A. vs the U.S.S.R. I felt a shiver. You got the world in your hands.


Title: death penalty
Post by: adosorken on February 22, 2004, 07:38:18 PM
The US government will tell any lie they think their public wants to hear. Anyone with a shred of intelligence knows this. Unfortunately, since the VAST majority of the US is INSANELY STUPID ON THESE MATTERS, the government gets to get away with whatever they want. The US could, at this very moment, obliterate most any country in this world, and wouldn't give a damn about "why". But why don't they? Simple...unless they're attacking all the countries which could easily form a retaliation or even punch a hole in the US's border defenses, the US would lose at least 5% of its inhabited land. This is especially true right now, with the majority of the world's opinions swayed AGAINST the US.

The US is the most dangerous terrorist country in the history of the world. Btw oracle...the US is in a tremendous deficit, several trillions of US dollars, which it never intends to get itself out of. It's pathetic.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Agamemnus on February 22, 2004, 08:10:04 PM
Um, na_th_an, all the South American problems was caused because of Communism, too. Some of it was from Russia, some of it was home-grown, I believe.

And, the US lost the Vietnam war, and it was a liberation from Communist invasion, you know.

Also, I wouldn't characterize this as an economic war. Although a few fools might protest, Communism is not an economic system, it is a political system. The communism that occured in much of the Soviet Union, and still does occur in that area, would make corruption in capitalist countries look like stealing candy in comparison.

Don't forget your human rights abuses under both Soviet and Chinese communism. That is not characterized as an "economic system". The socialist economic system that developed from Russian communism and Chinese communism (up to a few decades ago in China) was incredibly wasteful and inefficient.

Prime example: aural sea. Do you know what it looked like a half century before? Now look at it.

Another example:
worker A, worker B. Worker A sees that worker B is hardly working at all. Worker B gets the same pay regardless of work because the Communist government pays them both the same amount. Worker A decides to MOVE TO THE CAPITALIST USA because worker A realizes this idiocy will ultimately lead to collapse of the government.

If you think about it, it's a wonder that the Soviet Union, and its Communism, lasted as long as it did. Only two factors kept it together: government oppression and a worker ethic that lasted for quite a while. (ie: the worker A/worker B scenario didn't occur until the last decades of the Soviet Union)

Anyone who wishes to reply to me can save your breath, because I'm not replying back. I lived in Russia, and none of you did. None of you know about communism more than me.


Title: death penalty
Post by: na_th_an on February 22, 2004, 08:17:16 PM
Quote from: "Agamemnus"
Um, na_th_an, all the South American problems was caused because of Communism, too. Some of it was from Russia, some of it was home-grown, I believe.


Okay. So Pinochet was home-grown. Noriega was home-grown. The arms that the SPARC use grow in plants, like bananas.

And then a rambling about communism. You didn't reply my claims. I was not talking about communism. I was talking about the U.S.A. causing the lack of stability that made the countries not to develop.


Title: death penalty
Post by: adosorken on February 22, 2004, 08:31:49 PM
na_th_an: as in the other post here, we're wasting our collective breath. :(


Title: death penalty
Post by: Agamemnus on February 22, 2004, 08:42:38 PM
They didn't develop because the US made a choice between communism and dictatorship.

And home-grown: That's home-grown communism, not arms.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Rhiannon on February 22, 2004, 08:44:30 PM
Quote from: "Agamemnus"
I lived in Russia, and none of you did. None of you know about communism more than me.


Lots of Christians also say noone knows more about the bible than they do....


Title: death penalty
Post by: oracle on February 22, 2004, 09:42:41 PM
Quote from: "adosorken"
Btw oracle...the US is in a tremendous deficit, several trillions of US dollars, which it never intends to get itself out of. It's pathetic.


 :o  We're paying off debt, and you guys have that much? Something's gotta change... I was thinking about that story of how Uday or Qusay Hussein got their thesis by predicting the break up of the US in the 21st century... maybe they will be correct after all  :o


Title: death penalty
Post by: SJ Zero on February 22, 2004, 11:37:35 PM
...And so with one mighty post, SJ Zero got all his stupid comments and stupid replies out in one burst. This reply read:


Quote from: "PlayGGY"
Quote from: "SJ Zero"
My response to the original question:

Nobody has the right to take the life of another person. Nobody.


Does anyone have the right to make people spend the rest of their life in a prison?


You're confusing life and death. If you're ever dead, you won't confuse the distinction again, because you'll be dead. That's an important point here.

The right of a state to impose punishment upon it's populace can be argued left and right all day, but in the end, it's something that has to be done for the good of society. Nations couldn't exist without being able to enforce basic rules of societal behaviour, and I have no great want or desire to discuss such things.

Regardless of the rights of governments and courts to punish felons with imprisonment, no man or court should have jurisdiction over whether a man be allowed to life or not, because to steal an arguement from a book I once read, only god can judge people with such final things as life and death, damnation and redemption. To take such things into your own hands is to proclaim that you are Gods equal, and that is, simply put, blasphemous.

For folks who want a real reason and not a biblical rationalization, consider one of two things: either, if we kill those who kill, who will kill the executioners, since they are guilty of the same crime? Shall we then execute the executioners executioners? Even if we have the executioners execute themselves, the what of the people who, for all intents and purposes "pulled the trigger" so to speak (because pulling a trigger won't kill anyone. A high speed piece of lead propelled by a charge of gunpowder detonated by a hammer which happens to be operated by that trigger kills people, and so too, a person who gets another to kill is simply using another person as others might use a gun), another thing, people who die are dead. Forget about all those cheezy religions, if you kill someone, you've extinguished a life. Nothing gives you a right or privilege to decide to do that. The people who calmly and rationally decide to  do so aren't put in charge, they're put in jail and called monsters.

Quote from: "PlayGGY"

And what about self-defense?  If someone is trying to kill you, or trying to kill someone in your family, are you seriously saying you don't have the right to kill them?  


If you're defending yourself, you have no right to kill. If it happens that in defending yourself the attacker ends up dead it can be excused by law if circumstances didn't provide a good alternative(if you shoot someone in the face because they threaten to punch you, guess who goes to jail for a long time?), but people go to jail for killing in self defense quite often. It's not a full sentence(in fact, it's usually relatively light), but they do. Even in the eyes of the law, nobody has a right to kill another.

Quote from: "PlayGGY"
This sounds like leftist dreaming to me.  (No, I am not a right-winger, I am a libertarian).


Don't bother trying to seperate ideas like this into left or right. It's wasted brainpower. Put a gun to a right wingers face and he'll not want the trigger pulled just like the lefty.  

...and libertarian isn't a definition that fits into the left wing/right wing meme. It's a political party, and a theory of how the government should be run. The two are like saying "I don't like apples more than oranges, I drive a porsche".  Ironically, the libertarian philosophy is incredibly close to the original philosophy of the republican party. Perhaps you're more right wing than you think?


Quote from: "diroga"
If the guy is dead he cant commit the crime again. But what if the guy has reformed, really made a 180 with his life, is it right to kill him for what he did?


What if the circumstances were such that no reform is possible, no 180 in his life, because the killing was a spur of the moment sort of thing, with no decline beforehand? How would a man who kills his wife of 20 years' lover after catching her in bed with him with ready-to-serve divorce papers on the kitchen table, who otherwise is a gentle and loving person with a long distinguished career behind him, turn his life around? Also, if many murders have extinuating circumstances such as these,  is it so cut and dry that the person should be killed? Not many killers are pure raw evil, you know. Sure it feels nice to think that way when you're about to extinguish his life, but even killers have something other than killing in their lives.

Quote from: "seker359"
It's up to you. We either execute Mr Serial Killer or we move him into a house next to yours. What's it going to be?



Why? If there's no reason to send him back into society after his sentence(punishment for the crime) is up, because the flaws in his personallity are irreversable and released he would kill again, then keep him away from people he can hurt, both for the safety of others and of himself. If the serial killings were a result of a fixable defect in his personality which has been fixed years prior, and his sentence has been completed,  I'd invite the crippled old man over for coffee.

Of course, I've lived in the same house as a reformed convicted criminal, whose crimes were due to defects in his personallity which were fixed through medication, education, and work.  Seeing a 40 year old man have to start as if he's 18 again is punishment enough for what he's done.

Quote from: "PlayGGY"
Nathan, you just finished saying that someone's scenario was hypothetical, and then went on to make the biggest hypothetical I have ever seen.


The difference is Na_th_ans hypothetical situation actually happened, and he mentioned several times where something just like it DID happen. Nobody is going to release Charles Manson and place him next door to some left-winger, unless there's a horrible horrible mix-up.

Quote from: "PlayGGY"
You are one of the sickest people I have ever seen.

If you know about WWII history, you would know what policies he did:

His National Socialist party spend millions on the war effort, including the torture camps, which imporved the German economy (and gave it a staggering debt). So even that in the long run hurt.

And OF COURSE the millions of Germans who agreed with Hitler, and went to his warm and fuzzy marches, were wrong. He completely devasted Germany, caused the torture and death of millions, and would have taken over all of Europe if it weren't for the UK and the US.

Yes, people who agreed with Hitler were wrong.


Ten thousand innocent people have been killed in the War on Terror. George Bush Jr. has run up the largest deficit in US history. He has also used nationalistic/jingostic furor to advance his causes.

Discuss.

Quote
in the UK, only the special armed police have weapons. Normal police officers dont carry weapons.


STOP! OR I'LL....YELL STOP AGAIN!

Quote
How do you know that the Iraqis wanted to be kept under a torture regime?


Yeah! Our regime of illegally holding them as "illegal combatants" indefinitely is so much better!

Quote
Uh, not really. Saddam Loyalists are people who used to regularly torture and exectute people just for speaking out against Saddams regime.


Yeah, just keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile, I'll just accidentally kill your family. Don't worry though! If you  disagree with my liberation of your household from the tyrannical despot ruler that is your dad, you're just one of the folks who used to spank kids! (ie. you have absolutely no idea what a war zone is like. You also seem to have problems with shades of grey. Work on that.)

Quote
I saw a documentary of Iraqis telling british reporters about the horrors they went through, showing them inside the now bombed out Iraqi secret police headquarters, where they were strung up with electrical cord, and beaten.

Would you like us to nuke the whole middle east? In spite of what you've been told, that's business as usual for many of the countries over there. It's happened to canadian citizens because of american law officers incompotence.

Quote from: "PlayGGY"
o, are you seriously saying that Saddam didn't torture people and fill mass graves? You are the first person, even from Europe, that I have ever heard say that.


This is called a strawman arguement. This involves taking a statement, twisting it into meaning something subtley different, then attacking the new meaning in an attempt to discredit the original idea. Just thought you'd like to know. :P

Quote
Have you noticed that all of the dirt poor countires are are socialist? You couldn't name one that isn't.


Canada. Thanks for playing.

Quote
Give me an example where our business exploits people in third world countries.


Nike. Thanks for playing.

Quote
Yes, our government is screwed up. We'll support one leader, he'll turn on us, and then we will fight a war with him. Yes, that sucks, but it isn't the doing of the free market, it is the doing of an overbearing government.

Actually, considering the real reason Bush ever got the slightest shot at the presidency, I'd say you're wrong.

He's the best leader money can buy.

Quote
Will those people who either work or die be better off when their jobs leave their country to go back to the US/Europe/Asia? Please answer this.

You're an upper middle class white male from the midwestern United States of America who still lives in his parents house, aren't you? I ask because only a person who has never had any real unfulfilled needs would see no problem with a 7 year old making a quarter per day.

Just a thought, mate.

Also, if these kids were working for a company based in their country, it would bring and recirculate wealth within their own country, strengthening the economy, so yes. If american companies got out, it would be better. Eventually, that 7 year old might be able to go to school even.

Quote
I wrote in caps because it seems that no one understands that


I think you do not know what caps are for, mate. Maybe it's the americanism. Here's a hint: If you think people don't understand you, saying the same thing louder won't change anything.

Quote
What is it about having foreign companies there that keeps them from still using their own methods of making an economy?

Learn basic economics before arguing basic economics again.



Thus Spake SJ Zero.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Agamemnus on February 22, 2004, 11:45:23 PM
Oracle, don't be an idiot. New Zealand is a completely different country than the US. You can't compare the deficit of the US vs. the deficit of New Zealand.

How many countries do you know that have completely released their currency control to New Zealand's currency?


Title: death penalty
Post by: adosorken on February 23, 2004, 09:22:21 AM
Quote from: "Agamemnus"
And, the US lost the Vietnam war, and it was a liberation from Communist invasion, you know.

No one won and no one lost. Countries simply dropped out of a war that continues to this day.


Title: death penalty
Post by: na_th_an on February 23, 2004, 10:45:30 AM
Quote from: "Agamemnus"
They didn't develop because the US made a choice between communism and dictatorship.

And home-grown: That's home-grown communism, not arms.


Okay. Then here is my point. I led you to it:

Why the heck has the US to make choices in other countries? That has a name: imperialism. That's why the world doesn't like the US: People don't like imperialist tirants.

Quote from: "Adosorken"
Agamemnus wrote:
And, the US lost the Vietnam war, and it was a liberation from Communist invasion, you know.

No one won and no one lost. Countries simply dropped out of a war that continues to this day.


Exactly the same that happens in Afghanistan and now Iraq. While people in the U.S.A. think that it is case closed and that they won the war (well, they succeed in the illegal invasion, I would say), but it is not.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Agamemnus on February 23, 2004, 10:54:06 AM
Na_th_an, you appear to be blind to my point about the Communist threat.

adosorken, you're confusing Vietnam with Korea...


Title: death penalty
Post by: na_th_an on February 23, 2004, 11:20:56 AM
'cause I don't see a communist threat. That was just the propaganda in the Cold War. I don't give a shit if France goes communist or whatever. Anyhow, you have ruined so many countries 'cause of the so called "communist threat". In Chile, for example. Salvador Allende won the elections. He leaded the Socialist Party. The U.S.A. didn't like that so they backed Augusto Pinochet. That general took over its own country, and killed lots of people during his dictatorship. Pinochet was like Saddam, but in Chile. The difference is that Pinochet was put there by the U.S.A., and Saddam not.

My point is that you try to give a legitimate reason to the Iraq War: "we started a war to eliminate the dictator in order to give freedom to the iraqui people". But some years before you did exactly the contrary. That's why I laugh at your reasons.

And the most funny thing is that this war has been justified in rather different ways during time.

We have a communist party in Spain. If this party would win the elections next time, would you invade our country as well to cease the "communist threat"? I think you are living is some kind of "Dan Dare" comic.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Agamemnus on February 23, 2004, 12:09:12 PM
Your communist party is nothing but a joke. The Soviet Union Communist part (ie: the only party) is anything but a joke.

I can't force you to understand the seriousness of Soviet Union ruling the world. You're entitled to believe it was all just propaganda, but it's not an accurate assesment.

EDIT: I don't know enough about South America's history to say that the dictatorships were worth it, so I can't comment on that too much. Maybe the Communist threat wasn't as big in some of those countries as it appeared to be. What I'm talking about is Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, etc.


Title: death penalty
Post by: aetherfox on February 23, 2004, 12:14:33 PM
I didn't read the last two pages of this, because the babble and crap I've read was enough on pages 4 and half of 5.

Let's get back to the basics.

---
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=socialism
---
6 entries found for socialism.
so∑cial∑ism    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (ssh-lzm)
n.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.  
---
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=capitalism
---
3 entries found for capitalism.
cap∑i∑tal∑ism    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (kp-tl-zm)
n.
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
 ---

Just thought I'd clarify that, some people seem to have a misconception about them, or the I guess common misconception that socialism is the same as communism.

Someone mentioned what seems to be Class-A bullshit.  USA has the lowest unemployment in the world?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahah.

Did you know, in the UAE there is zero unemployment.  There cannot be unemployment.  Do you even know the definition of unemployment?  Check your facts before pulling stuff out of your ass.

Thats the problem with people studying globalised theory in America.  It's so American centered, that it makes you blind.  Granted, I learn economics from a British POV, but we study the world economy.

I'd like to clarify a few things about the current stante of the United States of Aggression's economy.  The Balance Of Payments defecit a while back was 5% of the USA's GDP, Gross Domestic Product if your a nitwit.  That's a fair bit, wouldn't you say?  UK has maybe 0.1%?  But a lot less.  China also has a much much much muhc much much smaller one.  It is predicted that within the next 25 years, the top two economies in the world will be India and China.  America has increasing unemployment, due to your magical
capitalism.  All about cutting costs.  

Isn't it funny, that for years the USians have complained that "Oh no, illegal immigrants are taking my job, taking my living space, taking my benefits, taking my position in society" and the government is complaining about this, then someone here says it's good that we are offering people jobs in other countries?


PlayGGY, you are being ignorant.  Rhiannon, adosorken and na_th_an aren't addressing other parts of your posts because I think they have been answered about three times.  You are getting unnecessarily aggrivated when in fact you are incorrect, even when faced with legitimate sources, many people trying to explain it to you properly, and instead of accepting it and trying to become a smarter person, you've dug yourself in a rather deep and dirty hole.

There's a lot I've got to say, but I'll let it go.  It's not worth it.  Maybe if I read the pages I haven't yet read, then I might post something substantial, but nah.  adosorken and Rhia, you guys are better than this.  Don't bother.

[Proud of you ado, kept your cool there :D]


I just thought I'd add something.
I am an Indian.  I know what happens in third world countries.  My dad is a partner in a multinational firm, with production in third world countries.  He has to.  Unfortunately, everyone else does, so think about it.  His factories are fair, and the people get paid a decent wage.  I've visited his competitors factories.  Maybe you should get out of your superficial suburbs, wake up and smell the world.  Drive down to the "bad" areas in the city, that's what the world is really like.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Z!re on February 23, 2004, 12:56:04 PM
Quote from: "Agamemnus"
I can't force you to understand the seriousness of Soviet Union ruling the world. You're entitled to believe it was all just propaganda, but it's not an accurate assesment.

So my guess is you just find it better the US rule the world instead?

What's so bad about communism? And I don't talk about the wannabe communist countries being ruled by dictators, I'm talking about the idea behind communism.

That everyone is equal, and everyone share. Sadly, over time, this has been destroyed by other "communists" such as the Soviet one. The Soviet communisn in itslf wasn't that bad (it wasnt good either) it was the fact that the US didn't like Soviet that made communism "bad". Effectively rendering Russia a bad country, making it very hard for Russia to actually do anything (trade agreements aso) with US supporting/supported countries.

As soon as a country steps on another countries affairs it can only go bad, there is not a single event in history where a country has unwantedly invaded on another country (I'm not talking about war here) and the outcome has been good.

The US invades Afghanistan to find/kill a single man.
The US invades Iraq because Iraq has WMD.

What about Palestina, they have WMP capabilities. Why isn't the US invading them?, could it be because it's a jewish state and there is a large % of jews in the US voting?


Title: death penalty
Post by: Agamemnus on February 23, 2004, 01:17:34 PM
Zire, what's so bad about communism?

What's so bad about communism?

What's so bad about communism?

That's it!

*stabs everyone in this thread*


Title: death penalty
Post by: red_Marvin on February 23, 2004, 01:27:40 PM
AFAIK the communism idea is basically
that everything is owned by the people,
and everybody gets their share.

So far everything is nice, and I can't see anything wrong with this...

BUT: No perfect system can be based on humans, since humans (in that way) are imperfect

This is my point of view.

And for death penalty I say no, for reasons already discussed.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Z!re on February 23, 2004, 02:11:15 PM
Quote from: "Agamemnus"
Zire, what's so bad about communism?

What's so bad about communism?

What's so bad about communism?

That's it!

*stabs everyone in this thread*
Nice response Aga, real nice. It makes me all warm and fuzzy inside, as it shows that we (the people arguing against you, or not agreeing with you) are right.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Zack on February 23, 2004, 02:52:58 PM
Yes, the idea is that everything is owned by the people, and it's a great, very Utopian idea, but when applied it screw up royally.


Title: death penalty
Post by: aetherfox on February 23, 2004, 03:17:43 PM
you write shitloads and people dont even respond...ten

The thing you fail to see, is that the government is run by people, and in this case, rather more imperfect humans.  

And some people have a dire need to relax.  We are having a discussion here, not a "stabbing match" or a flaming contest.  Trust me, with me and other people included, thats the last thing you want to start.


Title: death penalty
Post by: SJ Zero on February 23, 2004, 03:28:54 PM
Aga, the problem here goes back to an earlier discussion we had. You see, despite your adamant declarations to the contrary, communism is very much just an economic system.  Everything is put into commons, and people take what they need.

When stalin was going around with all his show trials, that wasn't an essential aspect of communism at work, that was a fascist in control of a communist country doing horrible things.

A communist country run by pure democracy a la switzerland would be a very interesting place, and I'd watch how such a country developed and ran(seeing as democracy is the most compatible with communism, and the least compatible with capitalism, when you really think about it -- both democracy and communism try to bring power to everyone).

According to you though, the only way communism works is with a ruthless tyrant in control which seems to me contrary to the fundamental ideas upon which communism was created.


Title: death penalty
Post by: oracle on February 23, 2004, 04:57:16 PM
Quote from: "Agamemnus"
Oracle, don't be an idiot. New Zealand is a completely different country than the US. You can't compare the deficit of the US vs. the deficit of New Zealand.

How many countries do you know that have completely released their currency control to New Zealand's currency?


That's a stupid statement and you know it. Of course nobody will change to our currency, we're too small. That's like asking whether the best US baseball team will submit to the NZ team: no you won't, cos you've got too much money.

But you can compare the two countries. We're a democracy. We're a "new" country (in terms of age). We may not have a "president" but we do have the english form of government (which we're slowly moving away from, towards becoming a republic, and thus just like the US). The differences are: We're not fighting a war, we're a left wing govt currently (pays off debt, lowers unemployment, at the expense of business investment), and we respect all races (have you heard of the Treaty of Waitangi?). Unlike in america: you're fighting a war, have a right wing govt (expand business at all costs and increase debt because you know you'll lose the next election anyway and the next govt can pay for it), and you stomp all over the wrong minorities. I can't believe the KKK can be permitted to exist but blacks are still discriminated against. Surely your constitution, although permitting the KKKs existance, surely forbids the sort of discrimination against black people?

In short, the US has problems that it should be sorting out by itself before stomping on other countries. In particular, the US was on a list of countries that had more than 100 slaves estimated working in slavery - that's not an achievement to be proud of. NZ isn't on the list. I wonder why...


Title: death penalty
Post by: na_th_an on February 23, 2004, 07:53:25 PM
Quote from: "Agamemnus"
Your communist party is nothing but a joke.


First, it is not mine. Second, it is the third force in my country. That means that 10% of people voted for it in the last elections. Basicly, you are telling that 10% of Spanish people are a joke, that makes almost 4 millions of people.

You and others like you live full of fear and hates that are just a bulk of nonsense. Evolve, people, just evolve.

You still live in the far west. Things have changed in the rest of the world, but it seems that in the U.S.A. everything is like it was one century and a half ago.


Title: death penalty
Post by: adosorken on February 23, 2004, 08:00:36 PM
Until the year 2000, I was a hardcore patriot. This was before my eyes were opened to the harsh reality that is simply this: the USA is the most corrupt, deceitful, hateful country in the world. But the truly scary part is the fact that nothing can be done about it. GWB stole the presidency, and now our country is looked at as the world's biggest failure. Four years ago, I would have fought tooth and nail against anyone who would utter such "blasphemies". Unfortunately, it's all too true. In addition, my research over the last few days has turned up some horrible horrible intentions of the US government. For example...Iraq, as most people know, was planned long before 9/11. What most people DON'T know is "why". Apparently, the US government has this nice little plan drawn up to slowly infiltrate and influence the entirety of the Middle East. Iraq has the second largest oil and gas reserve on the planet, second to Saudi Arabia, who we've already infiltrated. An educated person will say "why not go to Venezuela, who has the fourth largest reserve in the world?". Simple...Venezuela privatized their oil and isn't a sucker country, so the US ignores them...for now. So, back to Iraq, the country that just needs to be owned so we can establish a strong Middle Eastern presence. With the US in control of Iraq, we would have control over the greatest oil reserves in the world, since Saudi Arabia is already in our back pocket. But it won't stop there. The reason Afghanistan was never rebuilt was because the US used Afghanistan as a stepping stone to Iraq. So what if Muslim fundamentalists swarm into the country and start running the place worse than the Taliban ever did? As long as we have an excuse to go to Iraq. 9/11 was a nice excuse to put this plan into action. A little research turns up some interesting laws that were never put into effect that day...for example, the law that says that if any commercial airliner goes too far outside of its intended flight path, the military are required by law to scramble and investigate the reason why. 9/11 happened over the course of a few hours, and not a single scramble took place. GWB was informed of the events unfolding by an aide, and he just sat there, reading a book to children, as if nothing was happening. Top US officials said nothing and gave no orders. In the past year before the 9/11 tragedy, over 60 such scrambles had taken place, many within a few minutes. But two hours? And NOTHING? The US government used 9/11 to begin a war. And considering all the warnings they got over the TWO YEARS BEFORE IT HAPPENED, they could have easily avoided it. But it made an excellent martyrdom operation.  Before you know it, we're at war with a group of people that never even admitted to doing it.

And there's more. Much more. Do you know why the US backs Israel? Religion. You heard it...religion. The US believes that it is the "holy force" written in the Bible that will "protect Israel from the infidels". With Israel in our back pocket, that puts us one step closer to controlling the Middle East. Do you know why Syria was removed from the US's "Dangerous Country" list, when they have some of the most infamous terrorists in the world? Because they agreed with us in going to war. Another country in our back pocket. Do you see where this is going? Do you remember Bush's "either you're with us or you're against us" BS? The plan is to root out those who oppose the US, one country at a time. Leave them in shambles, like Afghanistan is right now (this is after a six year war with Russia...oops, I guess that didn't make the news, now did it?).

This plan to dominate the middle east has been going on since Reagan's presidency. Clinton's presidency interrupted it, because obviously, he was a democrat, and his few military operations were very small and very quiet. He loved peace like we do. Too bad all the morons in the US were more interested in his sex life rather than seeing all the good things he did for this country. However, in an interesting turn of events...how many people know that GWB is only president because of the Supreme Court and that bonehead brother Jeb of his in Florida? Or about the illegal miscount of votes? Or the attempted Republican signing of almost 10000 absentee ballots (they were eventually thrown away because they had no ID numbers on them, thus were illegal)? Gore won the presidency by 400000 popular votes. In such a race, the House Of Representatives is REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO DETERMINE THE PRESIDENT. So...why didn't they?

There's so much to this crap, I've not even scraped the surface. All the information's out there though, people. We've had the four worst years we've had since the inception of the USA. And it doesn't look like it's going to improve any, either. Not until we get a Democrat back in the White House. GWB isn't smart enough to have pulled off such a coup de grace, everyone knows he's a puppet and someone else pulls his strings. Good old Donald R is one of those puppetmasters. The only way we're going to dispose of GWB and his warmongering is by beating his ass hands-down in the next election. It needs to be a landslide, or else he will use the same deception he used this time to steal the Presidency. Many people now are left wondering if their vote means anything, and many believe it does not. However, if enough people vote the RIGHT way, we can get rid of this asscracker.

I'm hoping the American public, as well as the Democrats, all get their balls back and stop fearing the bullying Republicans. We're supposed to be a peaceful nation...BAHAHAHAHAHA! Not under Republican rule, we're not. Not even close. I'd take the socialist Bernard Sanders over GWB for President. At least then I know we'd have a true visionary in office, not some puppet ex-cocaine-addicted raging alcohollic redneck who thinks that Mexico is in South America and can successfully piss off four billion people in the course of one week. :evil:

EDIT: Oh yeah, I remembered the meat of the reason I wanted to respond...

#1: Aga, neither war ended. However, I was referring to Vietnam...much of my family was and is involved in it.

#2: If Gee Whiz Bushwhacker gets elected a second term, my ass is moving to NZ. :P


Title: death penalty
Post by: na_th_an on February 23, 2004, 08:28:59 PM
What a pile of truths, Dave. The bad thing is that these people are blind on purpose.

And don't worry about Venezuela. When bussiness on mid east is finished they'll use some hispanic assault in Texas to begin another fancy movie and take over the whole South America as well.

Be smart and don't vote Republicans, for the world's sake. Please.


Title: death penalty
Post by: adosorken on February 23, 2004, 08:35:31 PM
Unfortunately, Puerto Rico, while part of the USA, is not allowed to participate in presidential elections. Neither is Guam. Hawaii, generally accepted as the rogue state and known to want to seperate from the US (can't say I blame them, really), is allowed to participate in the elections. Which reminds me...notice any simlarities between 9/11 and Pearl Harbor? Striking...in both cases, disaster could have been completely avoided, and in both cases, the events were used to go to war. Funny that. :evil:


Title: death penalty
Post by: na_th_an on February 23, 2004, 08:47:34 PM
Yeah, my friends and I, TV shows, newspapers, radio, almost everyone in Spain talks about that coincidence. Plus all the hazards that aligned in both situations. As we always say, the first plane was a complete failure for the defence system, but the second one is just unbelievable.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Agamemnus on February 23, 2004, 09:46:20 PM
There are too many inaccuracies and outright lies here for me to reply before stabbing you all again.


Title: death penalty
Post by: na_th_an on February 23, 2004, 10:12:05 PM
Yeah, I am stabbed now. You convinced me. Now I love GB.

GOD BLESS AMERICA AND ALL ITS WAR MACHINERY!

(http://homepage.powerup.com.au/~jaba/usa.jpg)

GOOD ACTIONS WHICH BENEFIT THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE!

(http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,147178,00.jpg)


Title: death penalty
Post by: Z!re on February 24, 2004, 12:23:22 AM
Quote from: "Agamemnus"
There are too many inaccuracies and outright lies here for me to reply before stabbing you all again.
How can anyone argue with that? You are right Aga, we all are dumb, 3/4th's of the world hate the US because they are dumb.. way to go.. and you say you are not spoonfeed propaganda? OoooooK then.

Also, your arguing technique is very similar to that of the US iteself:
Aga: I'll stab you, because I'm right and you're wrong.
The US: We'll bomb you, cause we don't like you or your values.

na_th_an: Good bless the Atom bomb, without it.. Err... wait?... Without it... er, I really can't think of anything negative about not having nukes.


NEW PROOF OF TERRORIST ACT: Over 500'000 people dead. Wanna know where and who? Where Japan, who? The US.

NEW PROOF OF TERRORIST ACT: Over 200'000 people dead. Wanna know where and who? Where Iraq, who? Iraq.

So... when are we gonna hunt down the people responsible for the Terror of Nagasaki and Hiroshima? :roll: or they don't count? Ohh sorry I forgot, that was THE US and THE God Blessed Al-Mighty US don't do terrorist actions, they help people.. help people get rid of their home, country and basic human needs that is. "But Japan attacked us first" you might say, ok then, the bombing of 2 civilian cities is clearly justified by that. But what about Saddam, when did he attack the US? Did I miss something?


Nostalgic fact about the Afgan war: When the US allowed food and supplies to be dropped in by international aid organizations. They only allowed the supplies to be dropped in a part of afghanistan which was... MINED! that's right, good move... "Here's some food for ya" [Kaboom], Niiiiiice. The US defended itself with: "If you drop it anywhere else the terrorists might get a hold of it"...Ohh... why not just drop it in the ocean?, Or just burn it before putting it on the airplanes, saves fuel and time.

"America America [...]" [Feel free to join in on the natinal hymn, come on people, we all love the US.. right?... riiight?


Title: death penalty
Post by: SJ Zero on February 24, 2004, 01:55:44 AM
Agamemnus, My father worked for a nuclear research facility in Pinnowa Manitoba in the early 80s. One time he accidentally broke the security seals on a door. It wasn't long at ALL until military jets were flying in the air overhead. Minutes.





Now, one jet has crashed into a national landmark in one of the largest cities in the country, and another two are hijacked. Are you telling me that it's a lie that any compotent commander would shoot those planes down in the time it takes to say "innocent lives"?

Frankly, you need to stop thinking that just because you think something, it's true. Your government sucks, and there is compelling evidence that the government let it happen. Want to deny it? Stab yourself. A country founded upon the prinicples of liberty and democracy has no place for traitors.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Z!re on February 24, 2004, 02:18:07 AM
I just realized something after watching a B-Action movie on TV.

It was about some terrorists hijacking a plane (surprise surprise) and flying it towards Washington DC.

Through the entire film the only thing that was the "scary and dangerous part making it difficult for the hero" was the fact that there where fighterplanes waiting to shoot the plane down (it was a passenger flight), so, this is a general fact, the US do send up fighter planes in the event of airplanes straying out of their premade routes. (And no, I don't base this on the movie, I just came to think of it, and yes, it has been said before)

So, why the hell did 2 airplanes manage to, not only fly within the aerial protected zone of NY, but to crash there? And the Pentagon? What is that?

I mean, WUUUUUUUUUT!? :o  If anyone can explain this to me then feel free to do so.


Title: death penalty
Post by: adosorken on February 24, 2004, 10:28:29 AM
I have compiled a collection of information over the past couple of years that is very VERY shocking, but not at all a surprise to anyone who's already a cynic. I will write more later but right now Rhia's pulling my ass to the next class at uni so...l8r :)

BTW: Aga, crawl out from under the rock you've been living in, and join us in the real world.


Title: death penalty
Post by: aetherfox on February 24, 2004, 12:42:00 PM
Believers!!

Muahahahaha I love you guys!

Aga...seriously...I'm having trouble believeing your being serious.

Nathan, ado, SJ, and all the other so-called cynics, who in reality are awake people like moi, you guys deserve a beer.  YAH.  So I'm not a paranoid idiot.

It's good to stand for what you believe in.  But it's not good to stand for something that you believe in when it has just been legitimately trashed in front of you.

ado's starting sentence in his epic speech summarised this whole discussion.

YAH.

I'm so happy :D


Title: death penalty
Post by: TheBigBasicQ on February 24, 2004, 03:04:40 PM
I would just like to ask one question. US attacked Iraq, Afghanistan because they had commited an act of war. Countries like Pakistan which actively involve in nuclear proliferation, help insurgency and terrorists thus endanger the territorial integrity of non-proliferating countries like India. Now when India retaliates by just moving its troops near their borders. There is a huge outcry from the US. Thats double standards.

Now US is feeling the heat of Iraq war. They are killing their own troops, they are making the life of Iraqis hell and, yeah, they will now understand how these 'jehadis' or suicide bombers operate and kill your troops. Something that Israel and India have been suffering for decades.

Oh yeah and I read through out the thread that some of you were very ungreatful to Russia. I dont care what anyone says but the Soviet Union was the major reason that Nazi Germany was defeated in WWII.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Agamemnus on February 24, 2004, 03:33:40 PM
Zire, check your numbers before posting anything.

Example:
1,000,000,000 people would have died if Saddam had stayed in power.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Rhiannon on February 24, 2004, 03:40:13 PM
Quote from: "Agamemnus"
Zire, check your numbers before posting anything.

Example:
1,000,000,000 people would have died if Saddam had stayed in power.

How, with his fabled "WMD"? Or perhaps he was planning on stringing them all up by their toes and beating them with an electric cord :roll:


Title: death penalty
Post by: TheBigBasicQ on February 24, 2004, 03:49:38 PM
No...no...may be he had technology that he bought from the Cardassians which allowed him to make metagenic weapons =P.


Title: death penalty
Post by: SJ Zero on February 24, 2004, 05:37:05 PM
HEY!

Metagenic weapons are NO LAUGHING MATTER! We have intelligence that indicates that Bush HAS METAGENIC WEAPONS purchaced illegally from the cardassians. WE KNOW WHERE THEY ARE. They're a little bit north, south, east, and west of baghdad.


Title: death penalty
Post by: na_th_an on February 24, 2004, 06:32:14 PM
Quote from: "Agamemnus"
Zire, check your numbers before posting anything.

Example:
1,000,000,000 people would have died if Saddam had stayed in power.


How? Would saddam kill 1 billion people throwing farts or something?


Title: death penalty
Post by: oracle on February 24, 2004, 07:23:16 PM
OK... so saddam kills everyone in his own country (I'm not sure of the number, but I'll be generous and say 50,000,000.) Then he kills the entire US single handedly (+250,000,000). Then he kills all of Britan (+70,000,000), Australia (+20,000,000) and spain (+80,000,000) for supporting america. Then he kills all of NZ just because he read this forum and doesn't like me (+4,000,000). That makes 474,000,000, a little under half the number you suggest...

Give us some proof of your numbers, please.


Title: death penalty
Post by: SJ Zero on February 24, 2004, 07:25:50 PM
Proof is thoughtcrime. doubleplus ungood.

doublethink is doubleplus good!

We have always been at peace with eurasia, we have always been at war with oceana!


Title: death penalty
Post by: Rhiannon on February 24, 2004, 10:30:29 PM
In order to kill a billion people, Hussien would have had to either wipe out India or China. How he can do that is beyond me.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Diroga on February 24, 2004, 11:08:34 PM
good quote SJ Zero


Title: death penalty
Post by: RST on February 25, 2004, 12:08:28 AM
I think Aga was being sarcastic; he thought Zire's numbers were way too inflated, so he made up a way inflated number to show how stupid he thought it was. I don't think 200,000 people have died in Iraq.

I've heard this 9/11 conspiracy before but dismissed it is being way too far-fetched. But although I disagree with a lot of what you guys have said, your arguments are starting to get to me. Could someone link me to where your getting this information?

I agree that Bush is an idiot who should never have one the election, lied to the American people (and the world), and sent hundreds of soldiers and thousands of civilians to die in Iraq. But before you condemn the war, I think it's worth considering the atrocities Saddam did to his people. How many thousands has he massacred? I'm not claiming that the US has the right to do what it did, only that... well, you can draw a lot more similarities between Hitler and Saddam than you can Hitler and Bush.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Rhiannon on February 25, 2004, 12:18:38 AM
Quote from: "RST"
I think Aga was being sarcastic; he thought Zire's numbers were way too inflated, so he made up a way inflated number to show how stupid he thought it was. I don't think 200,000 people have died in Iraq.

The Iraqi body count is approximately 10,000.  That's without including injuries, and just the general suffering that most of the population is enduring atm.

Quote from: "RST"
I've heard this 9/11 conspiracy before but dismissed it is being way too far-fetched. But although I disagree with a lot of what you guys have said, your arguments are starting to get to me. Could someone link me to where your getting this information?

If noone has researched it yet, I will do it. But isnt it weird that no scrambles were done during or after the first plane hit the WTC?

Quote from: "RST"
I agree that Bush is an idiot who should never have one the election, lied to the American people (and the world), and sent hundreds of soldiers and thousands of civilians to die in Iraq. But before you condemn the war, I think it's worth considering the atrocities Saddam did to his people. How many thousands has he massacred? I'm not claiming that the US has the right to do what it did, only that... well, you can draw a lot more similarities between Hitler and Saddam than you can Hitler and Bush.


Bush didnt win the election. It was decided by the Supreme Court, illegally. And another thing, if this was a worthy war, why not wait for the UN's approval, instead of giving them the finger and barging in? And yes, Hussein may have commited atrocities, but it is a dictatorship, it's business as usual for them, as someone mentioned here. But his atrocities are no worse than GWB trampling on the Constitution to install the Patriot Act, and inciting people's hate and intolerance towards Arabs and Muslims after 9/11 occured.


Title: death penalty
Post by: RST on February 25, 2004, 12:21:40 AM
Quote
NEW PROOF OF TERRORIST ACT: Over 200'000 people dead. Wanna know where and who? Where Iraq, who? Iraq.


Yeah, then that's what aga meant.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Z!re on February 25, 2004, 04:52:06 AM
The number 200'000 is included the Kurds. I was refering to the total time of saddam in reign. You do know that the US is holding him responsible for killing people in a war they backed?

In the latest War (The one going on now) there's probably around 10'000-20'000 killed.

Here's a new, all changed to satisfy Aga (this makes the US looks worse, but ohh well):
NEW PROOF OF TERRORIST ACT: Over 400'000 people dead. Wanna know where and who? Where Japan, who? The US.

NEW PROOF OF TERRORIST ACT: Over 10'000 people dead. Wanna know where and who? Where Iraq, who? Iraq+The Coalition (with The US in lead).

Please tell me who is the biggest dumbass? The US killing 400'000 civilians in 2 major cities, or Iraq killing US Troops invading their home country?

It is like, a fact, that when you invade a country they DO fight back, whatever GWB and his advisors may think.

OMG! The Iraqis killed a US citizen. WTF! they are not allowed to fire back, DAMNIT! Before reading on, I do not wich for people to die, imo war is stupid.

I think it would do The US good to be totaly crushed in the Iraqi war, it might make them think twice about sending their troops around the world, in a general "Hey look at us, we are uber1337 and cool. All your country belong to US" kinnda way.



[A sad but true story of how it all began, a friendly game of Quake betveen GWB and Saddam turns into a full scale war, see kids, violent games are BAD for you]:
Quote from: "Quake, GWB's Console"
god
sv_cheats must be set to enable cheat codes.

sv_cheats 1
sv_cheats can only be changed by the server.

say "fcuk you all, m3 b3 s00 1337!"
GWB: "fcuk you all, m3 b3 s00 1337!"
5aDd4Man: "huh?"

GWB tried to invade 5aDd4Man personal space (telefrag)

GWB tried to invade 5aDd4Man personal space (telefrag)

GWB tried to invade 5aDd4Man personal space (telefrag)

name 1337GWB
GWB Changed name to 1337GWB

say "me be Łber1337 bow to me *insane laugh*"
1337GWB: "me be Łber1337 bow to me *insane laugh*"

Disconnected.
You have been banned by server

                      [5aDd4Man remains in the server]
5aDd4Man: What a dumbass
g0d: Yeah, good thing i banned him for life though
5aDd4Man: yeah, mapchange?
g0d: sure


Title: death penalty
Post by: na_th_an on February 25, 2004, 08:38:45 AM
Quote from: "RST"
But before you condemn the war, I think it's worth considering the atrocities Saddam did to his people. How many thousands has he massacred?


As I said, Iraq was in hell before war, and now has moved to a different hell.


Title: death penalty
Post by: TheBigBasicQ on February 25, 2004, 08:45:02 AM
Agreed. Infact in the recent history(after WWII) I dont think any country has invaded another country except the US and the former USSR on the basis of suspicion.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Plasma on February 25, 2004, 02:23:16 PM
You might want to re-check your history...


Title: death penalty
Post by: na_th_an on February 25, 2004, 02:38:44 PM
I already did. My country was an ass for 20 centuries. But the difference is that I don't feel proud of that.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Plasma on February 25, 2004, 02:43:17 PM
The joy of non-threaded forums...my post was directed at BBQ.


Title: death penalty
Post by: adosorken on February 25, 2004, 02:57:25 PM
Quote from: "na_th_an"
I already did. My country was an ass for 20 centuries. But the difference is that I don't feel proud of that.

You yourself had nothing to do with those 20 centuries though...gang mentality is the true destroyer of the human race. By grouping people together and calling them evil, it somehow gives those who've been grouped together as "good" some kind of authority to take their aggression out on them. It makes me utterly sick. Anyone who disses an individual citizen of Spain just because the Spanish were lugnuts over the centuries is seriously screwed in the head. It makes absolutely no sense to attack an entire group of people like that. The US of course got a good strong taste of this generalized hatred and aggression when Gee Whiz Bushwhacker told us all how evil the Muslims and Arabs were, and the country responded in kind with hatred and resentment for a number of people who had nothing to do with anything that happened...and the foolish "good people of the US" thought they were doing the right thing by promoting this hatred!!! It's seriously screwed right the hell up!

This war should have never happened. GWB should have never become president. Isn't it funny that this is the only war in the history of the US that had protestors BEFORE THE WAR BEGAN? It's not right for me to think this way, but someone needs to do some serious ass-kicking of the morons in DC, and I don't mean a slap on the wrist, I mean some serious damage. The US needs to get woken up in a hard, painful way and realize that it's NOT the world police, it's NOT going to take over the world, and it's NOT "safe". It was never "safe" to begin with...politicians just have this thing for making you believe it is. Also...have you noticed that this "code" system that they enforce in government buildings and airports has never gone to Red? Want to know why? Because if it did, suddenly the population would question just how protected they are, and they'd start to have doubts about the government's ability to protect them. The easiest way to keep people in line is to tell them what they want to hear. In times of fear, the thing people want to hear is that they're safe from the "evil enemies". Enemies were created by GWB, and now he's miraculously protecting us from them.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


Title: death penalty
Post by: aetherfox on February 25, 2004, 03:35:26 PM
I am pretty sure the "code" system went into Red during the anniversary of the 9/11.

But yeah, on the whole, you're right.

THREADED FORUMS!  YAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe then TBBQ wont have to quote someone who quoted someone else quoting a monkey just to post a one liner smiley :D


Title: death penalty
Post by: na_th_an on February 25, 2004, 03:37:07 PM
The same happened in the cold war with "fear the communists" in the USA and "fear the capitalists" in the USSR. The basis of the whole cold war was economic: it was about what power was more leet and powerful. Inspiring fear of someone who just thinks differently was the biggest weapon in this so called "cold war". The odd thing is that this still lasts, 13 years after the USSR's breakup...

So I really fear of the "fear the muslims" lasting 25 years more. The "nice" move that Bush made inspiring such fear has left a lot of muslim families in the USA jobless (yes, muslim United Statesians are as United Statesian as you are, stupid whitey Bush). Someone with such a big mouth should be taken away from any public position. When you are the president of the most powerful (and threatening!) country in the world you HAVE TO measure your words. They can do tons of harm.

What I find more funny is that the war began as a "search for mass destruction weapons", then it became a "terrorist threat purge" to end with a "free Iraq from the dictator". And people still find credibility on this? C'mon!


Title: death penalty
Post by: adosorken on February 25, 2004, 03:37:45 PM
Quote from: "aetherfox"
I am pretty sure the "code" system went into Red during the anniversary of the 9/11.

It was implemented as a result of 9/11...about a month afterwards, if memory serves. If we'd had one at the time, it sure would have been red. :D My gf at the time was in Florida and had to delay her return to Vermont because they weren't allowing any planes in US airspace besides military craft.


Title: death penalty
Post by: RST on February 25, 2004, 10:13:05 PM
Quote from: "na_th_an"
My country was an ass for 20 centuries. But the difference is that I don't feel proud of that.


The difference from what? I hope you don't think all Americans are proud of what Bush has done - or rather why and how he did it. All I'm saying as that Saddam had to go.

You say Iraq is now a different hell? Maybe, but it's arguably a lot better. You say there's been 10,000 casualties in Iraq, but Saddam's killed half of that in one massacre alone. Google "Halabja".

http://www.kdp.pp.se/12.gif
http://www.kdp.pp.se/11.gif

[RST, no more images like that unless linked via url - oracle]


Title: death penalty
Post by: PlayGGY on February 25, 2004, 10:39:25 PM
Woah, I haven't been here in a while, and the topic has now
turned into something completely different.

I'll come back later tonight and post again, but I have had a lot of work lately, and have to finish something up.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Diroga on February 26, 2004, 12:32:58 AM
would every one please summerize their stans on the death penalty


Title: death penalty
Post by: Z!re on February 26, 2004, 12:51:28 AM
I'm against death penalty.


Title: death penalty
Post by: red_Marvin on February 26, 2004, 07:03:00 AM
I'm against too for the reason that the chance of executing an
innocent person isn't worth it.


Title: death penalty
Post by: na_th_an on February 26, 2004, 08:17:05 AM
Quote from: "RST"
Quote from: "na_th_an"
My country was an ass for 20 centuries. But the difference is that I don't feel proud of that.


The difference from what? I hope you don't think all Americans are proud of what Bush has done - or rather why and how he did it. All I'm saying as that Saddam had to go.


I was replying to Agamemnus, it was a part of our argumentation. He justified some actions performed by the U.S.A. as "stopping the communist threat". Anyhow, Saddam had to go, but not this way.

Quote
You say Iraq is now a different hell? Maybe, but it's arguably a lot better. You say there's been 10,000 casualties in Iraq, but Saddam's killed half of that in one massacre alone. Google "Halabja".


I know about Halabja. Again, you didn't get my point there. My point was that many of the posters here seemed to think that the job was done, the end, next one. That you eliminated Saddam, so everything was like the farms in a Hello Kitty suitcase. And it is not.

My point was also that if you were "heroes who fought against dictatorship" and all that crap, then why Iraq, precisely, and not Zimbabwe, Ruanda, Zaire...? And why taking away this dictator when your country has favourished the imposition of many more? Did you know that the USA sold weapons to Saddam Hussein in the 80s to fight IRAN?


Title: death penalty
Post by: Rhiannon on February 26, 2004, 09:07:17 AM
Nathan, those are the things that GWB cant say cuz it wouldnt look  good on him. And as someone had mentioned before, the war went from fighting terrorism to finding WMD to "freeing Iraq". Now correct me if i'm wrong, but if youre going to war, shouldnt you have a clear cut reason for going, and not change the objective midway the war (which is about to reach a year on Mar. 20, sad)

Diroga, i am against the death penalty, since innocent lives have been lost due to it.


Title: death penalty
Post by: RST on February 26, 2004, 01:35:16 PM
Nathan: In that case it seems like I just misinterpreted some of your remarks; I agree with almost everything you just said.

Quote from: "Rhiannon"
And yes, Hussein may have commited atrocities, but it is a dictatorship, it's business as usual for them, as someone mentioned here.


"Business as usual"? I fail to see how things like Halabja constitute "Business as usual". You seem to be implying that Saddam's massacres are somehow justified by the fact that he was a dictator, and therefor can be ignored by the rest of the world. Please clarify what you meant here.

Quote from: "Rhiannon"
But his atrocities are no worse than GWB trampling on the Constitution to install the Patriot Act, and inciting people's hate and intolerance towards Arabs and Muslims after 9/11 occured.


I agree that the Patriot Act, along with a lot GWB's other actions, are a bunch of crap, but on the same level as Bloody Friday...? I value my rights, but not so much that I consider them more valuable than the lives of thousands of innocents.

And to get back on topic... I am against the death penalty, for reasons already stated. And am ashamed to live in a state that has four people on death row.


Title: death penalty
Post by: adosorken on February 26, 2004, 02:04:49 PM
Quote from: "RST"
"Business as usual"? I fail to see how things like Halabja constitute "Business as usual". You seem to be implying that Saddam's massacres are somehow justified by the fact that he was a dictator, and therefor can be ignored by the rest of the world. Please clarify what you meant here.

The rest of the world could mostly care less. The eyes of the world are NOT on Iraq, they have their own problems to deal with and they deal with them. No one said anything about justifying Saddam's actions, don't put words in people's mouths or draw incorrect conclusions. The eyes of the world are on, as USUAL, the US and its boneheaded governmental idiocies. Many people in Iraq did not like the way the government ran. Many people in the US do not like the way the government works. However, these same people in Iraq were terrified when an invasion intended to remove their government took place. I am willing to put a lot of money on the fact that the people in the US would also be terrified if an invasion took place to remove our government. The US government, and through media manipulation the US people as well, seem to have this delusion that the US has the perfect system and that everyone else's system is wrong and MUST BE CONVERTED. I'd call it the Modern Day Crusades...convert or kill all who don't believe. At the same time, other countries believe THEIR system to be the perfect system, and everyone else's system is wrong and MUST BE CONVERTED. The only difference is that the US is the only country with the military strength to actually attempt to convert other countries to our own corrupt system. Trading one corruption for another. Like someone said...it was hell before, but now it's a different hell. The only truly sad part about it all is that simply...this is life. This is all human nature. And there isn't much anyone can really do about it. :(


Title: death penalty
Post by: webberboy on February 26, 2004, 02:24:34 PM
The US does not have a perfect government, nor does any other country.  But some, like Suddams dictatorship, were obviously wrong, no matter which way you look at it.  Since the US form of government seems to work well, then we try to get others to change so that they can move up from a 3rd world country to a 2st world or even 1st world country.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Seker359 on February 26, 2004, 02:37:35 PM
I think the way to get rid of all of the critics from other countries is to conquer the world instead of individual countries. Ban the speaking of non-english languages, ban non-christian religions, and make the former countries states. In 500 years we'll be one peaceful, unified people and no one will remember the primitive way they world used to be.

Disclaimer: Of course I'm just kidding.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Rhiannon on February 26, 2004, 02:52:08 PM
Quote from: "RST"
Quote from: "Rhiannon"
And yes, Hussein may have commited atrocities, but it is a dictatorship, it's business as usual for them, as someone mentioned here.


"Business as usual"? I fail to see how things like Halabja constitute "Business as usual". You seem to be implying that Saddam's massacres are somehow justified by the fact that he was a dictator, and therefor can be ignored by the rest of the world. Please clarify what you meant here.


Business as usual means these are common place things in Iraq, most of the Middle East isnt much better. Slavery and prostitution is business as usual in Eastern Europe, starvation in Africa, Southeastern Asia and South America, child kidnapping and smuggling throughout South America to sell as prostitutes in Mexico, and rampant abortion and female baby deaths in China.  None of the things i mentioned above are justified by the type of govt they have.  But I dont see the US running off to help these people. The US govt needs to cut the BS and stop saying the war in Iraq is to free the Iraqis, it's to get oil, and that is pretty obvious seeing their efforts to save burning oil fields and plants. Ousting Saddam was just a nice side show to distract the US people so they dont question why it has taken almost a year to "free the Iraqis".

Quote from: "RST"
Quote from: "Rhiannon"
But his atrocities are no worse than GWB trampling on the Constitution to install the Patriot Act, and inciting people's hate and intolerance towards Arabs and Muslims after 9/11 occured.


I agree that the Patriot Act, along with a lot GWB's other actions, are a bunch of crap, but on the same level as Bloody Friday...? I value my rights, but not so much that I consider them more valuable than the lives of thousands of innocents.


Bloody Friday? If you are referring to the Kurd massacre in 1988, (there is more than one Bloody Friday), just consider where Hussien got the weapons from. Sure wasnt from the sky. :roll:

Also, why not research the investigation the DOJ is carrying around in US prisons where Arabs and Muslims were held illegally and tortured by guards? Their only crime was being Muslim or Arab, so how is this any different than what Saddam did? And what about the massacre at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? What crime did those people commit? Oh, that's right, they were Japanese. And dont believe the propaganda BS of "the bomb was dropped to end the war". HA! The Japanese already knew they were losing, and wanted to surrender losing as little face as possible, but the US just needed an excuse to really test out their "little boy". Even if we pretended this was the reason, why use two bombs? Wouldnt one bomb have clearly sent the message to the Japanese? But the message wasnt for the Japanese, it was for the Russians, read your history.

People in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as in surrounding areas, are still afraid of dying from some radiation-related disease. The bomb was dropped in 1945, killing tens of thousands of innocent lives. In 1950, the fallout had continued to kill, claiming the lives of more than 350,000 people. People who had absolutely nothing to do with the war whatsoever.

So the US condemned Hitler for his actions, yet the US goes half way around the world and drops two bombs on innocent people. Did I miss something?

So, lesson of the day, as I have stated before, remove the fucking log from your own eye, US, before you attempt to go plucking the specks out of the rest of the world's eyes. You might pluck someone's eye out, and they will get awful pissy.


Title: death penalty
Post by: TheBigBasicQ on February 26, 2004, 03:10:24 PM
Quote from: "Plasma"
You might want to re-check your history...


Care to refresh my history?

IMO any country would've done the samething as what US did. Nobody would let their governments just standby while terrorists destroyed national heritage and killed thousands. US was justified in a way. But after their objective was achieved they should've left only after ensuring that a legitimate government has come into power.

But the US is still searching for the 'imaginary WMDs'. They give a damn about what happens to the iraqis.

This has been a big eye opener for the world. If this can happen to the so called worlds super power it can happen to any country. Infact countries such as Russia, Israel, India are the most affected by these terrorists and by terrorists I dont mean Islamic fanatics. I believe these people have no religion at all, they are all same to me.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Rhiannon on February 26, 2004, 03:21:21 PM
Quote from: "TheBigBasicQ"
Quote from: "Plasma"
You might want to re-check your history...


Care to refresh my history?

IMO any country would've done the samething as what US did. Nobody would let their governments just standby while terrorists destroyed national heritage and killed thousands. US was justified in a way. But after their objective was achieved they should've left only after ensuring that a legitimate government has come into power.

But the US is still searching for the 'imaginary WMDs'. They give a damn about what happens to the iraqis.


The US wasn't attacked by Iraq, they were supposedly attacked by the taliban who are supposedly in Afghanastan (about 1000 miles/2500 km away from Baghdad).  so....why is the US in Iraq again? Oh that's right, to free the Iraqis........wait that aint it....cuz that doesnt take a year. O-I-L is all I have to say....


Title: death penalty
Post by: adosorken on February 26, 2004, 03:29:00 PM
All I can say is this:

The US government doesn't give a rat's ass about anyone but themselves, and in turn, the US people have become the same way. The US government will assist any country who is beneficial to their own goals and shun/attack/aid in the destruction of countries which are either useless or oppositive. This is why the US aided Iraq with weaponry in the 80s (Iran threatened to conquer Iraq and in doing so, Iraqi oil would be privatized and out of our control), and as I've stated before, the US has supplied Israel with weaponry because of its own special interests. In fact, a number of Middle Eastern countries have been supplied with weapons by the US as well as other countries (the UK is a big supplier of weapons to the Middle East) while other terroristic countries are shunned by the US (Syria was shunned until they agreed with the US, and the only reason they agreed was because Syria has plans of its own regarding Iraq, and with Iraq weakened, they can do as they wish once the US has left...although they are slightly naive, because the US won't ever leave Iraq, it would be a foolish business move to do so).

Special interests. Big business. Crush all who oppose. This is the US government. Like it or not, believe it or not, this is our government.


Title: death penalty
Post by: aetherfox on February 26, 2004, 04:32:43 PM
Hear hear.

Don't you get tired of having to repeat yourselves over and over again rhia and nek?

Diroga: No.  Killing is wrong, even if the government or law says it should be done.


Title: death penalty
Post by: adosorken on February 26, 2004, 05:06:27 PM
Quote from: "aetherfox"
Don't you get tired of having to repeat yourselves over and over again rhia and nek?

Yes. But I get even more tired hearing the same ignorant BS over and over again from uneducated US citizens. I hate living amongst people who have no clue what their own government's intentions are, blindly believing everything they see on TV because it's what they want to hear. It's frustrating and annoying to be among people considered educated and intelligent, yet have not a shred of knowledge as to these figures and "facts" they either pull out of their own ass or are fed from the ass of a governmental figure.

In other words...while these people remain ignorant, I will continue to research and educate. Anyone who wishes to discount what we've said in this thread is living in delusion. To the rest of the world, the things we've said are common knowledge. But to 95% of the people living in the US, it's all pie-in-the-sky conspiracy theory. Hollywood has done a great job over the last 50 years in glamorizing this kind of stuff to the point where people disbelieve it even if it's staring them in the face.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Plasma on February 26, 2004, 05:16:11 PM
Quote from: "TheBigBasicQ"
Infact in the recent history(after WWII) I dont think any country has invaded another country except the US and the former USSR on the basis of suspicion.

Quote from: "TheBigBasicQ"
Care to refresh my history?


August 2, 1990: Iraq invades Kuwait


Title: death penalty
Post by: adosorken on February 26, 2004, 05:35:20 PM
Quote from: "Plasma"
Quote from: "TheBigBasicQ"
Infact in the recent history(after WWII) I dont think any country has invaded another country except the US and the former USSR on the basis of suspicion.

Quote from: "TheBigBasicQ"
Care to refresh my history?


August 2, 1990: Iraq invades Kuwait

That wasn't on basis of suspicion though. Kuwait is a competitor of Iraq's in the oil business, and home to some of the most horrific criminals in the world. The government is ten times worse than Saddam's. What goes on there makes the Nazi's concentration camps look like a day at Disneyland. :(


Title: death penalty
Post by: toonski84 on February 26, 2004, 05:53:00 PM
Quote
Infact in the recent history(after WWII) I dont think any country has invaded another country except the US and the former USSR on the basis of suspicion.


Read the history of modern Israel.  You opinions about it be as they are, but the whole "preemptive strike" thing was copied off them.  And that's just a fancy word for "invade", something that the 20th century is no stranger to.

But when the hell did this get off track from the death penalty?  What does the Iraq war have to do with an unrelated domestic issue?


Title: death penalty
Post by: adosorken on February 26, 2004, 06:11:27 PM
Quote from: "toonski84"
But when the hell did this get off track from the death penalty?  What does the Iraq war have to do with an unrelated domestic issue?

:roll:

Welcome to a public forum, glad you could make it. Here on public forums, discussions carry a wide variety of topics, and as in real-life discussion, topics naturally change course over time.

:P


Title: death penalty
Post by: oracle on February 26, 2004, 06:47:17 PM
I'm against (for all it means, being a NZer). You can't kill someone as punnishment for killing someone.

I sincerely hope you guys against GB vote come election day.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Rhiannon on February 26, 2004, 07:02:09 PM
Quote from: "oracle"
I sincerely hope you guys against GB vote come election day.


He had never won the election in the first place :normal: but yea,i believe this war is making him unpopular, especially with the same people in the military that favored him in the first place. A lot of them have had their leaves postponed to unknow dates, even tho their contracts said differently. It's sad really that the soldiers are wasting their time, and sometimes their lives, in this worthless war.


Title: death penalty
Post by: oracle on February 26, 2004, 07:06:07 PM
I've seen bowling for columbine, and I've listened to the audio book "Stupid White Men", so I'm familiar with the circumstances around GB's victory. All I can say is that if you win 40/5X states he won't win at the Supreme Court ;)


Title: death penalty
Post by: Rhiannon on February 26, 2004, 07:09:51 PM
what would be great is if we could have a real vote, and just eliminate the electoral college. We dont need those momos.


Title: death penalty
Post by: adosorken on February 26, 2004, 07:38:45 PM
When GWB shows clear signs of losing to the Democrats this fall, Osama bin Laden will miraculously be caught and brought to "justice". When Saddam was out of the front page news, he "miraculously" surrendered. And wow, suddenly GWB's ratings went up...slightly. He is saving bin Laden for last...his ace in the hold, if you will. When it is clear he's going to lose, he'll try one last coup de grace with the US public. Unfortunately, they're so gullible they'll probably fall for it, and we'll have 4 more years of Gee Whiz Bushwhacker. The country will be screwed. We will see even more war and bloodshed as GWB's stupid world domination plan continues to escalate. :cry:


Title: death penalty
Post by: RST on February 26, 2004, 09:21:10 PM
Just a quick point about the Hiroshima/Nagasaki thing: the reason two bombs were dropped was because the Japanese still refused to surrender after the first one.

Quote from: "Rhiannon"
what would be great is if we could have a real vote, and just eliminate the electoral college. We dont need those momos.


I found this amusing in light of what Adosorken just said about 95% of the US being stupid; if I remember correctly, the reason the electoral college was established in the first place was because the founding fathers realized this would be inevitable.

The populance is ingnorant, the politicians are corrupt.

God bless America.

He knows we need it.


Title: death penalty
Post by: na_th_an on February 26, 2004, 09:26:04 PM
Not only that... I've seen a "What do you prefer, bush or Bush?" page that is not suited for linking here... But it was quite funny :P

(Double read the title to get what was that page talking about).


Title: death penalty
Post by: adosorken on February 26, 2004, 09:38:33 PM
Quote from: "RST"
Just a quick point about the Hiroshima/Nagasaki thing: the reason two bombs were dropped was because the Japanese still refused to surrender after the first one.

Your history is a tad skewed here. The Japanese were already prepared to surrender in May. The bombs were dropped in August, about three months later. Why? As a sign to Russia...Russia was about to officially enter the war. The US had to show them what they'd be facing if they did.


Title: death penalty
Post by: RST on February 26, 2004, 09:52:19 PM
Hmmm... where are you getting your info from? From what I've heard, they were pretty fanatical back then, even to the point of mothers killing their children before committing suicide rather than face Allied occupation. Admittedly, that would be one of the more extreme reactions, but I think it illustrates my point.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Plasma on February 26, 2004, 10:15:48 PM
Quote from: "adosorken"
Quote from: "Plasma"
Quote from: "TheBigBasicQ"
Infact in the recent history(after WWII) I dont think any country has invaded another country except the US and the former USSR on the basis of suspicion.

Quote from: "TheBigBasicQ"
Care to refresh my history?


August 2, 1990: Iraq invades Kuwait

That wasn't on basis of suspicion though. Kuwait is a competitor of Iraq's in the oil business, and home to some of the most horrific criminals in the world. The government is ten times worse than Saddam's. What goes on there makes the Nazi's concentration camps look like a day at Disneyland. :(


I never said it was...


Title: death penalty
Post by: Rhiannon on February 26, 2004, 10:16:12 PM
Quote from: "RST"
Just a quick point about the Hiroshima/Nagasaki thing: the reason two bombs were dropped was because the Japanese still refused to surrender after the first one.

That's what they teach schools in the US. I also learned the same thing, but thought to myself, wow....that was a big bomb, and to not surrender after that?......doesnt make sense. Besides, the Japanse were willing to surrender back in May, and even Eisenhower himself said that the dropping of the bomb wasnt necessary. Truman ignored everyone since he wanted to test the bomb out.  Years later, the British wrote that it wasnt necessary to bomb Japan, because they were already willing to surrender, and were looking for acceptable terms, back in May of 1945.  Already in September 1944, Japan was feeling the pressure of the Naval blockade that was preventing them from recieving supplies for war. Almost all of their industrial posts had been bombed, the Germans had surrendered in May of 1945, leaving the Allies free to focus on Japan, and they were agreeing to a surrender on one condition, which was to keep their emperor, since they believed him to be a god, and this was an important part of their culture (not like the US really gives a horse's ass about other people's culture). Anyways, the US basically told the Japanese "FU, we're taking your emperor cuz he's commited war crimes and misled the Japanese and yadda yadda".  Again, to the Japanese, the figure of the emperor was very important, and something that the US govt didnt understand because they thought it was wrong, even though there were experts that advised Truman to let them keep their throne. Truman was a bonehead and listened to other people instead of the experts.  This was in July. Note the Japanese were willing, just wanted one condition met.....but nooooo. The US wanted unconditional surrender to not appear soft to the public. The Japanese even tried to negotiate thru the USSR, who at the time was neutral, with seven messages throughout the month of July. They were looking to end the war. But not the US. Cant end the war till we test our Abombs. So, the US got Fat Man and Little Boy and bombed Japan in Aug 1945. Even Churchhill thought the idea of unconditional surrender was unnecessary. Funny thing is, after the war was over, Japan kept the emperor anyways.

Had the US (and the Allies) used honey instead of vinegar to coax the Japanese into an acceptable surrender for both sides, the war would have ended a lot sooner, and the lives of soldiers and civilians alike would have been spared. Not like the US cares anyways.

Quote from: "RST"
Quote from: "Rhiannon"
what would be great is if we could have a real vote, and just eliminate the electoral college. We dont need those momos.


I found this amusing in light of what Adosorken just said about 95% of the US being stupid; if I remember correctly, the reason the electoral college was established in the first place was because the founding fathers realized this would be inevitable.

The populance is ingnorant, the politicians are corrupt.

God bless America.

He knows we need it.

As if the electoral colleges were any better than the people just voting. How do you know they are voting according to what the people want, and not because they were paid off or promised a good position in the govt following the elections? Only the Goddess knows what goes on inside the heads of those idiots. And beside, if there had been no electoral college (and no Jeb Bush fucking up the votes in florida) then Al Gore would have been elected. Not exactly a top-notch candidate, but at least we wouldnt be scrambling all over the world like a bunch of idiotic cowboys.


Title: death penalty
Post by: adosorken on February 26, 2004, 10:22:31 PM
Quote from: "Plasma"
Quote from: "adosorken"
Quote from: "Plasma"
Quote from: "TheBigBasicQ"
Infact in the recent history(after WWII) I dont think any country has invaded another country except the US and the former USSR on the basis of suspicion.

Quote from: "TheBigBasicQ"
Care to refresh my history?


August 2, 1990: Iraq invades Kuwait

That wasn't on basis of suspicion though. Kuwait is a competitor of Iraq's in the oil business, and home to some of the most horrific criminals in the world. The government is ten times worse than Saddam's. What goes on there makes the Nazi's concentration camps look like a day at Disneyland. :(


I never said it was...

(emphasis added by myself)

However, he did, and you were commenting on his comment, so...you get the idea :D


Title: death penalty
Post by: Plasma on February 27, 2004, 03:03:58 AM
ah, ok. I was reading that sentence differently.

Carry on...


Title: death penalty
Post by: SJ Zero on February 27, 2004, 04:52:09 AM
Quote from: "webberboy"
The US does not have a perfect government, nor does any other country.  But some, like Suddams dictatorship, were obviously wrong, no matter which way you look at it.  Since the US form of government seems to work well, then we try to get others to change so that they can move up from a 3rd world country to a 2st world or even 1st world country.


I refer you to my first statement. Nobody has the right to take the life of another. Neither do you ahve the rights to 10,000 just because you're the "good guys".


Title: death penalty
Post by: toonski84 on February 27, 2004, 04:57:55 AM
Rhiannon makes a lot of good points, most of which are probably true, but another side to the story is that some of the worst casualties in the war came from the pacific.  Whether that report saying we'd lose 60,000 men was created in purpose or not, it was probably right.  The Japenese were some of the craziest fighters in history, using everything they could to fight.  While yeah, they weren't all the honor-nuts movies sometimes depict them to be, they did their job the best they were able to fiercily.  We lost an insane amount of troops invading other pacific islands, and the report certainly fits the situation much better.

Also, WWII was a different time in general.  Countries were straight-forwardly self-centered, and it was more of an "us or them" sort of thinking.  Civilians were bombed, and people were cool with it.  The Germans bombed the English, the English bombed the Germans and the Americans bomb the Japenese.  Incidiaries killed so many more innocent people than the Atomic bombs, it's insane.  So while there was an inhumane lack of concern for civilians at the time, it wasnt a question of a specific country's morals so much as it was the general attitude.  That's part of the reason Rhiannon is right, we wanted to show the world our power and the best way to demonstrate it was in wartime.  You can demonstrate a bomb's power in a less poplated area than a big city.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Rhiannon on February 27, 2004, 09:24:17 AM
The problem with atomic bombs, and nuclear weapons in general, is that they keep killing long after they were dropped because of radiation fallout. Those that arent killed by the fallout or from the intense heat of the explosion (Hiroshima felt the heat twice because of its location) may become mulitated, have malformed babies or die from some radiation-related disease. Convention bombs just kill at the moment and that's it. So even thought the bomb was dropped at a lesser populated region, it keeps killing, and will keep killing until the radiation fallout ceases to exist.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Seker359 on February 27, 2004, 10:14:33 AM
Quote from: "adosorken"
When GWB shows clear signs of losing to the Democrats this fall, Osama bin Laden will miraculously be caught and brought to "justice".


I agree completely. I've been saying for a while that everything has been happening along a time table that will conclude with the majority of the troops all coming home a few days prior to the election. Mr Bush will be promoted as a conquering hero, who brought our troops safely home, and made the world a safer place. And a lot of people will buy into it.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Seker359 on February 27, 2004, 10:48:16 AM
Quote from: "Rhiannon"
Had the US (and the Allies) used honey instead of vinegar to coax


To hell with coaxing. As the saying goes..."you mess with the bull, you get the horns". The victors in a war should never have the terms of surrender dictated to them. Crush them until the thought of terms is no longer in their mind. Anything else is a sign of weakness and shows a lack of resolve.

And this relates right back to the Iraq discussion. Had Bush Sr and allies finished this fight the first time there wouldn't be an Iraq to mess with now. But we accepted "terms", Iraq kept their dictator, and now we're back dealing with him again.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Rhiannon on February 27, 2004, 11:26:26 AM
Is crushing a nation, along with its culture, worth the additional lives it cost the Allies and the Japanese? Why do the people have to pay for what their govt is doing? Why did innocent people had to die, when all that had to be done was force the surrender of the military, and allow them to keep the institution of the throne. They werent asking to keep the actual emperor, they were concerned about the institution which was a part of their culture. But then again, the US doesnt care about culture, it is the ultimate culture excecutioner from its inception.

The US doesnt care about the Iraqi people. They can die, as long as there is oil, everything is alright. Iraqi could have had a democracy, if the US doesnt like something, they go in and crush it, as long as there is some benefit to themselves. Hence why Eastern Europe will continue to be poor and traffic women and children across the borders, since there is nothing there for the US to gain by going in. South American children will keep dying of starvation every day, since they dont have much worth in the eyes of the US. Africa can piss off as long as the US can get their diamonds and gems, Asia is useful as long as people sew clothes and work for pennies a day.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Seker359 on February 27, 2004, 01:10:09 PM
Quote from: "Rhiannon"
Is crushing a nation, along with its culture, worth the additional lives it cost the Allies and the Japanese?


Had we accepted Japan's terms, and if we had not changed their culture and let them rebuild just the way they were, who's to say we wouldn't have been dealing with the incredible brutality of the WW2 era Japanese 10 years after WW2? How many lives would have been lost the next time?

Quote from: "Rhiannon"
Why do the people have to pay for what their govt is doing?


Because that's the way the system works. Why do I have to hear all the U.S. bashing just because my President is an idiot. As long as there is a national goverment anywhere the people under that goverment are going to feel the brunt of any policy decisions. There is no way around it.

Quote from: "Rhiannon"
as long as there is oil, everything is alright


The "going to Iraq for oil" thing is just a myth. The U.S. will spend more money fighting the war than it will ever benefit from in oil.

Quote from: "Rhiannon"
if the US doesnt like something, they go in and crush it, as long as there is some benefit to themselves. Hence why Eastern Europe will continue to be poor and traffic women and children across the borders, since there is nothing there for the US to gain by going in. South American children will keep dying of starvation every day, since they dont have much worth in the eyes of the US. Africa can piss off as long as the US can get their diamonds and gems, Asia is useful as long as people sew clothes and work for pennies a day.


Yeah, I agree. Nations, and most people, don't get involved unless it is in their best interests and I'm fine with that. The question with the examples you mentioned is why aren't the governements in eastern Europe and South America fixing their own problem. But I don't think it's fair to label the U.S. as complete villains. We were in Bosnia and Samalia and a few other spots that I don't see any benefit for us to be there.

But don't get me wrong. We're dealing with a few different issues. I am not a supporter of the current operations in Iraq. I think it was the biggest waste of resources at a time when the U.S. economy was in bad shape to begin with. Our beloved President should have kept his eyes focused on domestic issues instead of pouring money overseas.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Rhiannon on February 27, 2004, 01:53:20 PM
Quote from: "Seker359"
Quote from: "Rhiannon"
Is crushing a nation, along with its culture, worth the additional lives it cost the Allies and the Japanese?


Had we accepted a Japan's terms, and if we had not changed their culture and let them rebuild just the way they were, who's to say we wouldn't have been dealing with the incredible brutality of the WW2 era Japanese 10 years after WW2? How many lives would have been lost the next time?

Firstly, who are we to determine what cultures should be changed and which shouldnt? Look at the Native Americans now. No lands, no culture, no nothing.  Besides, Japan kept their throne, and they rebuilt to be a nation more advanced than the US.

Quote from: "Seker359"
Quote from: "Rhiannon"
as long as there is oil, everything is alright


The "going to Iraq for oil" thing is just a myth. The U.S. will spend more money fighting the war than it will ever benefit from in oil.

So why are we in Iraq again? Not the halfbaked excuses GWB is giving, i mean the REAL reason? It's not to free the Iraqis, else why not free the Kuwaitis, Iranians and Syrians too? Hell, why not free all of Africa? It's not to find WMD, cuz there arent any, else they would have been found long ago. So....why are we there?

Quote from: "Seker359"
The question with the examples you mentioned is why aren't the governements in eastern Europe and South America fixing their own problem. But I don't think it's fair to label the U.S. as complete villains. We were in Bosnia and Samalia and a few other spots that I don't see any benefit for us to be there.

I simply stated those examples since the US is being so helpful, I thought that maybe the trafficking of women and children for prostitution would be important enough to intervene in.

As for Somalia, the US was present because of bombing on the US embassy, and because of the Al-Qaida either training there and/or obtaining their weapons there. Bosnia was because the US had to vindicate their leadership and to take a strong robust position to ensure that the conflict didnt spread and maintain the crediblity of NATO as well as US forces.

See, there's always an ulterior motive. It's govt after all.

Quote from: "Seker359"
But don't get me wrong. We're dealing with a few different issues. I am not a supporter of the current operations in Iraq. I think it was the biggest waste of resources at a time when the U.S. economy was in bad shape to begin with. Our beloved President should have kept his eyes focused on domestic issues instead of pouring money overseas.


no kidding. dont get me started on that one again..heh...


Title: death penalty
Post by: Seker359 on February 27, 2004, 02:28:00 PM
Quote from: "Rhiannon"
Firstly, who are we to determine what cultures should be changed and which shouldnt?


Japan determined their fate when they drug the U.S. into war in the pacific and lost.

Quote from: "Rhiannon"
Look at the Native Americans now. No lands, no culture, no nothing.


As is the same with every culture in "New World". You can thank every Euro expedition that came over. I won't say Euro nations because a great deal of the exploration was funded by the Catholic Church.

Quote from: "Rhiannon"
Besides, Japan kept their throne, and they rebuilt to be a nation more advanced than the US.


Actually the U.S. rebuilt Japan and put the goverment and economy in place.
 
Quote from: "Rhiannon"
So why are we in Iraq again?


I wish I knew.

Quote from: "Rhiannon"
See, there's always an ulterior motive. It's govt after all.


Agreed. And it's sad to say but that's probably the main reason any major country gets involved in any of these isolated conflicts.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Rhiannon on February 27, 2004, 02:39:31 PM
Quote from: "Seker359"
Quote from: "Rhiannon"
Look at the Native Americans now. No lands, no culture, no nothing.


As is the same with every culture in "New World". You can thank every Euro expedition that came over. I won't say Euro nations because a great deal of the exploration was funded by the Catholic Church.


I agree to an extent. The Europeans did kill the "infidel" Natives to save their soul or for any other twisted reason they had in mind. There is a book by Bartolomť de las Casas (it's in Spanish but there may be an English translation) about how the Spanish treated the Natives, quite bloody. But after Canada and the US became established nations, they subjected the Native Americans to torture, abuse and isolation in an effort to integrate them into society, trying to make them abandon their customs and traditions to make them more "Western". Since that didnt work too well, they invented the idea of reservations, and shoved all the Natives there. From Mexico down, there is more Native presense, and are not isolated like in US and Canada. Of course, they are as poor as the rest of the population, but their customs and traditions are well preserved.


Title: death penalty
Post by: toonski84 on February 27, 2004, 03:32:14 PM
That's sad, but that's life, Rhiannon.  If we fought gentlemen's wars, there wouldnt be war to begin with.  That same motivations that drive people to either start or defend against war are the same ones that leave them ignorant of innocent people's lives.  

Picture yourself in a soldier's shoes.  Around you, people are trying to kill you.  If you hesitate, you could and probably will die.  So if a car runs past a check point or a soldier fires on you while standing near civilians, it's either you die or they die.  Humans are self-serving, they won't die for a stranger.

As far as the bombs go, there was radiation, though more torturous, was not quite as devastating as the fires that ravaged the cities after the explosion.  Nonflammable was not exactly the theme of Japenese architecture at the time, and people on the outskirts of the city had to deal with not only radiation but fires as well.  Like in most earthquakes, the fires caused by the disaster can be much more horrifying than the disaster itself.  This is why the incindiary carpet bombings of London, Dresden and Tokyo are even bigger atrocities in my mind than Hiroshima, because these we targeted, blind killings of civilians with complete and total knowledge of the aftermath.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Seker359 on February 27, 2004, 03:53:20 PM
Quote from: "Rhiannon"
The Europeans did kill the "infidel" Natives to save their soul or for any other twisted reason they had in mind.


I was actually referring to disease. European diseases killed far more native americans than sword or musketball.


Title: death penalty
Post by: toonski84 on February 27, 2004, 05:13:52 PM
True dat.  Smallpox is a cruel mistriss...


Title: death penalty
Post by: RST on February 27, 2004, 06:50:03 PM
Quote from: "Seker359"
The "going to Iraq for oil" thing is just a myth. The U.S. will spend more money fighting the war than it will ever benefit from in oil.


Anyone who's paid any attention at all to Bush's spending knows he doesn't care about the U.S.'s finances. However, this doesn't include his own money, nor the money of the cooperations that paid for his election.

BTW: The native Americans do have their own land. My friends go there to buy fire works that would be illegal elsewhere.


Title: death penalty
Post by: TheBigBasicQ on February 27, 2004, 06:58:11 PM
A nice website I found:
www.bushflash.com

Personally I liked this one:
http://www.bushflash.com/swf/thanks.swf


The US economy is in recession because it has always predominantly been a war economy. Anyway, this is my theory why the Bush govt attacked iraq:
1. After the occurance of 9/11 US destroys Afganistan. It doesnt find anything useful in Afganistan.
2. Bush starts whining about Iraq's hand in 9/11 and WMDs which could be deployed and can destroy targets deep within the US in a matter of 45mins.
3. US & Britain(poor Tony =() attack Iraq while destroying almost all infrastructure.
4. US tries to contain the situation but there are too many suicide bombings which results in killing ~2 US soldiers per day.
5. Bush panics and asks UN to step in.
6. UN refuses.
7. Bush begs for troops from countries whose militaries have more experience.
8. He fails to get anything useful that will allow him to withdraw his troops and have a remote control on the situation.
---------Heres the interesting part-----------
9. Bush declares that rebuilding of Iraq is going to be done by corporates of the coalition countries viz. US & Britain.
10. Now since Iraq is bankrupt, all it can do is sell its oil to get money to pay off for the rebuilding of its own country and guess whose going to buy it?
11. So Oil + Money is going to come back to the US =P.

US will prolly disallow Iraq from selling oil to the 'non-coperative' countries.

Gist: US rebuilds iraq but at a price. The money for which iraq will get from selling oil to the US.

And for all those who will start whining about how the US is spending on war and compensation to the families of the dead US soldiers, I am sure Bush will extract enough oil from Iraq to cover that cost plus gain good profits off it.

The thing that appalls me the most is that the US citizens arent realizing that their troops are unnecessarily being killed in Iraq. Blind support is bad.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Agamemnus on February 27, 2004, 07:27:48 PM
Quote

Blind support is bad.


...and so is blindness.

Quote

After the occurrence of 9/11, the US begins heavily supporting the northern groups in its war with the Taliban and establishes a provisional coalition government, where Hamid Karzai is first installed and then later elected in a new Afghan government. The old laws against women are abolished and more people start going to school. Freedom of communication becomes the norm. Elements of the Taliban still hide in the countryside and later the foothills.


Quote

After the occurrence of 9/11, the US destroys the majority of the Taliban's presense in Afghanistan, later installing its own government there.


Quote

After the occurrence of 9/11, the US destroys the majority of the Taliban's presense in Afghanistan.


Quote

After the occurance of 9/11 US destroys Afganistan.


Quote

After the occurance of 9/11 US destroys Afganistan and makes slaves out of those who survived the ruin to build its weapons that kill people.


Title: death penalty
Post by: toonski84 on February 27, 2004, 10:46:44 PM
Blindness is also following vague conspiracy theories.  While I dont support the war, some of the suggestions being thrown around are ridiculous, likening GWB to a scheming cartoonish megavillain trying to build a magnet to evaporate the world's leaders.  

Any probable political intent for the war is more domestic than the oversimplified reason "oil."  We have good relations with OPEC right now, and the presend administration is more interested in tapping into the untouched oil reserves northwest than importing more foreign oil.  

The war extends from a number of reasons:
1) A preexisting desire to remove Saddam Hussein.
2) Genuine assumptions of evidence made from vague intelligence.

The rest, no matter how likely, are only theories.  The Bay of Tonka fallacy was exposed over a decade after the Vietnam war.  Whatever truth remains will be exposed in time, but only in time.  

Another thing to recall is that the war is, or at least was a popular one.  At its start there was a 70% favor to it, and congress approved with an even higher percentage.  And even though that has dropped in the following months, to back out of Iraq now would be a bigger sin than starting the war.  What's done has been done, and the only option now is to stay in Iraq, ensure that the new government is stable and slowly back out.

As for humanitarian issues, yes, it's sad.  But I can't blame the military, they've fought a textbook war avoiding civilian casuaties as best as humanly possible.  Given a clear situation, it has not been the army's objective to kill civilians as a display of power, in fact, not to kill civilians at all.

Think of the situation this way.  A child stumbles upon his father's gun and kills himself.  To one side of the spectrum, while terrible, it was unintentional. Therefore the fault lies in coincidence, and is unavoidable.  This is how accidents happen but it is not the parent's fault for owning the gun.  After all, the odds were completely against it, and if the parents did something to aggrevate the situation, such as leave the safety lock off, only then does it become their fault.

On the other side you have people who say that the mere ownership of the gun made the accident possible.

And here you have the political divide of ethics of war.  Civilians die in wars, you can't throw artillery around without it happening.  But depending on who you are, you see it as the direct consequence of the decision to go to war or as a terrible accident.  The current administration sees it one way.  You may or may not see it the other.  This does not make the bad people, but in my perspectve it makes them bad leaders, which I settle with my vote, not with extremely negative accusations.


Title: death penalty
Post by: TheBigBasicQ on February 28, 2004, 05:21:22 AM
Vague conspiracy theories? Only time will tell whether what I have said is a vague conspiracy theory or not. While the war was going on I had predicted that US will destroy major infrastructure(which wasnt needed, only military targets would've sufficed) and then the reconstruction contracts will be awarded to coalition nations only viz. US and Britain.

Aga, US took support of Pakistan against its so called 'war against terror' (complete BS). Pakistan is a known rogue nation. It imported nuclear technology, material from China. It proliferates. It supports terrorists. It allows terrorist training camps in its territory. It arms them, gives them money, uses its military to open fire at Indo-Pak border to allow these terrorists to get into India. It supports  insurgency into neighboring countries. It is still hiding Osama. Oooooh yeah this is surely the war against terror. Talk about being blind.


Title: death penalty
Post by: SJ Zero on February 28, 2004, 12:21:26 PM
tbbq, let me first remind you that all americans, especially gulliable conservatives, are experts on terrorism. Even though there's only been two or three major terrorist acts in the past decade, even though there are countries that have to deal with terrorism on a daily baisis by neighbouring nations, they know the most about terrorism. I don't really know why, but I have a feeling it has something to do with the fact that they feel they're special because their entire anti-terrorist/anti-hijacking infastructure proved to be completely incompotent and ineffectual, costing thousands of innocent lives. Since they can't admit they were partially to blame(because that's just awful! I man....they ATTACKED! US! Our complete lack of defences can't be blamed for not stopping an easily prevented attack!) and launch a probe into the massive and quite OBVIOUS failures(vague conspiracy theories indeed) on 09/11/01, so they just start attacking various regimes they installed themselves, jusing a nice propoganda campaign to tell about how horrible and awful these folks are. (after all, if they had installed PEACEFUL DEMOCRATIC governments in their battle between democracy and communism, they wouldn't have anyone to go to war with!)

Anyway, election year this year, so hopefully Americans have had enough of both parties crap (though clintons penis wasn't really all that important in the grand scheme of things...funny, that.), and will vote for someone who can lead them in the direction they'd like their country to go, and act in such a way that they might start to recover their shattered world reputation.


Title: death penalty
Post by: TheBigBasicQ on February 29, 2004, 04:44:09 PM
Well said. Its time that people choose the right administration for their country. There is too much anti-US sentiment right now in the world =(. Its about time they learnt they should stop developing the 'National Missile Defence' and start concentrating on their homeland security.


Title: death penalty
Post by: na_th_an on February 29, 2004, 05:13:05 PM
Very wise words, TBBQ.

But it is like what happens to the U.S. individuals, at a minor scale: many of them prefer buying a gun rather than a better lock to their doors.


Title: death penalty
Post by: TheBigBasicQ on February 29, 2004, 05:15:29 PM
Heh, then no use blaming the administration if the people too think in that manner =(


Title: death penalty
Post by: Z!re on February 29, 2004, 06:31:44 PM
All of US has got the Penis complex:
My toy is bigger than your's *points at random country*
 :rotfl:  :lol:  :bounce:


Title: death penalty
Post by: TheBigBasicQ on March 01, 2004, 04:11:28 AM
Hehe  :rotfl:


Title: death penalty
Post by: Seker359 on March 01, 2004, 11:36:21 AM
Quote from: "na_th_an"
many of them prefer buying a gun rather than a better lock to their doors.


I don't own a gun but for those that do I do condone shooting your assailant instead of cowering behind a door.



All the U.S. bashing....I wave my hand dismissively at the 3rd world tripe.


Title: death penalty
Post by: TheBigBasicQ on March 01, 2004, 01:04:41 PM
Yeah right. dont take it personally. We arent against US citizens but against the current administration and more specifically against Bush and his govt's policies.

And I can see what according to you is 3rd world.

"Non-US = Third world"


Title: death penalty
Post by: Seker359 on March 01, 2004, 02:04:38 PM
Quote from: "TheBigBasicQ"
We arent against US citizens but against the current administration


Well...I read the posts and this is what I see....

Quote from: "na_th_an"
But it is like what happens to the U.S. individuals

Quote from: "TheBasicQ"
no use blaming the administration if the people too think in that manner

Quote from: "Z!re"
All of US has got the Penis complex


...so it doesn't look like remarks are being limited to the current administration.


Quote from: "TheBasicQ"
And I can see what according to you is 3rd world. "Non-US = Third world"


Actually, no, I don't believe that. I just posted that as an example of self-righteous disdain for other nations similar to the continual U.S. bashing going on in this thread.


Title: death penalty
Post by: SJ Zero on March 01, 2004, 04:15:36 PM
Quote from: "Seker359"
Quote from: "na_th_an"
many of them prefer buying a gun rather than a better lock to their doors.


I don't own a gun but for those that do I do condone shooting your assailant instead of cowering behind a door.



All the U.S. bashing....I wave my hand dismissively at the 3rd world tripe.



hehehehehahahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

No more words are needed. I now see you aren't worth my time.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Seker359 on March 01, 2004, 05:48:15 PM
Quote from: "SJ Zero"
No more words are needed. I now see you aren't worth my time.


Just out of curiosity was it the gun reference or the biting sarcasm in the 3rd world reference that so offended your delicate sensibilities?


Title: death penalty
Post by: Z!re on March 01, 2004, 08:25:37 PM
Seker359: You are right, silly us for thinking bad of your great nation.

ALL HAIL THE US!, BOW TO THE MIGHT AND GLORY OF GOD's TRUE NATION!, AWE IN IT's EXISTANCE! *waves starspangledbanner frenetically*

Just out of curiosity, how come KIDS in you'r great free nation of God go kill their friends, with daddys gun?

Whos fault is it?, The father for letting the gun be visible?, The Kid for taking the Gun?, Or maybe the weapons manufacturer?. (Yes, people in the US actually SUE the weapons manufacturer because their weapon killed someone dear to them, I mean, come on.. A weapon is meant to kill, DUH!, it's not a furry cute little thing you keep at home and feed. If you don't want it to kill, don't buy it dumbass)

WRONG!

The Father is guilty, because he bought the damn gun, and keept it at home, why the hell do you need a gun in the first place? To defend yourself? How come the US is the country with the most weapons/person? ("home" weapons (like pistols and hunting rifles), waring countries and military excluded)


The PenisKomplex is a psychic term, it is easiest to see with small kids fighting over the same toy, always the same toy, 2 children playing with 2 different toys is very rare (I have 7 sisters and brothers, I should know)

So when I say "all of US has penis komplex" I mean: Most Citizens In The US can't stand the thought of someone having a better "car" (where car is an example taken from the sky), this leads to:
Neighbour: Car
You: Better Car
Neightbour: Car+Car stereo
You: Better Car + AC (Air condition)
[...]
Neighbour: Scud Missile
You: 50 ICBM's
Neighbour: 25 ICBM's + 5Nuclear Sub's + Scud Missile
You: [...]


But then again, this is _!!The US!!_ we a re talking about, and everything _!!The US!!_ do IS RIGHT!, cause _!!The US!!_ IS GOD's true land (bla bla bla)

God bless America's stupidity and ignorance

All hail The US

(I'm tired, so ignore spelling errors)


Title: death penalty
Post by: na_th_an on March 01, 2004, 08:49:53 PM
It's not a matter of cowards. Using guns and other arms is something that was cool for the primitive humans. We evolved, or at least I thought that.

Anyhow, I don't care. If you like guns, and you like being at the place with most daily casualities caused by fire arms, that's fine for me. I am lucky 'cause in my country people don't have guns, just policemen have. I don't like guns, I don't want to see a gun in my life if I can help it.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Seker359 on March 01, 2004, 11:11:03 PM
Quote from: "Z!re"
ALL HAIL THE US!, BOW TO THE MIGHT AND GLORY OF GOD's TRUE NATION!, AWE IN IT's EXISTANCE!


Have I said at any point that the U.S. is any better than any other nation? No, I have not. And the "3rd world" comment was intended as sarcasm.

The U.S. has many problems and I do my fair share of bashing the sorry state of my own country. But my take on the latest phase of this thread is that the continual U.S. bashing is the result of great deal of misinformation, propaganda, and stereotyping.


Quote from: "na_th_an"
It's not a matter of cowards


My response was aimed directly at what you said. If given a choice between hiding behind locks and fighting for my own way of life I'll fight. "Better to die on your feet than live on your knees. "

And I never said I like guns. In fact I said that I do not own gun. But if it would be easier for you to fit me in with the rest of the anti-U.S. propagana that we are a nation of gun wielding cowboys then please do so.




I'm not naive enough to make blanket statements about other nations based on what I hear in the media and neither should anyone else. And that's the crux of my debate.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Z!re on March 02, 2004, 01:36:48 AM
Quote from: "Seker359"
If given a choice between hiding behind locks and fighting for my own way of life I'll fight. "Better to die on your feet than live on your knees. "


Fight for what?, What the hell are you supposed to fight if you live in a quiet little countryside town?, The evil racoons?, Sure have a gun, but don't complain when the racoon get's his own gun and starts shooting back.

The US is a fucked up nation, I would rather live in any dictatorship than in the US. You wanna know why? Atleast if you live in a dictatorship other countries don't hate YOU.

Sure, stereotyping and all that, but you have to remember that 70% of the US's population was FOR a War, and I don't think it's less people wanting to have guns, heck, I bet there's even a good deal of The US pop who would like The US to rule the entire world.


Why is The US fighting a War in Iraq? or Afghanistan? To fight terrorism?

DEFINE Terrorism: Anything The US Says?

You see, you can't call terrorists soldiers (cause they are soldiers, don't fool yourself into thinking otherwise), because if you called them soldiers you couldn't put them in concentration camps and get away with it. The Geneve convention states that no individual solder can be punished for following orders, but that don't apply to a terrorist. How convenient, you may now torture them how much you want, all in the name of god's-america

I'm so tired of all the BS you hear from US citizens: "Ohh I'm against the war", "I don't like GWB", "The US isn't all that bad"... Well, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!, and The US IS BAD!, It will stay bad until you, yes YOU change it, you lazy crap.
"I'm trying to change it"
Ok, so why no change?, I'll tell you why, Because MOST PEOLE DONT WANT A CHANGE!


Don't get me wrong, I don't hate America, I just think you are a nation fucked-up beyond repair. And if you became a 3rd world country I couldn't care less. (I'm talking about the country, not the pop. I feel sorry for everyone living in The US, or any country where they don't agree with the way it is being ruled or the way it acts)


The 11th of September was very tragic indeed, but "you" had it coming, you can't go around and bitchslap everyone without eventualy getting some shit back. Thats a thing I'd say around 60-65% of the US pop. understand, but do they care? NO!? Thus, American Citizens in general are dumb. (No offence intended)

Until you change your ways you will be hated and disrespected by, atleast, 3/4 of the world. Though for you.


What I know of The US is the only country sending troops all over the world acting police. It doesent work, one nation of 250mil can't police a world consisting of close to 6bil (7?) people, and expect noone to hate them. And do a good job, or even a halfassed job, or even do anything complete.

What happened to The US's promises of rebuilding Afghanistan?, Great Job, have you seen how Afghanistan looks? No wonder they hate you.
"Hi, I'm [insert random arabic name here], I'm your leader, now GET TO WORK!"
"But The US said...."
"To hell with The US, I'm in charge now, WORK!"
"But..."
*gunshot*
"I said WORK!"

Nice govenrment you have sintalled, kickass. Would you like to move there? I mean, "you" said you would repair the country, and you must have done it now (cause you are not in it anymore, nor sending supplies) so you must think it's perfect and suitable.

Or maybe you'r standards are different from the Afghan people? Ofcourse they are, forgive me, the Afghan people WANT to be ruled by a dictator, cause they have been so all their lives. That must be why you've installed a new dictator as ruler (Publicly elected my ass, he just happens to be a close friend of the US, kissing GWB ass all day long?, yeah riiight)


Z!re is a propaganda feed, Anti-US, GWB hating, 3rd world terrorist. And proud of it.

[end]
I should really save everything I write, could make a great school paper or something
*Reminds self not to write so much all the time, have to start doing one liners :P *


Title: death penalty
Post by: na_th_an on March 02, 2004, 09:23:31 AM
My post about locks and guns... Well, maybe you misunderstood it:

- The American Rifle Association, John Wayne, Billy the Kid and the second amendment in your Constitution say that you can shoot a stranger in your house.

Quote
"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." - Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.


- Usually, houses in the U.S. have a door open. Made of wood, or with a crystal. Open windows, open gates, no walls surrounding the garden... Sure, anybody who wants to steal your stereo can come in and just carry it with him. So it is OK to buy a gun: you have to protect your family.

In my country we just make sure that nobody comes in our house without our notice. And that's not being cowards or "hiding behind a lock". And that phrase about fighting and dying on the knees and stuff (btw, that phrase is from Che Guevara, and he said it when he was fighting the U.S. in Cuba) has nothing to do here.

I won't make more points against arms 'cause it is like talking to a wall.

And no, sorry, I don't live and think upon what I see on TV.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Rhiannon on March 02, 2004, 10:23:21 AM
The second amendment is prolly the most misinterpreted amendment in the bill of rights. It doesnt say that private citizens have a right to a gun. It says that the people have the right to form a militia and defend themselves.

Quote from: "Bill of RIghts"
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Title: death penalty
Post by: TheBigBasicQ on March 02, 2004, 11:25:55 AM
Quote from: "Seker359"
Have I said at any point that the U.S. is any better than any other nation? No, I have not. And the "3rd world" comment was intended as sarcasm.

The U.S. has many problems and I do my fair share of bashing the sorry state of my own country. But my take on the latest phase of this thread is that the continual U.S. bashing is the result of great deal of misinformation, propaganda, and stereotyping.

If given a choice between hiding behind locks and fighting for my own way of life I'll fight. "Better to die on your feet than live on your knees. "

I'm not naive enough to make blanket statements about other nations based on what I hear in the media and neither should anyone else. And that's the crux of my debate.


Yeah right, the moment you use the word 3rd world it shows your arrogance.

Which part of my posts did you find misinformation, propoganda, and stereotyping???

Isnt it true that the US is fighting the so called 'war against terrorism' along side Pakistan, a continually proliferating country who is harboring terriorists and spreading terrorism in countries such as India.

Oh yeah and didnt the US ask *India* for troops because their troops are better trained/equipped to deal with guerilla warfare. They have been fighting it for ~55 years and successfully kept the terrorists at bay. So they must know a thing or two about fighting these suicide attackers/terrorists which are killing your troops at a rate or ~2 per day.

http://web.mid-day.com/news/nation/2003/september/63659.htm

http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/iraq/doc/tur1.html

And I almost forgot...didnt the US betray the Afgans in the first place during the coldwar? Didnt the US leave the afgans in a soup after the Soviet Union left? Werent the Taliban installed by the US itself?

Wake up and smell the coffee. Look around and find out whats happening in the world.


Title: death penalty
Post by: RST on March 02, 2004, 02:39:35 PM
Zire: In case you haven't been paying attention, which wouldn't surprise me, the vast majority of Americans on this forum are against what Bush has been doing. So please stop refering to the actions of someone we oppose as "you".

Quote from: "Zire"
...I would rather live in any dictatorship than in the US. You wanna know why? Atleast if you live in a dictatorship other countries don't hate YOU.


Personally, I'd have to disagree with that. Why? Because I really don't care what ignorant people think of me. And as I said, it's the ignorant ones who put the blame on the entrire country rather than on Bush and those who support him. I won't mention names.

BTW: If you're going to attack America, which I concede is far from perfect, than for the sake of fairness you should say where you live.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Agamemnus on March 02, 2004, 03:33:24 PM
Quote

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


This part is extremely vague but quite elegant when you think about it.

*"well regulated militia":
Sounds like the militia has to be governed by laws of some sort.

By that reasoning, people have a right to be able to keep and bear arms to maintain militias, but these militias must be well-regulated: keep in your house, can't have semiautomatic weapons, must have some sort of lock on it, possibly even disallowing use of lethal arms (and only allowing nonlethal weapons, when applied properly) etc.

Thus, you can't have a people's militia without being able to bear limited arms, because a people's militia must be free from the control of the government for the security of a free state.

Just saying what it says.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Seker359 on March 02, 2004, 04:20:53 PM
Quote from: "na_th_an"
And no, sorry, I don't live and think upon what I see on TV.


So you've lived in the United States for several years? If the answer to this is no then you're basing your beliefs on the filter of the media and your peer group.

Quote from: "TheBigBasicQ"
the moment you use the word 3rd world it shows your arrogance


Sarcasm: a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain.

That 3rd world comment worked as intended. I categorized all other countries with no regard for what they are really like and not caring...which has been my entire point on the U.S. bashing.

The problem with some of the posting is it really is absolute tripe. Huge blanket statements regarding the U.S. people and their lifestyle from people that have no basis for it in their experience.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Z!re on March 02, 2004, 07:53:00 PM
Seker359 could you answer or reply to anything instead of just keep saying the same thing over and over.

You are not even defending, you just say: You are wrong and I am right.


Quote from: "Seker359"
Huge blanket statements regarding the U.S. people and their lifestyle from people that have no basis for it in their experience.
I do not base my statements on propaganda or pull them out of thin air. I do indeed have experience of the US and their lifestyle, but I don't want to go into why and how, if you can't respect that then I'm done posting in this thread.


Title: death penalty
Post by: SJ Zero on March 02, 2004, 08:26:27 PM
Quote
Just out of curiosity was it the gun reference or the biting sarcasm in the 3rd world reference that so offended your delicate sensibilities?


If you haven't figured it out after 11 pages, I won't be able to make you understand now. Enjoy your discussion.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Agamemnus on March 02, 2004, 09:21:54 PM
Quote

... I do indeed have experience of the US and their lifestyle, but I don't want to go into why and how ...


That's fine. The thing is, see, you can't define "experience of the US and their lifestyle". The US is just like your country and just like any country: filled with a lot of paranoid delusional maniacs. The majority, though, know what's cooking, which is why inflammatory statements have never gotten anyone anywhere except to ruin.


Title: death penalty
Post by: SJ Zero on March 02, 2004, 09:23:32 PM
Or in Rick Mercers case, to a successful career in Television. :)


Title: death penalty
Post by: Seker359 on March 03, 2004, 12:22:49 PM
Quote from: "Z!re"
Seker359 could you answer or reply to anything instead of just keep saying the same thing over and over.


My focus during the last part of this thread was on the statements made about the U.S. culture. The people doing the critisizing seem to bounce between culture and government policy. Your last post appeared to be entirely about policy and since I usually agree with the statements about policy I have no reason to comment on them.

The reason I keep repeating myself is because no one seems to get it. If you don't live in a place then you don't know anything about the people, their attitudes, or lifestyles. To classify everyone as having a gun fetish or everyone has to compete against his neighbor is rubbish. Sure there's some of that in the U.S. but there's some of that in a lot of places.


Title: death penalty
Post by: na_th_an on March 03, 2004, 12:36:39 PM
I didn't mean to say that everyone loved guns in the U.S.A. (thanks god!) But many people do and it is legal: that's the problem. I don't like to generalize. Sometimes I do, pardon me. I stand corrected in those cases...

But that nipple issue you had some weeks ago... C'mon, people. A singer shows a nipple and the whole country goes haywire. I mean: there is some kind of permisive culture about violence (war outside the country is OK to protect the country (??); guns are needed; sometimes it's better to be a sportsman than a true student in college...), but people seem to be extra-protective when something has to do with sex (heh - not with sex, but with anatomy. The whole show had more sex involved before the nipple "accident" than on the accident itself). I think that a young child is way more impaired by his dad showing him how to hold a gun and how he must shoot another men rather than seeing a nipple, which is just a piece of darker skin that measures 1 square inch that is located in the chest of people.

I know that not 100% of people in the U.S.A. are this way (thanks god!) but if such a stupid event has caused so many problems that means something.


Title: death penalty
Post by: adosorken on March 03, 2004, 01:40:00 PM
[incitation_of_controversy]
The fact that violence is more accepted in the US than anything of a sexual nature is the direct result of the Christian infection.
[/incitation_of_controversy]

Sheesh, I can't believe you people are still debating this topic. :D


Title: death penalty
Post by: na_th_an on March 03, 2004, 02:01:47 PM
Lol...

Okay, let's move on. Another topic.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Seker359 on March 03, 2004, 02:52:56 PM
Quote from: "na_th_an"
A singer shows a nipple and the whole country goes haywire.


Actually that's a pretty good example of what I was saying about viewing things through the media filter. Almost no in the U.S. cared about that at all. But the media takes something and blows it up bigger than it's worth. And much of that is what gets projectd to other countries.


Title: death penalty
Post by: TheBigBasicQ on March 03, 2004, 03:38:47 PM
I agree, the media does blow up things out of proportion =(.

Nek: Dont insult any religion even if you disklike it very much. I disagree insulting any religion because the religion isnt bad but a few rogues give it a bad name.


Title: death penalty
Post by: na_th_an on March 03, 2004, 05:56:28 PM
Quote from: "Seker359"
Almost no in the U.S. cared about that at all.


Yeah, that's why Janet Jackson was banned from the grammies and that ceremony and the Oscars' were broadcast with a 5 minutes delay. That's what I call "don't care about it".


Title: death penalty
Post by: TheBigBasicQ on March 03, 2004, 05:58:34 PM
Quote from: "na_th_an"
Quote from: "Seker359"
Almost no in the U.S. cared about that at all.


Yeah, that's why Janet Jackson was banned from the grammies and that ceremony and the Oscars' were broadcast with a 5 minutes delay. That's what I call "don't care about it".


*psst nath*
It was a 5 second delay =P.


Title: death penalty
Post by: na_th_an on March 03, 2004, 05:59:31 PM
Who cares about how much time? that's not the point.


Title: death penalty
Post by: TheBigBasicQ on March 03, 2004, 06:02:16 PM
I wouldnt have had cared but there is a large difference between 5 seconds and 5 minutes =P.

Anyway I agree with the fact that the americans became hyper about it and take some really hasty decisions =(.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Seker359 on March 03, 2004, 06:21:16 PM
Quote from: "na_th_an"
Yeah, that's why Janet Jackson was banned from the grammies and that ceremony and the Oscars' were broadcast with a 5 minutes delay. That's what I call "don't care about it".


Media frenzy and corporate damage control. The average person on the street could care less.


Title: death penalty
Post by: SJ Zero on March 03, 2004, 07:32:27 PM
Quote from: "TheBigBasicQ"
I agree, the media does blow up things out of proportion =(.

Nek: Dont insult any religion even if you disklike it very much. I disagree insulting any religion because the religion isnt bad but a few rogues give it a bad name.


I think most people would insult the cult of SJ_Zero, worshipping the mighty and powerful SJ_Zero, though I don't know why. We've got everything a cult needs -- a divine man from the heavens to worship(The mighty and powerful SJ Zero), kool aid, rituals designed to subjugate you all to my will....

I think you should drop everything and join the cult of SJ_Zero. Otherwise you could spend eternity in Almac-nar, watching disney cartoons and being beaten by Jack Valenti while he laughs at how little you make. :D


Title: death penalty
Post by: SJ Zero on March 03, 2004, 07:33:42 PM
Quote from: "Seker359"
Quote from: "na_th_an"
Yeah, that's why Janet Jackson was banned from the grammies and that ceremony and the Oscars' were broadcast with a 5 minutes delay. That's what I call "don't care about it".


Media frenzy and corporate damage control. The average person on the street could care less.


Gonna let that Rick Mercer comment slide, eh? OK,

Vote Poutine! :)


Title: death penalty
Post by: Agamemnus on March 03, 2004, 09:30:19 PM
na_th_an, it's not alright if this thing was planned and no one told you about it. It's all about expectancy. If you were watching a show and you knew one of the singers would get part of her breast exposed, you wouldn't do this afterwards:

 :D  :oops:  :o  :-?  :???:  :normal:  :x  :evil:  :king:


Title: death penalty
Post by: na_th_an on March 03, 2004, 09:48:02 PM
I would have been...  :o  :P  :rotfl:  :bounce:  :king:  and then  :( ... The image just lasted a few seconds :(


Title: death penalty
Post by: adosorken on March 04, 2004, 09:14:36 AM
Quote from: "TheBigBasicQ"
Nek: Dont insult any religion even if you disklike it very much. I disagree insulting any religion because the religion isnt bad but a few rogues give it a bad name.

#1. I didn't insult any religions.

#2. I spoke the truth, regardless of how much it hurts.

#3. I did it for the express purpose of getting such a reaction, as noted by the [incitation_of_controversy] tags.

:D


Title: death penalty
Post by: RST on March 04, 2004, 01:19:12 PM
So did you want the controversy to be about violence being more accepted than sex, or about how you refered to Christianity as a "infection"? Maybe it's just me, but that seems to contradict your statement of "I didn't insult any religions".


Title: death penalty
Post by: na_th_an on March 04, 2004, 01:25:38 PM
He didn't insult any religions. He just said that Christianity has infected the society.


Title: death penalty
Post by: RST on March 04, 2004, 01:28:37 PM
In English, "Infected" is derogatory. But if no offfense was meant, than none was taken.  :wink:


Title: death penalty
Post by: adosorken on March 04, 2004, 03:24:03 PM
Quote from: "RST"
So did you want the controversy to be about violence being more accepted than sex, or about how you refered to Christianity as a "infection"? Maybe it's just me, but that seems to contradict your statement of "I didn't insult any religions".

Christianity is not a religion. Therefore, I did not insult a religion. In fact, an insult is generally accepted as a false statement intended to hurt someone. What I said wasn't false, so therefore it couldn't even be considered an insult. :D


Title: death penalty
Post by: SJ Zero on March 04, 2004, 07:11:27 PM
Quote from: "RST"
In English, "Infected" is derogatory. But if no offfense was meant, than none was taken.  :wink:


Not really. It's generally taken in a negative fashion, but there's nothing inherently derogatory about the word. After all, a laugh can be infectious, does that mean that you hate laughing?


Title: death penalty
Post by: RST on March 04, 2004, 10:03:41 PM
Heh. Point taken.

But regarding the comment about the US caring more about sex than violence.... I think you're right. It hadn't occured to me to think about it that way before, and it was kind of surprising.

But in the specific context of the Superbowl event, I think most of the problem was it wasn't expected. It's certainly understandable that parents would like to have control over what basically amounts to pornography.

If by violence you meant on TV, video games, etc. then perhaps one of the reasons why Americans think it's ok to watch people being killed but not nudity is that you know the killing isn't real, but porn is porn, regardless of whether you're seeing it on TV or in "real life".

If you meant violence as in actual crimes.... well, human nature, man. Violence is, unfortunatly, an everyday occurence; it's not like the media is going to report on every mugging or shooting. They wouldn't have time, and people would get bored of it. So what the media does report on as when something unexpected or interesting happens (e.g., the superbowl).

As others have mentioned, the stir the superbowl caused is more from the media's reaction, not the public's. While the two do influence eachother, there is a difference.[/b]


Title: death penalty
Post by: adosorken on March 04, 2004, 10:10:54 PM
Sex is also a natural element of humankind. In fact, it is the only constant in human existence. Nature in and of itself is very violent. Justice is a "human" concept, as is "fairness". Nature isn't fair, and nature isn't kind. So the fact that humans are violent is, as you stated, just the way humans are. However, humans are THE most sexual of all creatures on this planet. To show disregard and utter contempt for this basic human element which is the very essence of our survival as a race is just sheer idiocy.

The more civilized humans think they are...the more they stray from nature's laws.


Title: death penalty
Post by: Rhiannon on March 04, 2004, 10:22:03 PM
I found the whole thing utterly silly. Here's an article that expresses what adosorken and others were saying about violence versus sex:
http://www.msu.mcmaster.ca/sil/oped/030404making.html

Enjoy ;)

Edit: I saw a pic of Janet's breast when it was "exposed" and you cant even see her nipple considering she has a huge nipple shield on it which pierces the nipple. She's only exposing a tad more than what you would normally see at the beach. That is hardly porn. That's the same reason I was pissed off when nathan's "Jill" was classed as a "guilty pleasure" because it had artful and very tasteful nudity. There was nothing raunchy or pornographic about it.

Btw, only about 200,000 people complained, out of the 140 million that watched it. For all you non-math gurus, that's a .1%. I guess noone really gave a fuck huh? :roll:


Title: death penalty
Post by: na_th_an on March 04, 2004, 11:24:38 PM
Quote from: "RST"
[...] It's certainly understandable that parents would like to have control over what basically amounts to pornography.


Showing a nipple is pornography? IT'S JUST A BODY PART!

I've been seeing tits all my life (as every other normal child here) and I am not crazy or a raper!


Title: death penalty
Post by: Z!re on March 05, 2004, 06:36:07 AM
I'm not trying to say sweden is better or anything but.... we have commercials (for shows) feauturing naked guys and girls.

I fail to see what the big deal is, I mean it's not like a kid has never seen his/her parents naked. Is it?

I know I've seen my parents, if nothing else when we are at the beach. So whats the big deal?

I thibk that I have seen a "sexual" ("sexual" = nipple, but, penis, breast, aso.) body part atleast twice every year through my entire life.


On the other hand, learning a 5year old how to fire a gun is illegal (I think, not really sure, but it is not accepted)

Seeing a nipple on TV is an outrage? But firing a gun is ok?... Errr

Z!re fails to see the logic and in the attempt to grasp it his brain melts of overuse. *staring at random atom (which just happens to be the tip of a nipple), drooling*


Title: death penalty
Post by: SJ Zero on March 05, 2004, 02:23:09 PM
Quote from: "Rhiannon"
That's the same reason I was pissed off when nathan's "Jill" was classed as a "guilty pleasure" because it had artful and very tasteful nudity. There was nothing raunchy or pornographic about it.


Did you see my The Edge column in the latest qbxl3? I feel the exact same way.

'Course, I also got called immoral and amoral for my horrendous defense of the ideal that nobody should be attacked simply for saying a word, that political correctness and this built in prudishness is counter to the idea of growing up, leaving us as a society of children which is destroying us from the inside out...but meh... That's a topic for the next issue. :)


Title: death penalty
Post by: adosorken on March 05, 2004, 06:12:08 PM
If there's one thing I can't stand about the USA, it's the demonization of sex. It's a crippling factor, imo. One of the reasons I started up the Digital Satin Productions label was to contribute my own crack in the foundation of this "moral" mess. I can't stand the idiocy that people show for anything of a sexual nature. I hate living in a country where what is natural is shunned like a plague. "If you don't like it, then leave" doesn't solve the problem. "If you don't like it, don't just talk about it, do something about it" is what I did. :D

SJ, you're neither immoral nor amoral, you're simply not stupid, and that threatens people who would cling tightly to their own "moral values" which mean jack shyte in reality. I think that that whole thing over one word was a typical "I'm afraid of the big bad revolutionary" syndrome.

So in conclusion, let me offer this one blatant truth that everyone should know by now:

SEX IS NATURAL.

And words are just words. It's not the words that are said, it's the intentions behind those words. Anyone who can't figure that out by now is just plain stupid and a written-off moron.

Yeah...I got strong words for all you self-censors. :P


Title: death penalty
Post by: Agamemnus on March 05, 2004, 06:51:20 PM
http://forum.qbasicnews.com/viewtopic.php?t=5294&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=287


Title: death penalty
Post by: na_th_an on March 06, 2004, 12:58:48 AM
Quote from: "Agamemnus"
http://forum.qbasicnews.com/viewtopic.php?t=5294&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=287


What's this? some kind of neverending loop? :D

Btw, Clarita's upcoming game has to do with the matter of sex being a natural thing. Nek, count me in for the endeavour!


Title: death penalty
Post by: adosorken on March 06, 2004, 09:24:30 AM
I was wondering what was up with Clarita's new game, since we hadn't heard anything new about it in quite some time now, not since November...


Title: death penalty
Post by: na_th_an on March 06, 2004, 11:35:21 AM
It's going quite well. She's set up a wip page. Look at Qbasic.tk in the news section, there is a thread with a link to it and news.