BLOG PODCAST ARCHIVES LINKS

 

 

 

 

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

American Conservative Web Ring
Members List
Previous - Next
Random - Join
Previous 5 - Next 5

Site Meter

 

 

 

Powered by Blogger

 

Wednesday, March 08, 2006

What did you learn Today, Son?

Dangerous teachers. The topic has been discussed times before and brought to the news even today. No, I'm not talking about pedophiles; I'm talking about the teachers who cram their views down their students throat. These aren't just any views though. It's one thing to hear a teacher praise the Lifetime channel; it's quite another when they dilute their students minds with bigoted political views. What do I mean by this, is it that I am intolerant of different opinions? Not quite the case. When you turn opinion into fact in front of a class you are destroying a students chance to make up their own mind, because every day we've been told that the teacher is always right, and to disagree is a big no no. Me, I'm well-informed politically, but that doesn't mean the rest of the class is, no matter how old they are! There will always be students that will take every word in and believe it. To me, I think political rantings carefully inserted into class lectures is just a low way to ensure more votes toward your way, even more low than the big scary corporations. What's next I ask myself? Are we going to let illegal immigrants vote? Then I remember how that's already in talks.

Maybe some of you aren't concerned about this problem, and it's probably because you grew up when schools were good. Back in the day you had the three R's. Reading Writing and Arithmetic. Now in schools, we have the three C's. Condoms, Communism, and Carter. I'm sure you got a laugh out of that, but the sad thing is, is that it's true, only it gets worse the deeper we go. In the news you'll hear the occasional story about a wacky teacher who defecated on a student in the name of art or someone actually likes Hillary Clinton, but even though the media reports on the subject rarely, it doesn't mean it doesn't happen often, because it does happen often.

At this point I'm going to bring in some personal stories about experiences I've had with crazy teachers just to show that even in a high school within a large forest (some people call the place Maine) you can find some of the craziest people. First I'll start with religion. I'm starting with this one because it is part of the school curriculum, not a teachers ranting. In my first year in high school we learned about the religion of peace, Islam. Not for a lesson, not for a week, try a little less than a month. During this month we got really in depth into how Islam works. The five pillars, Muhammad, all of it. You can quiz me. After that month I learned more about Islam than I have ever known about Christianity. You can find more about that teacher here. Fast forward a year. I'm in class and we're discussing the controversy of "under God" in the pledge of allegiance and the so called separation of church and state "rule". During the discussion I could easily tell which side the teacher was on, and how ironic is it that later in the year we learned about Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism. But "under God" has no place in school. Finally, when I realized that two religions had been left out I figured out what they really meant by separation of church and state. It's really separation of Christianity and Judaism from state. How clever.

It's one thing when a teacher makes a little Republican joke, or has a private conversation with me about politics, but sometimes it goes too far. I'll tell the story as accurately as I can remember.

I get to school at 7:15 in the morning; there are a good 15 minutes of social time before the first period starts. During this time I converse with my good friend Robby Miller (aka Darksaturos) and he explains to me how his French teacher doesn't want him to make fun of Osama Bin Laden. For that occasion I changed my AIM avatar to the Muhammad cartoon. After a session of mocking some of the comments made on our blogs the bell rang and it was time for the first period. For me it is a study hall in which I have access to computers. During this time I read the some of my favorite blogs (Raving Conservative, Gayle's Friday evening post, America Under Attack, Eye of the Storm, In the Pines, But I can hear You, and a few others). When the period ends it's off to period 2, another study hall (I'm making up for it next year with every period filled). I sit down at a table with two of my friends, one being a big Liberal. Me and the Liberal began to talk politics and I talked to him about how I was boycotting Bill O'Reilly because he's for the Dubai ports deal. Of course my other friend completely ruins the conversation by talking about some gay porn he accidentally found. Trying to stay political I asked him if he meant he stumbled in to a theater showing Broke Back Mountain. After a good laugh my friend continued on about the ports deal saying how he doesn't think any Arab should run our ports. I'm against the deal because of a criminal history and the Liberal is racially profiling! Soon after the topic swayed, into a discussion of Communism. My friend, who is an open supporter of it explained himself. He started out with the usual big evil corporation argument to put down capitalism, and then followed by saying how many poor people Capitalism creates. I replied by stating how 1 out of every 5 people in the entire world is a Chinese peasant. Knowing he couldn't win with that strategy, he swiftly moved from bashing Capitalism, to defending Communism. But before he could say the word "sharing", my other friend interrupted with more sexual comments that I don't even want to write down. We soon got back to the discussion and he explained how he thought it was both a good economic and social system. First I debunked the economic part. I told him how in Communism businesses are state owned so there is no competition and therefore no improvement in the product, leaving the consumer with an expensive piece of junk. But that's not the worst of it, personal economic freedom is very limited and I told him I wasn't even sure if there was a Chinese word for profit. I then explained to him how Communism being for the workers is about as accurate as calling Islam the religion of peace. From there, my other friend took hold of the conversation and you don't want to know where it went. The bell rang and it was now time for period three, an actual class this time. During the class I logged on to the internet and tried to go to a site called newgrounds but it was censored by the schools web-blockers. I loudly said, "How dare those Commies censor the internet."
That comment grabbed some attention. The person next to me, who is abnormally hairy, and possibly even resembles Karl Marx himself, turns toward me and says "Communism isn't really that bad you know,"
"What do you mean, they're keeping me of newgrounds!" I replied.
"Yeah, but I mean, everything is fair and--,"
I angrily interrupted him "You know, you are the second guy to defend Communism in front of me today!"
Saying it a little loudly I got the attention of a classmate from across the room who took my side saying it's a failed system. I thanked him. At this point my angry ranting had gained the teachers interest. He said something like this, "Why does everyone jump to hating Communism?"
"Because it's bad," I replied.
"But I think you're simplifying something so complicated. I don't think you know enough about it to be talking about it like that."
Defiantly I said, "yes I do."
At this point the entire class had turned their heads, and some even pulled their chairs in as if they were going to start chanting "fight, fight, fight,"
"Okay," he said. "Explain Communism,"
Without any hesitation I explained the system and what it looks like in Communist countries. Surprised I knew what I was talking about, the teacher went into defense mode and asked me "what are you basing that information from?"
I said, "From what is really happening in countries like China and North Korea,"
He then repeated "But you're simplifying it."
"Not even the workers that Communism is supposed to be for, like Communism."
"How do you know?"
"That's why so many people try to escape Cuba,"
"I don't know if you can make these arguments if you don't know what Communism really is, it's more complicated than that, have you read Marx's stuff?"
"I know what it is, and I have studied Marxism too,"
"So you think Communism has all these problems, but Capitalism has problems too,"
"No doubt, but much, much less. Besides, I think you are simplifying such a complicated issue,"
"But what's so bad about Communism? It works doesn't it?"
"Well, I guess that depends on your meaning of "works", because when I see a group of people being deprived of food, freedom, and even life, I wouldn't say it works, and I wouldn't say the people like it either,"
"But again, what are you basing this on?"
"What's really happening in Communist countries. In North Korea the people have very little food, very little freedom, and free tickets to public hangings."
Everyone in the classroom had been closely watching as I took on the Communist sympathizing teacher. At this point a classmate said to the teacher
"Geez, you get fired up about this,"
The teacher replied, "I do get fired up when people simplify a complicated issue."
After that he left the room. I thought, how typical for a left-winger. When you're losing, drop an insult and then leave. Maybe, I thought, I would soon have enough extremist teachers to be able to make a school teacher black-list.

This happened to me just yesterday, and I tell the story for a reason. It would be one thing for a teacher like this to debate with me about Communism privately, but in front of the class there is a problem. Uninformed classmates will hear the discussion and automatically side with the teacher because he's a teacher and he must know more than any student. Don't tell me a teachers' discussions have no impact on their students, remember, I talked to two Communist students in one day. Because of this teacher and other extremist teachers, students will grow up with dangerous ideologies. Of course the Liberal elites will just tell you they are only trying to get you to think. That's baloney. The only thing these Liberals and Commies are trying to do is change your opinion, and if you disagree, you don't know what you're talking about. I also tell this story to show how a teacher this radical can be found in even some of the smallest places. I wouldn't be surprised if there were at least one case like this in every high school and college in America. Every day students are being brainwashed into believing radical agendas, and in 40 years when our president sells nukes to Hugo Chavez, you'll know why.

111 Comments:

  • At 8/3/06 11:26 PM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    Before you can stand up for any type of issue, you need to put your MASSIVE ego aside.

    What you know of communism, and you have said it yourself, is how it has worked in other countries. If you truly understood the communist system, you would be able to admit that it is brilliant in theory but does, indeed, fail when put into practice. You would not feel the need to "show up" your teachers to make yourself look good and it would create a much happier situation.

    Also, schools don't block websites because they're "commies," they block them because there is a lot of harmful material on the internet and clearly your friend and his porn are a good example of that.

    Have you SEEN Brokeback Mountain? Probably not, because I would assume you are a homophobe, and it's fairly tacky to make jokes about a movie you are too afraid to see.

     
  • At 9/3/06 12:04 AM, Blogger Joe Zombie said…

    Allsoni,
    You have got to understand that political opinions cannot be expressed in the classroom. Soros and Murdoch are not principles at my school. No. They should stick to doing the "news," and stay out of the classroom.

    My history teacher is a big time conservative. We watch his half hour video of the week from Fox News every Friday. Then he goes on a fifteen minute rant. HISTORY Mr. Healy. Not political debate. My teachers political views are pushing me away from being his party. These teachers are getting out of hand.

     
  • At 9/3/06 12:22 AM, Blogger Joe Zombie said…

    a member of
    please put this in its rightful place above

     
  • At 9/3/06 6:15 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    "Before you can stand up for any type of issue, you need to put your MASSIVE ego aside."

    I don't get it, are you angry because I know how to debate?

    "What you know of communism, and you have said it yourself, is how it has worked in other countries. If you truly understood the communist system, you would be able to admit that it is brilliant in theory but does, indeed, fail when put into practice."

    The teacher mentioned that at some point and I told him it was too complicated and unrealistic to be able to work in any country, then he again accused me of not knowing what I was talking about.

    "You would not feel the need to "show up" your teachers to make yourself look good and it would create a much happier situation."

    When a teacher stands up for Communism in a class, you bet I'll say something.

    "Also, schools don't block websites because they're "commies," they block them because there is a lot of harmful material on the internet and clearly your friend and his porn are a good example of that."

    It was really just a joke. But you know, in China they really do censor web-sites they don't think the people should see.

    "Have you SEEN Brokeback Mountain?"

    Are you kidding? The only people who watch that movie are teenage girls and old women, I'm neither.

    "Probably not, because I would assume you are a homophobe, and it's fairly tacky to make jokes about a movie you are too afraid to see."

    Getting a little moody allisoni, did I offend you? I didn't know there were actually any gay cowboys reading my blog...

    But seriously, I'm not homophobic. In fact my Liberal buddy was complaining more about the movie than I was.

     
  • At 9/3/06 8:09 AM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    School policies across the country state that teachers my state their political opinion as long as they make it clear that it is opinion and that they allow forum for discussion of other views. If teachers are not going to make kids think about and form opinions, I'm not sure who is.

    No, I am not upset that you "know how to debate." I'm upset that you don't, yet still brag about in on your blog.

    My point still holds strong that it's tacky to make jokes about a movie you are too afraid to see.
    Don't like when old women laugh at you for being in the same theater? You could probably sit by one of the grown meen who have seen it and would gladly go again.

     
  • At 9/3/06 8:25 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    "School policies across the country state that teachers my state their political opinion as long as they make it clear that it is opinion and that they allow forum for discussion of other views. If teachers are not going to make kids think about and form opinions, I'm not sure who is."

    I'm sure what he's doing is perfectly legal, but do you seriously think he SHOULD be doing this kind of thing? As I said, kids are turning into Commies because of people like this. But my guess is that you would like to defend Communism too, right?

    "No, I am not upset that you "know how to debate." I'm upset that you don't, yet still brag about in on your blog."

    Well I'm glad you know more about me than me.

    "My point still holds strong that it's tacky to make jokes about a movie you are too afraid to see.
    Don't like when old women laugh at you for being in the same theater? You could probably sit by one of the grown meen who have seen it and would gladly go again."


    I'm not "scared" of the movie, I just find it repulsive, isn't that normal allisoni? Or have you become too PC to realize that?

     
  • At 9/3/06 11:57 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    It's actually scary in a way that after the USSR people can actually defend Comunism. People think it's fair huh? Well then maybe they should read. The USSR discriminated against both Jews and blacks. Not the people mind you, the government itself. Anyway, I'll comment more later, I'm on a school computer (one of them cesored ones!) so I'll have more flexibility later today on my laptop.

     
  • At 9/3/06 12:00 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    You would not feel the need to "show up" your teachers to make yourself look good

    Oh so now standing up for your beliefs is making yourself look good? Do you know how much I get teased for standing up for my beliefs by classmates who don't understand politics? Believe me, it doesn't make me "look good" to the class. I just have this little thing called honor which tells me to stand up for what I think is right whether it looks good or bad. Sorry.

     
  • At 9/3/06 12:59 PM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    Your little one line responses are not presenting any sort of defense, I hope you know.

    How are kids turning into "commies" because of people like this? Teachers are people too and have every right and responsibility to voice their opinion. Notice that you chose to argue with this teacher, so he wasn't solely preaching his thoughts about communism. There is also very much truth in the statement about simplifying something so complicated.

    Being politcally correct has nothing at all to do with the argument you used it in. I am saying nothing about how you should feel about gay people. I am saying that if you are going to slam a movie you should probably go see it first. Last time I checked, LOVE wasn't repulsive, and I know for a fact that Brokeback Mountain is an extrremely moving love story.

     
  • At 9/3/06 2:36 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    You would not feel the need to "show up" your teachers to make yourself look good and it would create a much happier situation.

    You would do that would you? Would your really not comment on something you believed in just to have harmony. Well I'm sorry but I prefer what's right over what's harmonious. I will stand up for my beliefs whether it causes uproar or not.

    it's tacky to make jokes about a movie you are too afraid to see.

    Why? The premise is pretty well known. I mean come on, is there a single person who doesn't know what it's about? And besides just because someone doesn't WANT to see it doesn't mean they're afraid to. It might mean they have some morals, or is having morals mean these days? Sorry if I'm supposed to like seeing scenes like those shown in the movie, but I don't. I don't even want to see that done the normal way okay? What makes it right to show that just because it's not commonly accepted by society? It's not about whether the people involved are gay or not, I just don't want to see ANYONE doing that onscreen. Maybe you do, that's fine, but I don't have to or want to know about it, so why has Hollywood got to keep pushing it on everyone else?

     
  • At 9/3/06 3:32 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    "How are kids turning into "commies" because of people like this?"

    I thought I explained that in the article.

    "Teachers are people too and have every right and responsibility to voice their opinion."

    No, they have the right and responsibility to teach. Giving personal opinions without showing both sides is not how schools are supposed to work.

    "Notice that you chose to argue with this teacher, so he wasn't solely preaching his thoughts about communism."

    If you remember, he spoke to me first, and again it wasn't private, the whole class was listening to him defend Communism.

    "There is also very much truth in the statement about simplifying something so complicated."

    Okay, it's more complicated, but that doesn't mean it gets any better than what I said, only worse.

    I'm a little concerned how you like to side with a Commie instead of a Capitalist, is it because I'm a Conservative? If so, you're no better than that scumbag, w-dervish.

    "Last time I checked, LOVE wasn't repulsive"

    You're missing the point. As a straight person I find gay love repulsive, don't spin my statements.

     
  • At 9/3/06 4:45 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    How are kids turning into "commies" because of people like this?

    Er, well since he's mentioned two of them in one day alone... That's a lot of commies for the USA. Where do you think they come from?

    "Last time I checked, LOVE wasn't repulsive"

    There's a huge difference between love and the gratutiuos things they show on movies, straight or not. There is no need for it and it is repulsive in my opinion. I'm not arguing the gay part okay? I'm arguing about the sexual parts in ANY movie, which I find repulsive. I mean really Allosoni, do you really need those parts? Not only is it repulsive, it's also irrelevent.

     
  • At 9/3/06 5:41 PM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    If students are TAUGHT what to believe, how will they know how to have their own opinion? Someone saying how they feel is in no way instructing anyone else to agree with them. A teacher who has studied something as complex as communism at a college level has every right to tell you that your insults may be misplaced. Not only that, but if you so firmly believed that you were the right one in this situation, you wouldn't have posted it on your blog so that you could see who else would praise you. Often times I don't fit the norm in my opinions and beliefs about certain things but I stand up for myself every day and don't need reinforcement from anyone else to know that it was the right thing to do.

    Also, I find it absolutely absurd that any high school boy wants nothing to do with "sex scenes" in a movie. It's no use lying, because your age and gender give you away.

     
  • At 9/3/06 5:44 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    I take it you aren't a big 007 fan, am I right Robby?

    Anyways, I think you should try to get Spencer to start up a blog, if his Mac can handle it that is. What is he by the way, Liberal or Conservative?

     
  • At 9/3/06 5:58 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    You're still missing my point allisoni. Uninformed people don't have their own opinion and they'll usually adopt one based on the teacher's.

    "If students are TAUGHT what to believe, how will they know how to have their own opinion?"

    I din't say they should be taught what to believe, I said they should be taught cold hard facts not opinion. Leave the choice of opinion up to the students. This really isn't that hard of logic, especially for someone who is in school. But again, it's all just political. If there was a strong Conservative teaching your class and putting his opinions in a facts during a lecture you'd have a cow too, but since it's a Commie we're talking about you have no problem whatsoever. So, since you like being the Communism cheerleader, go on, tell me why it's so great, tell me what I've missed. And I'm talking about Communism, not Marxism, don't make the same mistake my teacher did. I was talking about Communism and he told me to base my reasoning on Marx's teachings. I never brought up his ideals, I was talking about what Communsim is right now on this planet. So go on, why is it such a good system. I'd love to listen to another Liberal elitist who thinks they know everything, and everyone else knows nothing.

     
  • At 9/3/06 6:02 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Cody O'Connor said... I'm a little concerned how you like to side with a Commie instead of a Capitalist, is it because I'm a Conservative? If so, you're no better than that scumbag, w-dervish.

    I wasn't even going to resond to this thread. I read a couple of paragraphs of what you wrote, then decided I didn't give a damn about this fantasy of yours in which you are the intelligent thinking man's hero standing up to the Liberal Communist authority figure (and kicking ass -- figuratively).

    I only decided to read any of the comments after I saw that the first poster was Allisoni Balloni.
    Hers was a very intelligent post, as ususal.

    The attacks from Cody and Robby were to be expected. The attack on me surprised me a little, since I wasn't involved in this conversation. But then I remembered that this has happened before... Even on other message boards where I have never posted! I don't recall specifically if Cody did it, but I do remember Gayle badmouthing me everywhere after she "banned" me from her blog.

    If Liberals are so irrelevant, why the obsession concerning everything we say? I find it inordinately creepy.

    Cody O'Connor said... students will grow up with dangerous ideologies.

    Republicanism? I thought your teachers were trying to turn their students commie.

    Of course the Liberal elites will just tell you they are only trying to get you to think. That's baloney.

    A high school teacher is a "liberal elite"?! As for seriously thinking about any ideology other than your own -- of course that's baloney! You don't want any impure thoughts clouding your judgement!

    Cody O'Connor said... The only thing these Liberals and Commies are trying to do is change your opinion, and if you disagree, you don't know what you're talking about.

    In your case I'd have to agree. BTW Liberalism and Communism are not synonymous.

    Liberalism: A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.

    Communism: A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

    (definitions From Dictionary.com, the site that Robby abhors)

    Believing in the "autonomy of the individual" is at odds with the idea behind communism... do you disagree?

    I think your teacher was defending the basic principle behind communism, not communism as it has been practiced by governments like Russia, China or Cuba.

    RIP Joe said... My history teacher is a big time conservative. We watch his half hour video of the week from Fox News every Friday. Then he goes on a fifteen minute rant. HISTORY Mr. Healy. Not political debate.

    You make a good point. I'd definately complain about this guy to the principal -- and the school board if necessary.

    Cody O'Connor said... When you're losing, drop an insult and then leave.

    What was he supposed to do? Continue a heated arguement with a STUDENT? These are the kind of situations that can get teachers suspended or fired. That probably would have made you happy -- getting your teacher fired. He was smart to walk away. If he had any experience with you in the past he probably realized that it was pointless to argue with you.

    BTW I haven't left... although I am surprised that you still let me post here -- someone you f**king hate.

     
  • At 9/3/06 8:07 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    If students are TAUGHT what to believe, how will they know how to have their own opinion? Someone saying how they feel is in no way instructing anyone else to agree with them. A teacher who has studied something as complex as communism at a college level has every right to tell you that your insults may be misplaced.

    Allosoni, you have to get over this delusion that teachers know everything. They don't. Some are wrong, others are right. Communism does not work, has never worked, will never work. You don't need to go to college to understand that. You just have to look at history.

    Not only that, but if you so firmly believed that you were the right one in this situation, you wouldn't have posted it on your blog so that you could see who else would praise you.

    Again, it's not about praise, it's about standing up for your beliefs.

    Also, I find it absolutely absurd that any high school boy wants nothing to do with "sex scenes" in a movie. It's no use lying, because your age and gender give you away.

    Wow what a sexist you are. I thought you were supposed to be one of those open-minded liberals. What because I'm 15 and a boy I'm immoral? Sorry, but everything I've said so far has been true. Scenes like that repulse me and I find them uneccesary, just a fact. If you're too much of a sexist to accept it that's fine, I can live with that.

    I take it you aren't a big 007 fan, am I right Robby?


    Not seen one of those movies, no. It wouldn't matter really though, my arguement is stil the same. Those are uneccesary scenes.

    Anyways, I think you should try to get Spencer to start up a blog, if his Mac can handle it that is. What is he by the way, Liberal or Conservative?


    He's a moderate liberal.

    I only decided to read any of the comments after I saw that the first poster was Allisoni Balloni.
    Hers was a very intelligent post, as ususal.


    Usually yes, you could take a lesson there. She never accused Cody of lying or called him stupid.

    The attacks from Cody and Robby were to be expected.

    Attacks? Show me where I "attacked" some one please.

    Cody O'Connor said... students will grow up with dangerous ideologies.

    Republicanism? I thought your teachers were trying to turn their students commie.


    Wow, that's pretty childish dervish.

    In your case I'd have to agree. BTW Liberalism and Communism are not synonymous.

    No one here said they were.

    (definitions From Dictionary.com, the site that Robby abhors)

    You're pretty pathetic to stoop to that kind of crap you know.

    RIP Joe said... My history teacher is a big time conservative. We watch his half hour video of the week from Fox News every Friday. Then he goes on a fifteen minute rant. HISTORY Mr. Healy. Not political debate.

    You make a good point. I'd definately complain about this guy to the principal -- and the school board if necessary.


    Wait, you wouldn't complain about a liberal teacher but you would about a conservative? That's VERY narrow minded of you.

    BTW I haven't left... although I am surprised that you still let me post here -- someone you f**king hate.

    I wouldn't push your luck my friend.

    It's obvious you came here simply to disrupt. I'm not going to argue with you. I will however debate with all others who wish to do so in a mature, reasonable, sensible and consistent manner.

     
  • At 9/3/06 8:14 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    RIP Joe said...
    "My history teacher is a big time conservative. We watch his half hour video of the week from Fox News every Friday. Then he goes on a fifteen minute rant. HISTORY Mr. Healy. Not political debate."

    w-dervish said
    "You make a good point. I'd definately complain about this guy to the principal -- and the school board if necessary."

    I knew this was coming. It's one thing for a Liberal teacher to speak out in their class but if they're a Conservative it's quite another. I knew you and people like allisoni were only being political. You don't really care about the education of kids at school, as long as they turn out to be Democrats. I find that more repulsive than I do Brokeback Mountain.

    w-dervish said...
    "BTW Liberalism and Communism are not synonymous."

    I knew that.

    "I only decided to read any of the comments after I saw that the first poster was Allisoni Balloni.
    Hers was a very intelligent post, as ususal."


    So a short comment that does little more than insult me is intelligent, whilst a thought out article that took three hours to write is something to be dismissed as a little fantasy? Again you disgust me. Just because we are in different political parties you have to put me down even when I'm going against Communism! Find, defend Communism for all I care, it'll make your precious Democratic party look just great. Keep up the good work dervish, the more you speak the better chance the GOP has at winning seats in the '06 elections.

    "BTW I haven't left"

    That's too bad. I guess I'll have to save the cake for another occasion...

     
  • At 9/3/06 8:21 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    "I think your teacher was defending the basic principle behind communism, not communism as it has been practiced by governments like Russia, China or Cuba."

    Yes, I started by talking about Communism (as he asked me to) and he slyly changed it into Marxism because it's easier to defend.

     
  • At 9/3/06 9:24 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    I find that more repulsive than I do Brokeback Mountain.

    "BTW I haven't left"

    That's too bad. I guess I'll have to save the cake for another occasion...


    Okay, regardless of political parties you have to admit, those were pretty funny.

     
  • At 9/3/06 9:31 PM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    It took you THREE HOURS to write that?

    I may have said this before, but I have several close close friends who are Conservative, and the biggest difference between them and myself is that they take everything so personally when it comes to their political beliefs. Certainly when someone gets preachy and I disagree with them it may upset me a little ,but I am content with my own values and don't have to start something with them. That is very much not the case with my Conservative friends--they get heated and take everything so personally, as if COMMUNISM actually had ANY EFFECT WHATSOEVER on their everyday life. That, to me, is being close-minded--the inability to quietly observe the opinions of others rather than bashing them for thinking differently.

     
  • At 9/3/06 11:34 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Cody O'Connor said... I knew this was coming. It's one thing for a Liberal teacher to speak out in their class but if they're a Conservative it's quite another. I knew you and people like allisoni were only being political. ...I find that more repulsive than I do Brokeback Mountain.

    Well, you "knew" wrong. The point he was making -- at least the point I thought he was making -- was that if you don't like a conservative teacher preaching his ideals -- and don't think it should be allowed -- then a liberal teacher preaching his ideals should also not be allowed. You'll notice that I AGREED.

    I don't know why you and robby are making such a big deal about Brokeback Mountain. This is a free country right? And yet you want to, I presume, make such movies illegal -- or at least support staging protests against them. The movie, which cost 14 million to make grossed 42.1 million in the first seven weeks of release (according to a San Francisco Chronicle article) -- It's called Capitalism. I thought you were all for it? Hollywood isn't trying to push anything on you. Movies are made for a specific audience you know -- They weren't targeting people like you with this movie!

    Cody O'Connor said... Fine, defend Communism for all I care...

    Why should I? Because I think it's great? I think the United States should become a Communist Nation? And I think that because I'm a Liberal? I pointed out that Liberalism and Communism and NOT the same -- you said "No one here said they were". Yet you keep implying that Liberals admire Communism...

    I noticed that in your story that your teacher NEVER expressed his personal views on Communism, yet you jump to the conclusion that he IS a communist. There is a difference between defending communism as an idea (not bad) and defending it as it has been implemented by totalitarian Governments (bad).

    Cody O'Connor said... It's obvious you came here simply to disrupt. I'm not going to argue with you. I will however debate with all others who wish to do so in a mature, reasonable, sensible and consistent manner.

    Is that what you call ALWAYS jumping to conclusions about Democrats?

     
  • At 9/3/06 11:53 PM, Blogger Sol Kauffman said…

    Guys, from what I saw in Cody's description, he made a joke about communist censorship (which I probably would have laughed at, knowing it was a joke and that it does happen a lot in China). Now, most of us are high schoolers here, we know that teachers have to stop people who make stereotypes or hateful statements-clearly this teacher saw Cody's joke as a shot at communism. It's possible that he wasn't even a big proponent of communism (although he did talk about it later) but that he felt he needed to show the good sides of it.

    Usually, people are offended when someone says something that could be considered hateful. I'm sure Cody would angrily defend Republican beliefs if I said something like "Oh, that Bush and stealing elections", and that's obviously because he believes that statement to be untrue and libelous. This teacher probably believed that communism wasn't the worst thing ever and that using it in a derogatory general fashion would give a bad impression to the class.

    I agree fully with the issue of people who cannot make decisions for themselves-I know a lot of people my age who are either Liberal or Conservative but cannot back up any of their arguments and have their whole opinions based on the beliefs of their parents or teacher or friends etc. However for our age group it doesn't really matter-people's political affiliations change with age, and you can't vote till you're 18 (right?) anyway. Besides, if they're dumb enough to take someone's opinon as fact, it's likely they'll be too lazy or uncaring to vote.

    Can we keep the personal shots and homojokes to a minimum please guys? I like the conversations on here and don't want to see them ruined.

     
  • At 10/3/06 6:34 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    Sol Kauffman said...
    "Now, most of us are high schoolers here, we know that teachers have to stop people who make stereotypes or hateful statements-clearly this teacher saw Cody's joke as a shot at communism. It's possible that he wasn't even a big proponent of communism (although he did talk about it later) but that he felt he needed to show the good sides of it."

    Well, being that it was a computer based class, not History his reasons for showing an alternative view couldn't have been for the classes benefit. Probably just because he wanted to shoot me down. Regardless, from what he said I probably wouldn't call him an all out Communist, but definetly a Communist sympathizer.

    "Usually, people are offended when someone says something that could be considered hateful. I'm sure Cody would angrily defend Republican beliefs if I said something like "Oh, that Bush and stealing elections", and that's obviously because he believes that statement to be untrue and libelous. This teacher probably believed that communism wasn't the worst thing ever and that using it in a derogatory general fashion would give a bad impression to the class."

    Of course I hate it when people put down Bush, (with the exception of this port deal, which is finally over with by the way) and I usually say something when I hear it, but I don't have the responsibility of being a teacher who is supposed to be balanced when they teach.

    "I agree fully with the issue of people who cannot make decisions for themselves-I know a lot of people my age who are either Liberal or Conservative but cannot back up any of their arguments and have their whole opinions based on the beliefs of their parents or teacher or friends etc. However for our age group it doesn't really matter-people's political affiliations change with age, and you can't vote till you're 18 (right?) anyway. Besides, if they're dumb enough to take someone's opinon as fact, it's likely they'll be too lazy or uncaring to vote."

    Okay, you make a good point there Mr. Kauffman. Kids who are uninformed are wishy washy on their opinions and they can usually change, I'll give you that one. But I still am under the impression when a student has to chose whether to believe another student or a teacher, they'll usually pick the teacher. That's just how I see it, and like your comment, there's really no statistical way to prove it.

    "Can we keep the personal shots and homojokes to a minimum please guys? I like the conversations on here and don't want to see them ruined."

    That I can do.

    w-dervish said...
    "You'll notice that I AGREED."

    You really didn't come off that way...

    "Yet you keep implying that Liberals admire Communism..."

    Because a Liberals that I know personally, admire Communism, and many others seem to defend it. I'm not saying all Liberals are Commies, though, that would be rediulous, I'm just concerned how many actually ARE Commies.

    "I don't know why you and robby are making such a big deal about Brokeback Mountain. This is a free country right? It's called Capitalism. I thought you were all for it? Hollywood isn't trying to push anything on you."

    I have no economical problem with this movie. If a gay porno is making tons of money, more power to them. I don't have a problem with the movie like that. I do however, have a moral problem with the movie. I'm not saying it should be illegal, I'm only saying I think it's immoral and disgusting.

     
  • At 10/3/06 2:48 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    It took you THREE HOURS to write that?


    It's called planning, editing, checking, thinking. Maybe liberal bloggers don't do all that, maybe they just hammer it our when they're pissed off. That's what most of the comments seem to point to anyway.

    I may have said this before, but I have several close close friends who are Conservative, and the biggest difference between them and myself is that they take everything so personally when it comes to their political beliefs.

    I explained this already. Why is it so negative to stand up for one's beliefs? I don't see how that's bad at all.

    as if COMMUNISM actually had ANY EFFECT WHATSOEVER on their everyday life.

    Maybe you should read more. Ever heard of a country called North Korea? How about China?

    Cody O'Connor said... It's obvious you came here simply to disrupt. I'm not going to argue with you. I will however debate with all others who wish to do so in a mature, reasonable, sensible and consistent manner.

    Is that what you call ALWAYS jumping to conclusions about Democrats?


    First of all I wrote that, give me some credit. Second of all I don't argue with people who say the following:

    Making sure that the rich get richer is the only thing that matters to bush. EVERYTHING he does is with that goal in mind! EVERYTHING.

    You really think that allosoni? How about this one?

    What the hell are you talking about? I don't know why I'm wasting my time replying to your posts.

    Oh but I'm the one being unreasonable right? It gets better.

    Nobody could possibly be as stupid as you pretend to be.

    Isn't dervish just a wonderful human being? Don't you feel so proud defending him now? Let's see what else we got from the noble and polite dervish!

    THAT'S WHY DEMOCRATS ARE SO MAD. You should be too.

    Well of course we should all have the same opinion! That's very open minded!

    What a sad, pathetic loser you will be then.

    Yeeeeah. Dervish is a GREAT guy! Well Allosoni I'm glad we have people like you to defend poor little people like him whom mean conservatives like to abuse!

    Yeah right. Get real. The guy's an asshole. I don't care what party he's on, I refuse to debate with someone who consistently calls me stupid. It has nothing to do with whether he's a liberal or not, end of issue, I will not be arguing about or with dervish at any point during this post.

    I'm not saying it should be illegal, I'm only saying I think it's immoral and disgusting.

    That's my view on it as well. I'm not sure why it's a bad thing to have morals these days. I guess it's not politically correct. Oh well.

     
  • At 10/3/06 4:41 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... Yeah right. Get real. The guy's an asshole. I don't care what party he's on, I refuse to debate with someone who consistently calls me stupid. It has nothing to do with whether he's a liberal or not, end of issue, I will not be arguing about or with dervish at any point during this post.

    First of all, you're taking most of my quotes out of context. Second, I'd say YOU'RE the asshole. Two reasons (among many) -- You deliberately misrepresent what I say, and you write replys that attempt to "trap" me and thus "prove" liberals react emotionally instead of rationally like Republicans.

    That's debating?!

    FYI, I consistently call you stupid because you consistently say stupid things. Example: In the previous thread you insisted that the UN isn't mentioned in Article VI of the Constitution.

    From the VERY beginning of the argument I made it CLEAR that article VI of the Constitution concerned treaties, and that the UN charter was a treaty! Yet in post after post you attempt to "prove" me wrong by each time saying something progressively stupider. First you say that International law didn't exist when the constitution was written. Then you do a total reveral and say yes it did, and not only that but you know more about it than me! And on and on and on -- one stupid argument after another.

    I'm not sure why it's a bad thing to have morals these days. I guess it's not politically correct. Oh well.

    In your mind hating a group of people for no reason is "having morals"?! That you find their lifestyle "disgusting" isn't a reason. By that reasoning I guess that hating poor people because they're "lazy" is also moralistic.

    Cody Said... I'm not saying it should be illegal, I'm only saying I think it's immoral and disgusting.

    Now if I disagree with this nonsense you'll say you base your argument on the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality -- but that's just another Republican lie. Personally, I think bush Republicans are immoral and disgusting.

    Cody Said... Well, being that it was a computer based class, not History his reasons for showing an alternative view couldn't have been for the classes benefit. Probably just because he wanted to shoot me down. Regardless, from what he said I probably wouldn't call him an all out Communist, but definetly a Communist sympathizer.

    I doubt it. Communisim, as it has been implemented by totalitarian Governments, has a terrible track record -- as you pointed out to your teacher. But I don't know how anyone could defend the evil perpetrated by Communist Governments like the USSR, China and Cuba.

    Cody Said... Of course I hate it when people put down Bush, (with the exception of this port deal, which is finally over with by the way) and I usually say something when I hear it.

    Just one exception? What about the borders issue? What about the nuclear deal bush made with India recently? A deal when we provide them with nuclear technology but they don't have to open all their facilities to inspections? You think that's a wise move?!

    From USA Today: Reversing decades of U.S. policy, President Bush ushered India into the world's exclusive nuclear club Thursday with a landmark agreement to share nuclear reactors, fuel and expertise with this energy-starved nation in return for its acceptance of international safeguards. India agreed to separate its tightly entwined nuclear industry -- declaring 14 reactors as commercial facilities and eight as military -- and to open the civilian side to international inspections for the first time.

    The nuclear agreement drew fire from congressional critics. "With one simple move the president has blown a hole in the nuclear rules that the entire world has been playing by and broken his own word to assure that we will not ship nuclear technology to India without the proper safeguards", said Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, senior Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. (Nuclear deal announced as Bush visits India. 3/2/2006)

    The port deal may be "finally over with"... but I'm sure all the stockholders (including John Snow and the Carlyle Group) will still make out like bandits.

    From World Net Daily (of all places!): What does Dubai Ports World have in common with CSX, Treasury Secretary John Snow, and the Bush Family? The Carlyle Group is the answer currently gaining ground on the Internet. What once seemed the propaganda ramblings of none other than "Fahrenheit 911's" Michael Moore may end up becoming the subject of the Senate's upcoming investigation into what Washington insiders are beginning to call the "Dubai Debacle." As reported in the Guardian as early as 2001, Bush '41 and '43 have been connected to the Carlyle Group in various ways resulting in substantial compensation to the Bush family from Carlyle Group investments.

    Widely discussed is that CSX -- the rail and ocean carrier container company -- was sold to DP World in 2004 after Treasury Secretary John Snow was no longer CSX's chief executive officer. What has received far less attention is the transaction announced in December 2002, in which the Carlyle Group acquired a majority stake in CSX for $300 million.

    Then we find that Dubai International Capital, a private equity investment capital firm that is a wholly owned subsidiary of Dubai Holdings commonly participates in co-investments with the Carlyle Group. Dubai Holdings, like DP World, ends up being owned by the United Arab Emirates government, with ultimate ties to Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, the successor currently at the head of Dubai's royal family.

    Even Republican senators are scratching their heads wondering why President Bush has dug in his heals with determination that the DP Worlds deal will go through, even if the first presidential veto of the Bush administration needs to be invoked. (Is Carlyle Group at heart of DPW deal? excerpt from World Net Daily. Written by Jerome R. Corsi Ph.D., 3/3/2006)

    The article is from World Net Daily -- so I gues you HAVE to believe it.

    I said it before -- Robby quoted it to make me "look bad" -- and I'll say it again:

    Making sure that the rich get richer is the only thing that matters to bush. EVERYTHING he does is with that goal in mind! EVERYTHING.

    BTW how does this make ME look bad? Seeing as this assertation is supported by the facts, one would think it made the bush administration look bad. Or evil. When are you going to wake up and realize how incredibly corrupt these guys are?! National Security means ZIPPO -- the ONLY thing that matters to them is their bottom line.

     
  • At 11/3/06 10:19 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    w-dervish said...
    "Now if I disagree with this nonsense you'll say you base your argument on the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality -- but that's just another Republican lie. Personally, I think bush Republicans are immoral and disgusting."

    Actually I'm not really religious, I go to church once a year. I don't base my opinions on what people like Pat Robertson say, I base it on my own beliefs.

    "In your mind hating a group of people for no reason is "having morals"?! That you find their lifestyle "disgusting" isn't a reason. By that reasoning I guess that hating poor people because they're "lazy" is also moralistic."

    Excuse me dervish, but when in the hell did I say I hate gays?! I said I find gay sex repulsive. That is not a hateful statement. In fact I'd like to to find another heterosexual male who disagrees with that statement.

     
  • At 11/3/06 2:01 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Discrimination is hateful.

    If you're disgusted by gay sex --STOP THINKING ABOUT IT!! Problem solved! It's none of your business anyway.

    When they taught you about Islam in school didn't they start out by discussing tolerance? Is that something else you find disgusting?

    No response to the World Net Daily Article? Isn't it time for you to admit that one of the biggest Republican arguments has turned out to be false (that bush cares more about National security than making money for his cronies)? Maybe the article was to much truth for you to handle...

     
  • At 11/3/06 5:49 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    To clear up the religious dispute Leviticus 21:3 clearly states that if two men have sex with each other they should be killed. Obviously I don't believe that they should be killed but the fact remains that it is, in fact, in the Bible.

     
  • At 11/3/06 5:56 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Oops, sorry, that should be 21:13. Typo.

     
  • At 12/3/06 3:35 AM, Blogger Sol Kauffman said…

    I just want to mention a point on religion-Does 21:13's lack of a statement on women imply that lesbianity is fine (God must be a man ;))? Obviously most people would assume that homosexuality in either sex is not allowed, but that is just extrapolation. People's interpretations and personal meanings in religon vary (which is why there are muslims who say the Koran says kill unbelieves and muslims who say the Koran says to treat Christians and Jews like equals). Religious law is a guide to live your life by, it's not an internationally recognized legal system. Church has no place in government. I don't understand how religon got tied into this political debate.

    If we can get back on the rails here, the discussion is on teachers who push their own political beliefs on students.

    Personally I think it's wrong, and I agree it should be policed, however I disagree with the implication that it's only a liberal problem. I know Republican teachers who press their beliefs too.

    One of my favorite buttons in my collection has a hammer and sickle sign and the slogan "Theoretically Correct." Doesn't kindergarden teach kids to share everything? If our world was truly capitalist, kindergarden would be about making sure you got more blocks than everyone else. I'm sure that would better prepare them for the business world. I've lived on a commune for a couple of weeks before and it is a great system when everyone is motivated. Corruption and greed ruin communism-our world is not yet emotionally or intellectually prepared for a communist system on a large scale yet.

     
  • At 12/3/06 9:28 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Obviously most people would assume that homosexuality in either sex is not allowed, but that is just extrapolation.

    Point taken, but you have to remember that when the Bible was written, only men were reading it. Therefore it only said men. However I'm pretty sure that a modern translation would include women as well.

    (which is why there are muslims who say the Koran says kill unbelieves

    It does actually, but like we Christains don't follow our more psychotic passages, neither do moderate Muslims. It has more to do with the person themselves rather than how they interpret their book.

    I don't understand how religon got tied into this political debate.


    Well see, someone claimed that prohibitation of homosexuality was not in the Bible, I just wanted to point out that it is in fact in there.

    Personally I think it's wrong, and I agree it should be policed, however I disagree with the implication that it's only a liberal problem. I know Republican teachers who press their beliefs too.


    No one denies that, it's just that some of the posters here seem to have the idea that it's okay for a teacher to preach politics or that it's only ok for liberal teachers. My point is that it's not okay for any teacher.

    our world is not yet emotionally or intellectually prepared for a communist system on a large scale yet.

    That's not a bad thing. Capitilism is driven by a want for success. If you took that away you'd be taking away a huge part of positive human behavior, ambition. If captilism works, why change it?

     
  • At 12/3/06 9:30 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    "Discrimination is hateful."

    I'm not discriminating anybody!

    "No response to the World Net Daily Article?"

    What, do you want me to defend him? I thought he was wrong on the port deal.

    "our world is not yet emotionally or intellectually prepared for a communist system on a large scale yet."

    Hopefully we never will be. I love the freedom of Capitalism, and I'll never in my life give it up.

     
  • At 12/3/06 2:16 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... Well see, someone claimed that prohibitation of homosexuality was not in the Bible, I just wanted to point out that it is in fact in there.

    I didn't make any such claim. The point I was making is that using the bible to justify your hatred is wrong. Also, there are a lot of other verses in Leviticus that no one adheres to today. The point made in the article I linked to earlier was that to condemn homosexuals because of 2 verses in Leviticus, while ignoring the others, is hypocritical.

    Homosexuality in the Bible: (excerpt from the author's conclusion regarding the Bible verses that appear to condemn homosexuality) So there we have it -- a condemnation of homosexual gang rape; two prohibitions of a physical impossibility (a man lying with a male as if with a woman); a scare-tactics announcement of what happens to heterosexual men and women who engage in idolatry; and two condemnations of homosexual rape. Six verses out of 31,174, which in case you're interested is 0.000192468 percent. The Bible also contains 321 verses that condone slavery (1.0297 percent).

    Anyone who claims to be a Christian, however, is compelled to ignore these verses altogether, since they are superseded by the two Great Commandments: to love God with all one's heart and mind and soul and strength, and to love other human beings as much as you love yourself. Period. No exceptions. Jesus did NOT say, "except black people, except women, except homosexuals, except left-handed people, except children, except Romans (or Roman Catholics), except feminists, except liberals". Jesus said EVERYONE. (From Rheophila.com, written by Mary W. Matthews, who holds an advanced degree in theology, summa cum laude, from the Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington, DC.)

    Cody Said... What, do you want me to defend him? I thought he was wrong on the port deal.

    The article implies that bush's motivations may have been finanically motivated. That is what I was asking you to respond to. I brought this up before and you didn't agree.

    I thought the article was pretty clear on that point. So please stop pretending you don't know what I'm talking about.

    Is this a typical Conservative response? When you're losing the argument discontinue the discussion and dodge the question?

    Cody Said... I'm not discriminating anybody!

    You're encouraging people to condemn homosexuals as being "disgusting", and that you are doing so for moral reasons. Sounds like discrimination to me.

    DarkSaturos said... No one denies that, it's just that some of the posters here seem to have the idea that it's okay for a teacher to preach politics or that it's only ok for liberal teachers. My point is that it's not okay for any teacher.

    Bullsh!t. You are distorting the truth as usual. The scary part is that you don't even know you're doing it.

    There are 2 bible verses I think you should be more concerned about than those in Leviticus -- because, unlike the verses in Leviticus, these apply to YOU:

    The Judgment of God and the Deluding Influence, 2 Thes. 2:9-12 -- 2:11 Consequently God sends on them a deluding influence that they may believe what is false. 2:12 And so they will all be judged who have not believed the truth but have delighted in evil.

    "Consequently" (Greek, dia touto, "for this reason") looks back to the previous verse and the refusal to love the truth by those who are perishing. As such, it also introduces us to the consequence, the moral judgment of God. They consign themselves and are thus consigned to judgment. We must not lose sight of the fact the judgment here proceeds from man's own choice. Because of its immoral indifference to the truth, God will not only let the world believe a lie, but will send a deluding influence to promote it. (from Bible.org)

     
  • At 12/3/06 2:17 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Hopefully we never will be. I love the freedom of Capitalism, and I'll never in my life give it up.

    What more is there to say than that? Capitilism as I've said before bases on the best human traits. To give up capitilism you'd have to give up them too.

    "No response to the World Net Daily Article?"


    Bush was wrong, I'll admit that. I support him because he's not wrong often.

     
  • At 12/3/06 2:27 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     
  • At 12/3/06 2:31 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    DarkSaturos said...
    I didn't make any such claim. The point I was making is that using the bible to justify your hatred is wrong. Also, there are a lot of other verses in Leviticus that no one adheres to today.


    You did say it was a "Republican lie." Also, I don't hate gay people, I just don't want to see them going at it. Is there something wrong with that?

    Bible also contains 321 verses that condone slavery (1.0297 percent).

    Again, I'm not saying everything in there is right. I'm just pointing out that the verse is in the Bible.

    The article implies that bush's motivations may have been finanically motivated.

    Possibly. I've already said he was wrong. I don't care whether he makes money off it or not.

    You're encouraging people to condemn homosexuals as being "disgusting", and that you are doing so for moral reasons. Sounds like discrimination to me.


    Noooo, he's saying that he thinks it's disgusting. Normal people are repulsed by members of th same sex dervish.

    DarkSaturos said... No one denies that, it's just that some of the posters here seem to have the idea that it's okay for a teacher to preach politics or that it's only ok for liberal teachers. My point is that it's not okay for any teacher.

    Bullsh!t. You are distorting the truth as usual.

    w-dervish said...I didn't give a damn about this fantasy of yours in which you are the intelligent thinking man's hero standing up to the Liberal Communist authority figure (and kicking ass -- figuratively).


    In this you think the authority figure is okay and that Cody is lying.

    w-dervish said...(refferring to a conservative teacher.)You make a good point. I'd definately complain about this guy to the principal -- and the school board if necessary.

    How am I distorting the truth? You said it was a lie that Cody stood up to a liberal and that he shouldn't stand up to a liberal but that you'd complain about a conservative! The proof is right in this thread!

    After that your comment starts hinting that I'm delusional. That's not even a real arguement. Calling me delusional will not accomplish anything.

     
  • At 12/3/06 3:15 PM, Blogger Gayle said…

    Cody, Socrates said the same thing you are saying: that teachers should present facts and let the students reach their own decisions.

    So you're in good company, kiddo! Kudos on the post. It's exellent! :)

     
  • At 12/3/06 8:06 PM, Blogger Rebekah said…

    Stuff like this makes me glad I'm homeschooled!

    "Seperation of Church and State"? But y'all learn about Islam. Not surprising. I heard on Rush about how in California, the kids were learning Muslim prayers!
    Can you imagine if they did that with Christianity??

    Communism has never worked. The only thing it brings is totalitarianism and poverty.

    I think some teachers just think they can get away with anything.

     
  • At 12/3/06 8:40 PM, Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said…

    Just thought I'd pop my head in here and say "hi". Gayle sent me.

    I got about half-way through the comments and just don't have the time to read anymore. You're doing good Cody! Keep making 'em squirm!

    There is also very much truth in the statement about simplifying something so complicated.

    There's even more truth in not complicating something so simple as acknowledging the failures of communism. What do you need? A Rube Goldberg discussion to finally arrive at the conclusion that communism has been awful for humanity? Sometimes the shortest distance between two points really is a straight line.

     
  • At 12/3/06 11:21 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... You did say it was a "Republican lie." Also, I don't hate gay people, I just don't want to see them going at it. Is there something wrong with that?

    The lie is that Republicans think that six ambiguous passages from the bible give them permission to hate gay people. No, there's nothing wrong for you not to want to see gay people "going at it". What's wrong is your obsession with stopping Hollywood from "pushing it on you" -- WHICH ISN'T HAPPENING! The ONLY reason that you're making such a big deal about something that is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS is because you have an intense desire to let everyone know how much you hate gay people.

    DarkSaturos said... Again, I'm not saying everything in there is right. I'm just pointing out that the verse is in the Bible.

    Baloney.

    DarkSaturos said... Noooo, he's saying that he thinks it's disgusting. Normal people are repulsed by members of the same sex dervish.

    Your argument is irrelative, since what two consenting adults do in private is none of your business. A movie that no one is forcing you to watch doesn't infringe on your rights. You are NOT the movie's target audience. Why are you obsessed with it?

    DarkSaturos said... In this you think the authority figure is okay and that Cody is lying.

    YES, I think it is OK for someone to express their personal opinion! No, I don't think Cody is lying about what happened -- I think he's wrong about why his teacher was defending Communism.

    He painted himself the hero standing up to his teacher, a Liberal Communist Sympathizer. He claims that his teacher is a radical Liberal, and is trying to "brainwash" his students. All complete BS!

    DarkSaturos said... How am I distorting the truth? You said it was a lie that Cody stood up to a liberal and that he shouldn't stand up to a liberal but that you'd complain about a conservative! The proof is right in this thread!

    Yes, the proof is in this thread! the statement I was agreeing with was "HISTORY Mr. Healy. Not political debate". If you wouldn't like a Conservative teacher pushing his politics -- then a Liberal teacher shouldn't be allowed to do that either. That is the point I thought "RIP Joe" was making -- and that was the point I was agreeing with!

    Which isn't to say that I think that teachers should be prohibited from expressing any personal opinions what-so-ever, but that they should be clear that they are OPINIONS. Also, I think expressing personal opinions should be kept to a minimum... they certainly shouldn't be a part of the teacher's curriculum -- like regularly watching Fox News (which I would definitely have a problem with).

    I already clarified this to Cody quite awhile ago. I think you read my earlier post but decided to accuse me being a hypocrite anyway. That's the way Republicans operate. They don't care what the truth is -- the truth is whatever THEY decide it is.

    DarkSaturos said... After that your comment starts hinting that I'm delusional. That's not even a real arguement. Calling me delusional will not accomplish anything.

    I was hinting??! I think I've been pretty damn clear about the fact that I think bush Republicans are delusional. The proof that you're delusional is right in this thread! You said: "I don't care whether he makes money off it or not". Most people realize that if you work in government and pass laws which benefit you or your friends financially it is a Conflict of Interest. Most people also realize that this is WRONG. People with morals, that is.

     
  • At 13/3/06 12:45 AM, Blogger Publius said…

    great stuff. i'm a conservative in a huge crowd of liberals at my law school, so i can definitely appreciate this. i'm actually writing an article on religious clothing worn by teachers in the classroom. such an interesting area, this education stuff.

    check out my blog if you get a chance. thanks!

     
  • At 13/3/06 12:58 AM, Blogger Little Miss Chatterbox said…

    I found you via Gayle. Awesome post and great blog. Keep fighting the good fight. When I was in highschool my teachers were bashing Reagan so it doesn't change much.

    And I agree with you that uninformed kids are going to buy what a teacher says hook, line and sinker. I remember my own experience and I know its gotten bad but I have to say it scares me that your teacher was that adamant about defending communism. Yikes!!! You're doing great, keep up the good work.

     
  • At 13/3/06 2:26 AM, Blogger Sol Kauffman said…

    Back to the topic again, it's wrong to say that communism has never worked. It's just never worked on a large scale. Like I said, try living on a commune and you'll see. I agree that capitalism uses some of humanity's best traits, like ambition, however, it also has many downsides-people who don't have a lot of skill don't get as much as others, people who cannot afford health care may suffer horribly or die, corporations may go on a mad rush for money to please their shareholders regardless of environmental or social consequences, et cetera. Communism espouses many more good human qualities, like sharing, compassion, friendship, brotherhood, teamwork, and the like. As I said, humanity has not collectively progressed to a level where you can have a large communist system without capitalism leeching in (corruption from greed etc., politicians feeling that they deserve more).

    Communism is great-it just didn't work out before on a grand scale and won't until the human race grows up a bit and learns to share fully on a national level.

     
  • At 13/3/06 6:28 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    "Why are you obsessed with it?"

    I'm not!! All I did was make a single joke about brokeback mountain and it pissed of alisoni and she turned it into part of the discussion. Really, I don't care what gays/bis/tris are doing! Well, except for Michael Jackson. I'll admit that I hate that sicko.

    "Back to the topic again, it's wrong to say that communism has never worked. It's just never worked on a large scale."

    Right. It won't work in entire countries in my opinion. It works in small places, like as you said, a school. Or maybe just a family. I could see a family of five sharing money and objects, and working for the group instead of the individual. I'll give you that, it'll work there. But not in an entire country.

     
  • At 13/3/06 1:10 PM, Blogger Philosopher said…

    Whats up with Bill?

     
  • At 13/3/06 2:37 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    What's wrong is your obsession with stopping Hollywood from "pushing it on you" -- WHICH ISN'T HAPPENING!

    It isn't? Then why does everyone say I'm anti-gay when I say I don't want to see it?

    DarkSaturos said... Again, I'm not saying everything in there is right. I'm just pointing out that the verse is in the Bible.

    w-dervish said... Baloney.


    Look it up dervish. Leviticus 21:13. It's RIGHT THERE.

    Why are you obsessed with it?


    Because I don't want pornography peddled as art in this country. If you're going to make it fine, but at least call it what it is.

    If you wouldn't like a Conservative teacher pushing his politics -- then a Liberal teacher shouldn't be allowed to do that either. That is the point I thought "RIP Joe" was making -- and that was the point I was agreeing with!

    Ok, I misunderstood it. Sorry.

    "I don't care whether he makes money off it or not". Most people realize that if you work in government and pass laws which benefit you or your friends financially it is a Conflict of Interest. Most people also realize that this is WRONG.

    That wasn't exactly the point I was trying to make. I meant that whether he made money or not it was still the wrong thing to do. You accuse me of taking your qoutes out of context yet that's what you did to mine.

    When I was in highschool my teachers were bashing Reagan so it doesn't change much.

    Luckily people are starting to see how great Reagan was. I think that'll happen with Bush too in about 10-15 years.

    Back to the topic again, it's wrong to say that communism has never worked. It's just never worked on a large scale.

    Then isn't it safe to say that as a socieo-economic system (which is what it was designed for) it has never worked? Therefore it is a failure.

    (reffering to capitilism) it also has many downsides-people who don't have a lot of skill don't get as much as others,

    But that's a GOOD thing, don't you see? It means those who care about their skills and put hard work into them are rewarded, and the lazy are not.

    As I said, humanity has not collectively progressed to a level where you can have a large communist system without capitalism leeching in

    But I've already explained this. The reason for that is that we were given these great traits that allow us to be competitive. We aren't GOING to progress into communism because capitilist traits are good and therefore our future, not our past.

     
  • At 13/3/06 2:47 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    He painted himself the hero standing up to his teacher, a Liberal Communist Sympathizer.

    No I don't think so. You have to understand that I know Cody dervish and you do not. I think he was simply telling this story as an example to prove his point. At no point did he say he was a hero or even hint it. He just stood up for his beliefs. I do that as well. I'm sure you do, even if they differ from mine. No one's saying they're a hero.

     
  • At 13/3/06 3:23 PM, Blogger Mary Ann said…

    Solomon,
    No, the basic idea of everyone sharing everything isn't so bad, but it won't ever work. Besides, I do not like the idea of the Government forcing me to share.

    As far as communes, yes, you could say that that is Communism working. But the communes that exist are supported under Capitalism. Anyway, would you really want to live somewhere where you shared toothbrushes and underwear?

    When you own something, you take better care of it. Just compare government-subsidised housing with other housing options (even low-income.) That's the main reason Capitalism has been the only system of Government to work.

    I cannot help but believe that Communism and Communist Governments are inherantly flawed, and yes, "bad." Heck, Karl Marx himself was a drunkard who let his wife and 6 children live in poverty while he talked about uplifting the downtrodden. Three of his children died of starvation in infancy! Two others killed themselves. Only one lived to be an adult. (Source: None Dare Call It Treason, Ch. 2, Pg. 20-21) I'd be wary of any idea formulated by a man like that.

    Great post Cody! I don't think I'd be able to stand teachers like yours if I were in school.

     
  • At 13/3/06 3:47 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    Robby said...
    "No I don't think so. You have to understand that I know Cody dervish and you do not. I think he was simply telling this story as an example to prove his point. At no point did he say he was a hero or even hint it. He just stood up for his beliefs. I do that as well. I'm sure you do, even if they differ from mine. No one's saying they're a hero."

    You pretty much got it there. I really have nothing more to add...

     
  • At 13/3/06 8:58 PM, Blogger Pissed Off Old Man said…

    Communism never worked no doubt but capitalism is looking to be the next one in the break down lane.

    People get all fussed on Broken back mountain , when google are the biggest peddlers of porn there in the world, go to your google search page, got to preferences, then turn off all filters, then search of any porn you want . Any kid on any computer can do that.

    We need to get serious about standards in this country. Teachers who want to teach another system would have been run out of town in my day.

     
  • At 14/3/06 1:11 AM, Blogger Sol Kauffman said…

    I still disagree with all you communist-haters. Capitalism has just as many (if not more) downsides than communism. What about people born into poor conditions that cannot get jobs or support themselves despite their motivation to work hard? What about capitalist business owners hiring illegal immigrants (and taking advantage of their ignorance, but that's another matter) because they will work harder for less money? What about wars being perpetrated in the name of profit?

    Capitalism isn't better than communism, it's just different. You can't base your opinion on something that has only been tested in improverished, dictatorial and corrupt conditions. That would be like saying that, oh, basketball is a horrible sport because so many teams aren't good-nevermind the fact that it's because they can't afford good player's salaries.

    Although it is the best option right now, a system that relies on the most predatory and materialistic aspects of humanity (while those might be the most powerful at this time) seems flawed to me. I cannot help but question the morals of someone who would let someone die simply because they cannot afford to pay for a medical treatment. It's clearly not their fault, and they would likely pay for it if they could, but heck, you need to make a profit, and damn, you need to right now.

    "It means those who care about their skills and put hard work into them are rewarded, and the lazy are not." So people who aren't as smart as you should have a worse quality of life than you, even though it's not their fault that their genes happened to give you a more complicated brain? That isn't fair, is it? I understand it in the case of someone who lazes around and still gets paid while their friend works hard and gets paid the same, but if the people are enlightened enough they are willing to work for a higher goal. I don't believe that this is as smart as humanity gets. We consider those who fully espouse sharing and equality (like Buddhist monks) to be enlightened and wise, but other attempts have failed and so the whole system is damned?

    "Capitilism is driven by a want for success. If you took that away you'd be taking away a huge part of positive human behavior, ambition. If captilism works, why change it?" The key here is that communism still has ambition-and it is one of the most important and powerful kinds: hope. Communist ambition is the goal of something better, not a dog-eat-dog world but a system of fairness and sharing that espouses all of humanity's best qualities. It is this common goal that communists work toward. This is why people on communes are motivated to take care of the common property.

    "Besides, I do not like the idea of the Government forcing me to share." It has to be voluntary to work. That's why previous governments didn't work-they forced the idea onto the citizens.

    Keep in mind, previous communist governments were elected by a couple of enlightened folks who relied on nationalism to keep the system together-and like I said before, humanity as a whole is not as wise as some of us are. Greed is still rampant and therefore so is corruption. However I believe humanity will eventually grow to a point where we are all that wise-only then will the system work. Communism should be a goal, and a system on a small scale, because, like I said, humanity as a whole isn't ready for it.

    Please don't damn the idea for it's previous failings-it is based upon some of the most noble and righteous aspects of humanity, many of which are promoted by our religions (love thy neighbour and etc.)

     
  • At 14/3/06 1:34 AM, Blogger Rebekah said…

    No, it's not.

    Have all capitalist societies been riddled with poverty, totalitarianism, and greed? All the Communist ones have.
    Communism does not help the common man. It's little more than Fuedalism.

    Think about Cuba. Apparently, in that oldest surviving Communist dictatorship, drowning in the ocean while trying to hang onto a worn out inner tube is more preferable to thousands than living under Communism.

    Communism and "let's all hug" mentality does not stop the human nature, only in Communism you don't have a chance to make it out unless you're "connected" to "the party."

    Communist ambition is the goal of something better, not a dog-eat-dog world but a system of fairness and sharing that espouses all of humanity's best qualities.

    Balderdash.

    Tell that to the millions who died in Stalin's gulags.

    Tell that to the half-dead Cubans hanging on homemade rafts in the middle of the ocean.

    Tell that to the many Priests and Pastors Castro murdered simply because they were religious.

    Tell that to the millions of Chinese murdered in "re-education" camps for such terrible crimes as sharing a religious book with a stranger.

    Or the thousands of East Germans who were shot point-blank as they desperately tried to run over to evil capitalism.

    You should read "The Man Who Couldn't Be Killed." He wasn't killed, but thousands in Mao's camps were: Doctors, intellectuals, anyone loyal to the former power. And after they died, their bodies were often devoured by desperate, starving prisoners.

    Did you see Mary Ann's comment about Karl Marx?
    He was a drunk who let two of his kids die of starvation while out preaching how great Communism was!

    He is the face of communism.

     
  • At 14/3/06 1:14 PM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    There is a difference between the ideal system of communism and the system of communism as it evolves under the power of an evil dictator. Just for the record.

     
  • At 14/3/06 2:41 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    What about people born into poor conditions that cannot get jobs or support themselves despite their motivation to work hard?

    That's the beuty of capitilism, those people do not exist. Anyone can get rich under capitilism through hard work.

    What about capitalist business owners hiring illegal immigrants (and taking advantage of their ignorance, but that's another matter) because they will work harder for less money?

    That's not legal. I'm talking about LEGAL capitilism.

    What about wars being perpetrated in the name of profit?

    I have never seen any such war like that done in a capitilist system. If you are hinting at something why don't you come out and say it?

    Capitalism isn't better than communism, it's just different.

    Have you ever noticed that all the capitilist countries succeed and the communist ones don't? You say, "oh well that's because of the dictators!" Well what system causes those dictators?

    Although it is the best option right now, a system that relies on the most predatory and materialistic aspects of humanity (while those might be the most powerful at this time) seems flawed to me.

    That's how we were born Sol. Forcing us to be different will not help or make anything better.

    I cannot help but question the morals of someone who would let someone die simply because they cannot afford to pay for a medical treatment. It's clearly not their fault,

    Nor is it the responsibility of the government to bail out the weak. The people control the government, not the other way around.

    So people who aren't as smart as you should have a worse quality of life than you, even though it's not their fault that their genes happened to give you a more complicated brain?

    That's BS and you know it. Anyone can get good grades and be succesful by working hard. It's not about brains, it's about work ethic.

    The key here is that communism still has ambition-and it is one of the most important and powerful kinds: hope.

    I think maybe you should read about 1940's Russia and the dictator it bred. There was no hope in that society. The only hope most people have in communism is that someday it will be gone from the Earth.

    It has to be voluntary to work. That's why previous governments didn't work-they forced the idea onto the citizens.

    Then maybe there's a reason. Maybe we don't feel it is right to share what we earned.

    Tell that to the millions who died in Stalin's gulags.

    Stalin is one of my favorite subjects. I think that Sol would be appaled at some of the things he did. People under his communist regime were basically forced to eat their children because they were starving. The ideal society huh?

    There is a difference between the ideal system of communism and the system of communism as it evolves under the power of an evil dictator.

    You are confusing cause and effect. Dictators don't form communism, communism forms dictators! The communism you refer to CAN NOT EXIST. You are talking about something that is NOT POSSIBLE and has never happened. That is why communism is a stupid idea.

     
  • At 14/3/06 11:24 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Capitilism? The correct spelling is capitalism. Also, correcting your spelling does NOT mean I have no argument. It means that I dislike it when someone mangles the English language. I find it especially annoying when someone keeps spelling the same word wrong over and over and over.

    DarkSaturos said... It isn't? Then why does everyone say I'm anti-gay when I say I don't want to see it?

    No, it isn't.

    That's ALL you say? I doubt it. More likely what you say is, "I don't want to see that disgusting gay porn, because I have morals".

    DarkSaturos said... Look it up dervish. Leviticus 21:13. It's RIGHT THERE.

    I wasn't denying that it is there. I was disagreeing that you were "just pointing it out". You pointed it out for a REASON. That reason is that you're using the Bible to justify your hatred.

    DarkSaturos (on his homosexual obsession) said... Because I don't want pornography peddled as art in this country. If you're going to make it fine, but at least call it what it is.

    They ARE calling it what it is. The movie is rated R, not X. It isn't pornography.

    DarkSaturos... That wasn't exactly the point I was trying to make. I meant that whether he made money or not it was still the wrong thing to do. You accuse me of taking your qoutes out of context yet that's what you did to mine.

    I took you out of context? I don't care what you meant exactly -- you still said that you DIDN'T CARE if he made money off the deal! Why WOULDN'T you care that he's corrupt?

    DarkSaturos... When I was in high school my teachers were bashing Reagan so it doesn't change much. Luckily people are starting to see how great Reagan was. I think that'll happen with Bush too in about 10-15 years.

    I doubt that the first president sentenced to a lengthy prison term for crimes committed while in office will be remembered as "great", no matter how much time passes. BTW Reagan was a TERRIBLE president.

    No Praise for Reagan. Spare me the heapings of praise for Ronald Reagan. He was one of the worst presidents we've ever had. In fact, he should have been impeached for the Iran-Contra scandal, and he might have been had Congress and the media just done their jobs. Reagan misappropriated funds, and then he lied about it. He traded with Iran, an enemy of the United States, and he lied about that, too.

    Let's be clear on Reagan's record.

    Reagan was responsible for killing tens of thousands of innocent people in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, and Honduras as he waged illegal wars and funded brutal militaries. The truth commission of El Salvador investigated the murders of 75,000 people during the civil war in the 1980s, and it found that the Salvadoran military, or death squads connected to the military, had committed the bulk of those crimes. At the time, Bush was lavishing hundreds of millions of dollars on the Salvadoran government, and his CIA was working with the death squads.

    Reagan was responsible for approving Israel's invasion of Lebanon, which killed about 18,000 civilians. Reagan was responsible for his own unilateral invasion of that huge threat to the United States called Grenada. (Oh, the great liberator!)

    Reagan fueled racism with his stories about "welfare queens" and his defense of the apartheid regime of South Africa. Reagan was responsible for attacking women's rights, as he tried to legitimate the backlash against feminism. He appointed the far right justice Antonin Scalia to the Supreme Court, and he loaded the lower court benches with anti-choice ideologues.

    Reagan was responsible for a woeful response to the AIDS epidemic, which needlessly jeopardized the lives of millions of people. He also consorted with Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who called AIDS divine revenge on homosexuals. Reagan was responsible for shredding the social contract between labor and management, and he declared open season on trade unions when he fired the air traffic controllers.

    Reagan was responsible for flattening out the progressive income tax and for giving huge tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans and to corporations. His economic policies, as Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic Policy and Research has noted, dramatically redistributed income -- to the rich.

    In a way, Reagan was W's father. The macho swagger, the studied anti-intellectualism, the infatuation with military spending, and the overriding concern for corporations and the rich -- all these Bush has inherited from Reagan. And while Reagan consulted Nancy's astrologer for advice, Bush does him one better by consulting the Lord Himself. The only difference is that Reagan knew how to read his lines. (Written by Matthew Rothschild. The Progressive, 6/9/2004)

    DarkSaturos said... That's the beuty of capitilism, those people do not exist. Anyone can get rich under capitilism through hard work.

    Give me a break! The Horatio Alger myth? Another Republican lie.

    DarkSaturos said... I have never seen any such war like that done in a capitilist system. If you are hinting at something why don't you come out and say it?

    No hinting around: One of the primary motivations for the Iraq war was PROFIT.

    New Investigation Reveals "Reconstruction Racket" in Iraq. Southern Exposure team travels to Iraq; uncovers cost-overruns, unfinished and shoddy work, and growing Iraqi anger at fraud and waste in US-led "reconstruction". A team of investigative reporters in Iraq have found a pattern of waste, fraud and abuse among U.S. companies receiving multi-billion-dollar "reconstruction" contracts in the country, including massive over-charges for projects; shoddy work or a failure to complete tasks; and ignoring local experts who contend they could do the job better and cheaper.

    The in-depth report by Pratap Chatterjee and Herbert Docena, published in the latest issue of Southern Exposure magazine, is one of the first on-the-ground accounts of how U.S. taxpayer money given to Bechtel, Halliburton and other companies is being spent. The investigative team spent three weeks in Iraq visiting project sites, analyzing contracts, and interviewing dozens of administrators, contract workers, and U.S. officials. Among the findings:

    * Despite over eight months of work and billions of dollars spent, key pieces of Iraq’s infrastructure -- power plants, telephone exchanges, and sewage and sanitation systems -- have either not been repaired, or have been fixed so poorly that they don’t function.

    * San Francisco-based Bechtel has been given tens of millions to repair Iraq’s schools. Yet many haven’t been touched, and several schools that Bechtel claims to have repaired are in shambles. One "repaired" school was overflowing with unflushed sewage; a teacher at the school also reported that "the American contractors took away our Japanese fans and replaced them with Syrian fans that don’t work, billing the U.S. government for the work".

    * Inflated overhead costs and a byzantine maze of sub-contracts have left little money for the everyday workers carrying out projects. In one contract for police operations, Iraqi guards received only 10% of the money allotted for their salaries; Indian cooks for Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root reported making just three dollars a day.

    The report also reveals further details of Halliburton’s contracts: for example, that of Halliburton’s $2.2 billion in contracts, only about 10% has gone to meeting community needs -- the rest being spent on servicing U.S. troops and rebuilding oil pipelines. Halliburton has also spent over $40 million in the unsuccessful search for weapons of mass destruction.

    "A handful of well-connected corporations are making a killing off the devastation in Iraq" observes Chris Kromm, publisher of Southern Exposure. "The politics and process behind these deals have always been questionable. Now we have first-hand evidence that they’re not even doing their jobs".

    Fraud: Knight Ridders' Seth Bornstein reports on May 21, 2004, that "Empty flatbed trucks crisscrossed Iraq more than 100 times as their drivers and the soldiers who guarded them dodged bullets, bricks and homemade bombs. Twelve current and former truckers who regularly made the 300-mile re-supply run from Camp Cedar in southern Iraq to Camp Anaconda near Baghdad told Knight Ridder that they risked their lives driving empty trucks while their employer, a subsidiary of Halliburton Inc., billed the government for hauling what they derisively called sailboat fuel". Trucking experts estimate that each round trip costs taxpayers thousands of dollars."

    Sol Kauffman said... I cannot help but question the morals of someone who would let someone die simply because they cannot afford to pay for a medical treatment.

    DarkSaturos said... Nor is it the responsibility of the government to bail out the weak. The people control the government, not the other way around.

    I agree with you Sol, but what do you expect from a guy who thinks discriminating against homosexuals is "having morals".

    DarkSaturos said... That's BS and you know it. Anyone can get good grades and be succesful by working hard. It's not about brains, it's about work ethic.

    What's BS is people like you actually believe these lies.

    Excerpt from Conscience of a Progressive, Chapter Four: A Master Morality. Moral considerations aside, the success of Bush, Inc. is a truly remarkable accomplishment. Here is a system that deliberately and systematically extracts wealth from the vast majority of citizens that produce that wealth, as it simultaneously withdraws public services from those citizens. And yet, those citizens tolerate this abuse, and in some cases even enthusiastically support their abusers. How is this possible?

    The answer lies, at its foundation, with the fact that Bush, Inc. controls the media and thus the message heard and seen by a credulous public. The message is propped up by right wing talk shows and by a horde of "experts" issuing forth from right-wing "think tanks". With this advantage, the regime surrounds itself with a bodyguard of myths. Among them:

    * The "trickle-down" theory of economics: a nation’s prosperity is based upon the private investment of wealthy individuals. The best way to serve the poor and the middle class is to provide jobs, and jobs are created from investments. "I never was given a job by a poor man", as former Senator Phil Gramm put it. Hence still more wealth must be directed to the wealthy.

    * The Horatio Alger myth: with initiative, determination, and admittedly a little bit of luck, anyone can "rise to the top". Thus, by implication: People are poor by choice -- by a willing failure to seek employment and apply themselves honestly and diligently to their work.

    * The invisible hand: The term is from Adam Smith, who writes in The Wealth of Nations, that the individual who "intends his own gain... is... led by an invisible hand to promote... [the interest of] society" (Book IV, CH. 2). Thus, since the free market "automatically" promotes the public good, there is no need for government to provide social services.

    * The myth of the "liberal media". It is difficult to understand how anyone who critically assesses the political commentary and reporting in the mass media can conclude that it has a liberal bias. Yet this charge (by the media!) that the media has a "liberal bias", is repeated so often that it is widely believed.

    These myths persist due to an absence of an effective media voice to debunk them, just as Bush, Inc. flourishes due to an absence of a conspicuous opposition media. There can be little doubt that with a free and diverse media, and with an honest and accurate voting system, a progressive Democratic Party would today control the White House and the Congress. (Copyright 2005 by Ernest Partridge.)

     
  • At 14/3/06 11:47 PM, Blogger Sol Kauffman said…

    Wow, lots of points to respond to.

    "That's the beuty of capitilism, those people do not exist. Anyone can get rich under capitilism through hard work."

    BS. Talk to some street people.

    "Have all capitalist societies been riddled with poverty, totalitarianism, and greed?"

    Yep, that's what it's all about-being better off than others.

    "All the Communist ones have."

    True-but I'm only supporting the idea of communism, not it's execution.

    "Communism does not help the common man. It's little more than Fuedalism."

    Again, the result of a bad government and a forced system that was not voted in widely.

    "Tell that to the millions who died in Stalin's gulags. (And the rest)"

    Why do you see these evil acts as a direct effect of communism? Like I said, communes have worked in freer and more educated countries like the US and Canada (although it's true these developed under capitalism).

    "Did you see Mary Ann's comment about Karl Marx?
    He was a drunk who let two of his kids die of starvation while out preaching how great Communism was! He is the face of communism."

    The king who built the second temple (Herod) killed his whole family before committing suicide. Van Gogh cut off his ear. Abraham Lincoln had suicidal periods. The type of person who thought up the idea frequently has no bearing on their creation. This will make you mad at me, but Dubya did cocaine, defended branding pledges at Yale, and went AWOL from the Texas Rangers-does this mean the War on Terror (which you seem to support) is a horrible idea? I agree it's not on the same level as letting your children starve (although if you consider him culpable for guantanamo and etc. then he tortured people too), but still the same argument applies.

    "There is a difference between the ideal system of communism and the system of communism as it evolves under the power of an evil dictator. Just for the record."

    Exactly.

    "That's the beuty of capitilism, those people do not exist. Anyone can get rich under capitilism through hard work."

    Again, bull. If a plumber worked as hard as a lawyer for their whole life AND took a late retirement, he *might* get the same end amount of money-but he sure as heck wouldn't get the benefits the hotshot lawyer does, and sure as heck wouldn't get the same recognition. And mental, social, and physical issues can prevent people from getting the training or ability to get a skilled trade (something that is usually considered a non-intellectual job). Many of these problems can also be effects of a capitalist society, like (and taking the most high road-there are many darker examples) a new couple having a baby because their birth control didn't work and they weren't allowed to use a morning after pill or have an abortion-thereby preventing them from getting a further education and achieving a job better paying than dockworker or cashier until much later in their life (kids are expensive!).

    "That's not legal. I'm talking about LEGAL capitilism."

    If you can use the horrible acts (which are certainly illegal under international law) perpetrated by communist governments as an argument, you have to include illegal capitalist acts too. That's just being fair.

    "I have never seen any such war like that done in a capitilist system. If you are hinting at something why don't you come out and say it?"

    Maybe you're just deciding to ignore it. I could say it, and I'm tempted to, but this debate concerns the idea of communism, not immoral acts perpetrated by certain capitalist governments. And I don't want to get into a stupid "Yes, they did" "No, they didn't" argument because there's no way I could convince you of the fact.

    "Have you ever noticed that all the capitilist countries succeed and the communist ones don't? You say, "oh well that's because of the dictators!" Well what system causes those dictators?"

    Like I said, the dictators and failures are a product of the environment. There's never been a perfect condition for communism. It's a more enlightened idea and system and so the conditions need to be better for it to work. People have to love and respect each other and want to reach the common goal before it will work, and propaganda and torture isn't the way to do that. What if decisions in a communist country were made by popular vote instead of a dictatorial verdict (this is how it is done in communes that work)? Much better system.

    The dictators come from capitalism, in my opinion, based on the facts. People want to be dictators because they get power, and they become better off than others. The communist systems before don't work because they're never purely communist-the dictators (who shouldn't be controlling the system anyway) are better off than the people (they get benefits like servants, private cars, silk clothes, etc. etc. etc.). This desire to have more (by, in many cases, working less) is at the heart of capitalism.

    "That's how we were born Sol. Forcing us to be different will not help or make anything better."

    Not forcing! YOU HAVE TO SEPERATE THE IDEA FROM THE EXECUTION. My belief (because I'm an optimist) is that humanity is still evolving and that eventually we'll reach a point where we're all enlightened enough to be willing participants in communism. I think communism is the next stage of human evolution-we've had an industrial revolution and a information revolution, now we're due for a societal/intellectual revolution. But again, the concept is great-I can't think of one bad thing about a voluntary and democratic communist society.

    "Nor is it the responsibility of the government to bail out the weak. The people control the government, not the other way around."

    Because the people control the government, we also are the ones who, by extension, help the unlucky. That's why in Canada, we pay some taxes so that people who need health care to live can get it. And you consider helping someone towards a life-saving treatment "bailing out the weak"? Sounds dangerously like eugenics to me. "Let's let the people who can't afford it die-there's an overpopulation problem anyway, and besides, it'll fix the gene pool."

    "That's BS and you know it. Anyone can get good grades and be succesful by working hard. It's not about brains, it's about work ethic."

    We'll never agree on this one.

    "Then maybe there's a reason. Maybe we don't feel it is right to share what we earned."

    I'll agree we're greedy by nature-we evolved in a dog eat dog world. But in an age where food and water can be transported all over the globe and we have luxuries beyond the wildest dreams of our ancestors, don't you think we can afford to share some of our huge wealth with others? Can you justify your plasma tv when there are people dying around the world of starvation? Granted, I'm a bit of a hypocrite on this one, but I'm working on it.

    "Stalin is one of my favorite subjects. I think that Sol would be appaled at some of the things he did. People under his communist regime were basically forced to eat their children because they were starving. The ideal society huh?"

    I know full well the kind of atrocities ol' "Koba" committed. Again, not a true communist society, and a scumbag dictator who wanted power, not good for all. You can't use the failed and flawed previous examples as a reason to damn the concept.

    "You are confusing cause and effect. Dictators don't form communism, communism forms dictators! The communism you refer to CAN NOT EXIST. You are talking about something that is NOT POSSIBLE and has never happened. That is why communism is a stupid idea."

    I 100% disagree. Dictators are capitalists, by default, because they want power and better living conditions for themselves. How does communism produce dictators? I see no basis for that. Please explain your beliefs to me. Also, just because it's never happened on a large governmental scale doesn't mean it never will. It's also true that communism cannot work in the same conditions that it was used in (Soviet Russia and etc.) but remember i'm defending the concept, not the previous instituions.

    Saying the idea is stupid doesn't further your point or make me any more willing to understand your point of view.

    Just so you know, capitalism (not capitilism) comes from the word capitol which means either "starting money" or "city in which a country's government resides". Spelling well will make your posts more readable and mature.

     
  • At 15/3/06 6:47 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    "Why do you see these evil acts as a direct effect of communism? Like I said, communes have worked in freer and more educated countries like the US and Canada"

    Sure communes WORK, but I'd be willing to bet that people who went to private schools came out with more knowledge for this reason. In communes you are working for the group so everything goes slower when people need help, putting everyone at the same level. In public and private schools there are "classes". There are AP courses and there are special-ed courses, making it possible for everyone to get as much out of school as possible. Again, Capitalism beats Communism, in every form. The ideals, the countries using them, and even simpler forms like schools.

     
  • At 15/3/06 2:51 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Capitilism? The correct spelling is capitalism.

    That's nice. But it's not a valid arguement.

    That's ALL you say? I doubt it. More likely what you say is, "I don't want to see that disgusting gay porn, because I have morals".


    No, what I say is I don't want to see any porn because I have morals.

    I wasn't denying that it is there. I was disagreeing that you were "just pointing it out". You pointed it out for a REASON. That reason is that you're using the Bible to justify your hatred.

    Well I can't convince you that I don't hate gay people, but then I don't really care if you think that or not so whatever.

    They ARE calling it what it is. The movie is rated R, not X. It isn't pornography.


    Sorry, but the ratings are too soft as it is. Anything like that shown on screen is nothing more than pornography in the name of art.

    I took you out of context? I don't care what you meant exactly -- you still said that you DIDN'T CARE if he made money off the deal! Why WOULDN'T you care that he's corrupt?

    I explained this earlier. You can look at my comment about it if you want.

    doubt that the first president sentenced to a lengthy prison term for crimes committed while in office will be remembered as "great", no matter how much time passes.

    Would you like to place a bet on that happening? Name the amount dervish, I'll take it.
    By the way, are you saying you want to say that Bush is guilty without trial?! But when I supposedally say that about terrorists I'm evil!

    I'm not getting into a debate about Reagan. The man was brillaint and deserves respect. He stopped communism (maybe that's why you hate him) in Russia and helped cut goverment pork. The fact is that Reagan was a genius and the 2nd best president this country has ever had, and I'm not debating it with you. Take your hate somewhere else.

    BS. Talk to some street people.

    I do talk to street people. I tell them to get a job. Let me let you in on a little personal history. I went to Philidelphia numerous times when I was very young. Most street people (whom I call bums) didn't care about food, they wanted money for drinks and cigarettes. A small story for you if you will. My mother and father used to go through Philly with a bag of sandwiches as a little experiment. When a bum begged for money they gave him a sandwich. Usually none of them wanted it, because they wanted money for their drugs. You trust those kinds over me huh?

    "Have all capitalist societies been riddled with poverty, totalitarianism, and greed?"

    Yep, that's what it's all about-being better off than others.


    Totalitarianism? Where in a capitilist society did that happen? Historical facts please.

    Why do you see these evil acts as a direct effect of communism?

    Uh, because they happened under communism and not capitalism maybe?

    This will make you mad at me, but Dubya did cocaine, defended branding pledges at Yale, and went AWOL from the Texas Rangers

    Not arguing with the first two, but the last one was proven false.

    Again, bull. If a plumber worked as hard as a lawyer for their whole life AND took a late retirement, he *might* get the same end amount of money-but he sure as heck wouldn't get the benefits the hotshot lawyer does, and sure as heck wouldn't get the same recognition.

    Because the lawyer worked hard and the plumber did not. You keep confusing cause and effect.

    If you can use the horrible acts (which are certainly illegal under international law) perpetrated by communist governments as an argument, you have to include illegal capitalist acts too.

    Not really, because in communism the dictators MADE it legal.

    Maybe you're just deciding to ignore it. I could say it, and I'm tempted to, but this debate concerns the idea of communism, not immoral acts perpetrated by certain capitalist governments.

    If you think that saving 2,997,000 lives is evil then fine, that's your lot.

    The dictators come from capitalism, in my opinion, based on the facts.

    Really? What capitilist dictators? Stalin wasn't a capitlist. Lenin wasn't. Neither are Castro or Jung Il. They're all commies!

    Not forcing! YOU HAVE TO SEPERATE THE IDEA FROM THE EXECUTION.

    The IDEA doesn't work if you can't EXECUTE IT.

    Because the people control the government, we also are the ones who, by extension, help the unlucky.

    That's correct, through PRIVATE charity.

    I 100% disagree. Dictators are capitalists

    I did not ever say that. Do not twist my words in the future, thanks.

    Saying the idea is stupid doesn't further your point or make me any more willing to understand your point of view.

    So? I'm just saying what I mean. I don't care if you agree or not.

    Just so you know, capitalism (not capitilism) comes from the word capitol which means either "starting money" or "city in which a country's government resides". Spelling well will make your posts more readable and mature.

    Actually it comes from the word "capital" not capitol. A capitol is a building. If you want to critizice my spelling (which is irrelevent) do it right. Also if you want to question maturity you should know that most people when they are very young also like communism and sound a lot like you do when debating it.

    As for your comments Cody you will not convince them. You have to let them grow out of it. Usually this happens when they get jobs and understand that money does not grow on trees (or come from the government).

     
  • At 15/3/06 6:41 PM, Blogger Sol Kauffman said…

    "Because the lawyer worked hard and the plumber did not. You keep confusing cause and effect."

    That's not true either. I'm sure if you talked to a plumber, he did at least as much work as the lawyer did (physical labour counts just as much-if not more-as mental labour does because it can cause injuries and etc.) and still recieved less money for his labour. What, do you see skilled workers as being inferior?

    Bums in Philly must be a lot different than the ones here in Vancouver. Sometimes I buy a whole pizza and take it downtown-the people can't stop thanking me and the pizza disappears in seconds.

    "Totalitarianism? Where in a capitilist society did that happen? Historical facts please."

    I'll give you this one. But still, poverty and corruption are rampant in capitalist society as well.

    "Uh, because they happened under communism and not capitalism maybe?"

    Now you're confused about the cause of the effect. Communism has very little or nothing to do with the production of dictators-it has more to do with the other conditions in the area and the flawed implementation of the communist system.

    "Not really, because in communism the dictators MADE it legal."

    So when Bush defies the UN and invades a country or when he makes it legal to take away people's freedom with the Patriot Act it's not making something illegal legal? Again, only the government and conditions in that area allow dictators to commit such crimes.

    "Really? What capitilist dictators? Stalin wasn't a capitlist. Lenin wasn't. Neither are Castro or Jung Il. They're all commies!"

    They all *claimed* to be commies. However they demanded more than everyone else got, which means they were actually capitalist.

    "The IDEA doesn't work if you can't EXECUTE IT."

    Sorry for the caps. However, like I said, communism failed before because dictators used it as a way to gain themselves power, not because it's a flawed idea.

    "That's correct, through PRIVATE charity."

    Alright, well, we disagree here. I think it's just fine for the government to handle allocating funds for health care.

    "I did not ever say that. Do not twist my words in the future, thanks."

    I never said you said that. Don't blame me for things I didn't do in the future, thanks.

    "Actually it comes from the word "capital" not capitol. A capitol is a building. If you want to critizice my spelling (which is irrelevent) do it right. Also if you want to question maturity you should know that most people when they are very young also like communism and sound a lot like you do when debating it."

    Sorry about the spelling error, my bad. However you should know that maturity in some cases has little to do with age-I think anyone that can post accurate, intelligent (sorry for bragging) is not someone of low maturity. However, someone who calls other people's ideas stupid might be.

    You also didn't reply to my points about the problems with capitalism, the morality of eugenics, or especially the causes of the failures of communism in modern societies. I think it's pretty clear that communism has failed before not because it is intrinsically flawed but because the conditions for it were not right-therefore it's silly to say that communism is the root of the problems that occured in the societies. Instead of just re-stating the points I already countered, why can't you just understand what I'm saying?

     
  • At 15/3/06 7:31 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    That's not true either. I'm sure if you talked to a plumber, he did at least as much work as the lawyer did (physical labour counts just as much-if not more-as mental labour does because it can cause injuries and etc.) and still recieved less money for his labour. What, do you see skilled workers as being inferior?


    Um excuse me are you saying that a plumber is more skilled than a lawyer?! You might want to look at that again.

    Communism has very little or nothing to do with the production of dictators

    Then why are most world dictators communists and virtually none capitalists?

    So when Bush defies the UN and invades a country or when he makes it legal to take away people's freedom with the Patriot Act it's not making something illegal legal?

    Nope, because CONGRESS APPROVED IT. It's called a republic.

    They all *claimed* to be commies. However they demanded more than everyone else got, which means they were actually capitalist.

    No, capitalists WORK for their money, not take over countries.

    Sorry for the caps.

    That had nothing to do with it, I'm just too lazy to keep putting in HTML.

    However, like I said, communism failed before because dictators used it as a way to gain themselves power, not because it's a flawed idea.


    If it doesn't work then isn't it a flawed idea?

    Alright, well, we disagree here. I think it's just fine for the government to handle allocating funds for health care.


    I just don't like to see the government have much power. It leads to government corruption.

    I never said you said that.

    I may have misunderstood, it seemed like you were agreeing with something I didn't say.

    Sorry about the spelling error, my bad.

    I don't care about who spells what wrong. I'm just pointing out that it's ironic to criticize my spelling with a spelling error. Personally I think it's the arguement that counts, not the spelling.

    However you should know that maturity in some cases has little to do with age

    That's correct. I'm just pointing out that many immature people support communism until they get a job.

    I think anyone that can post accurate, intelligent (sorry for bragging) is not someone of low maturity. However, someone who calls other people's ideas stupid might be.

    It would be if I didn't back it up, which I've done. I just think theat communism is stupid. It doesn't work.

    You also didn't reply to my points about the problems with capitalism

    Of course not. You're right, there are flaws, but it works. Communism on the other hand obviously does not and has not.

    morality of eugenics

    I think you're wrong there that's all. Communism is not advanced. It's already an outdated and dying system. It is not our future. Also eugenics is a ridicolous thoery. History is very similar to today. It repeats itself all the time. I mean all the time. We are not going to change into some superintulecctual race anytime soon. We're going to me the same race with better techonology and the same flaws and triumphs. That's just how it is.

    it's silly to say that communism is the root of the problems that occured in the societies.

    Well let's see, communism took over and the places went to hell. What exactly was the cause if not communism?

     
  • At 15/3/06 7:33 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     
  • At 15/3/06 7:44 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Bums in Philly must be a lot different than the ones here in Vancouver. Sometimes I buy a whole pizza and take it downtown-the people can't stop thanking me and the pizza disappears in seconds.

    Well obviously your government isn't taking care of the, but you are. That's an example of private charity working better than government isn't it?

     
  • At 16/3/06 12:34 AM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... That's nice. But it's not a valid arguement... If you want to critizice my spelling (which is irrelevent)...

    Who said I was making an argument? I was just telling you that I find your constant spelling errors annoying. Also, I agree with Sol when he said "Spelling well will make your posts more readable and mature"... The fact that all your posts contain multiple spelling errors -- and you continue to spell words incorrectly even after being corrected is very relevant.

    DarkSaturos said... Sorry, but the ratings are too soft as it is. Anything like that shown on screen is nothing more than pornography in the name of art.

    What are you sorry about? The fact that you're a liar? There are specific requirements a movie must meet to be classified as pornography. This film did NOT meet those requirements. It isn't pornography, end of discussion. It's rated R, not X, and not even NC-17. This is a really STUPID argument. The ONLY reason you're making is because of your hatred for homosexuals.

    DarkSaturos said... Well I can't convince you that I don't hate gay people...

    No, you can't. Everything else you've said makes it VERY clear what your real feelings are.

    DarkSaturos said... I explained this earlier. You can look at my comment about it if you want.

    No, you didn't explain your comment at all. You said you didn't care if bush was making money off the DP World deal. I GOT YOUR CLARIFICATION. You thought he was wrong about pushing for the deal, period. But neither you or Cody has answered the question about whether or not you have a problem with this being a conflict of interest.

    BTW the latest rumor is that the contracts for these ports may be purchased by the evil Carlyle Group. Personally I'd be more opposed to the Carlyle Group taking over port security than DP World.

    But I guess avoiding the question is typical behavior for a wing-nut. When you're losing, drop an insult and then leave. Hypocrite.

    DarkSaturos said... Would you like to place a bet on that happening? Name the amount dervish, I'll take it. By the way, are you saying you want to say that Bush is guilty without trial?! But when I supposedally say that about terrorists I'm evil!

    No, I don't want to bet. He should have been impeached and in prison already... So the chances are not good that he'll ever face the consequences of his criminal behavior. That doesn't mean he doesn't deserve a prison sentence. In any case, I still don't think anyone will EVER remember him as a great president. They'll remember him as the idiot who caused the next president to have to raise taxes to pay down the ENORMOUS debt he created.

    Yes, I think bush should have a trial. But it would kinda be like Saddam's trial... Everybody already knows that Saddam is guilty, right?

    DarkSaturos said... Not arguing with the first two, but the last one was proven false.

    I was not aware that happened. Let's see some proof.

    DarkSaturos said... Because the lawyer worked hard and the plumber did not. You keep confusing cause and effect.

    As I pointed out earlier, this is the Horatio Alger MYTH. It sounds good -- that anyone can get ahead if they just work hard enough -- but it simply isn't true. Some people can "make it" if they work hard and are LUCKY. To say EVERYONE can is blatant lie. Your problem is that you keep confusing fantasy and reality.

    The Awful Truth about the American Dream. What are your TRUE chances of getting rich in America? (Summary) An yearly income of at least $400,000 is required to be considered wealthy. Every year aproximately 1,464 newly rich US households come into existence. The breakdown as to how those people acquire their wealth is as follows -- Inheritence: 69%, Marriage: 4.2%, Crime: 26.8 percent, Hard Work & Determination: less than 1%. (Copyright 2005 J.R. Mooneyham)

    hmm, it doesn't seem to likely that hard work will make you rich.

    DarkSaturos said... That's correct, through PRIVATE charity.

    Another lie right out of the Conservative playbook.

    Myth: Welfare can be replaced by charity. Many conservatives argue that if government welfare were eliminated, charity would take up the slack in helping the nation's poor and needy. This claim is false. Americans would have to make at least 10 times the donations they currently give to charity to fully replace government social spending. And there is no reason to believe that people who so bitterly hate paying taxes would gladly surrender an equal amount to charity. Arguments that charities can do the job better than government are naïve - most charities are small, highly localized and ill-suited to responding to national disasters or shifting economic trends. About 90 percent of charity funds are both collected and spent locally, which means that rich communities tend to have well-funded charities, and poor communities tend to have poorly funded ones. For this reason, only 10 percent of all charitable donations are directed to the poor. Re-allocating charity donations to the communities that need them most will incur intense political opposition from the communities that fund them.

    DarkSaturos said... As for your comments Cody you will not convince them. You have to let them grow out of it. Usually this happens when they get jobs and understand that money does not grow on trees (or come from the government).

    So now you're the most mature person posting here? We already know you have no morals and a serious reading comprehension problem... What's up with Republicans and their HUGE egos? Clearly you have no reason to feel superior to anyone. What the hell would you know about supporting yourself? I believe I read a post by Cody which stated that YOUR PARENTS are finanically well off (and you agreed)? So, again, what the hell would you know about it?

    DarkSaturos said... Nope, because CONGRESS APPROVED IT. It's called a republic.

    I don't care if Congress approved it. Our Congress can't approve an unprovoked war of agression with a sovereign nation! International laws (which I already proved bush violated) handle those situations. Iran is a Republic... So, if Iran's Parliament approved a first strike against the US because they felt an attack was imminent -- you'd say they were within their rights?

     
  • At 16/3/06 6:42 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    dervish said...
    "So, if Iran's Parliament approved a first strike against the US because they felt an attack was imminent -- you'd say they were within their rights?"

    I'm sure they would be within their rights, but comparing a preemptive strike against the US with a preemptive strike against Iraq? Please. Who's side are you on? Or maybe you're one of those multi-culturalist hippies, I dunno.

    "But I guess avoiding the question is typical behavior for a wing-nut. When you're losing, drop an insult and then leave. Hypocrite."

    If I wanted to I could ban you and leave. Moron. I believe I already told you I don't have a problem with people in charge of the ports if we can trust them. I know you want to throw out these conspiracy theories about how Bush might profit off this, but it's all a load of BS.

    Sol said...
    "Now you're confused about the cause of the effect. Communism has very little or nothing to do with the production of dictators-it has more to do with the other conditions in the area and the flawed implementation of the communist system."

    Lets look at it this way. The way I see it Marx's system is so flawed that it would be impossible to put it in action the way he wanted it. The only way you could hope to achieve Communism is with a dictator. There's no way you can have a country with no government yet so much order (as Marx wanted). That flaw is one out of many that show how completely impossible Marx's theory was. You can't have a form of anarchy with complete order and equality. It is impossible. The only way to have order and equality is to have a dictator. Lets put some statements on the record here.

    Marx's theory was flawed

    Marx's theory was evil as it required violent revolutions

    Marx's theory led to Communism with dictators because of its huge flaws.

    Communist countries go as close to Marx's theory as possible, leading me to make the statement that all forms of Communism are bad or evil. The theory, governments, even Communes.

    Simply stated, Communism sucks on all levels. The people who ignore this and support it for it's dreamy words like "equality" and "fairness" suck even more.

     
  • At 16/3/06 6:57 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Who said I was making an argument? I was just telling you that I find your constant spelling errors annoying. Also, I agree with Sol when he said "Spelling well will make your posts more readable and mature"... The fact that all your posts contain multiple spelling errors -- and you continue to spell words incorrectly even after being corrected is very relevant.

    I think it's the arguement that counts more. If you need to correct someones spelling to argue then you have no arguement of your own. Anyone can run thier comment through a spell check like you do, but an arguement is the result of a single person.

    What are you sorry about? The fact that you're a liar? There are specific requirements a movie must meet to be classified as pornography. This film did NOT meet those requirements. It isn't pornography, end of discussion.

    Oh so the law is always right? Okay I can argue like that. The Patriot Act is right. Since it passed Congress the war is right also. End of discussion.

    No, you didn't explain your comment at all. You said you didn't care if bush was making money off the DP World deal.

    No I said that I don't care because it's still not right what he did. Why is it that when I actually agree with a liberal they still argue? I guess it's just automatic rejection of what the other party says without thinking...

    But I guess avoiding the question is typical behavior for a wing-nut. When you're losing, drop an insult and then leave. Hypocrite.

    Where did I leave this discussion exactly? You should probably think before you put out something as blatantly false as that statement.

    Yes, I think bush should have a trial. But it would kinda be like Saddam's trial... Everybody already knows that Saddam is guilty, right?


    No one is guilty until after a trial. Maybe you just want to convict people without trial, but some people support the idea of having one.

    I'll adress your other stuff later. I have to catch the bus now.

     
  • At 16/3/06 2:39 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    I was not aware that happened. Let's see some proof.

    Proof? How about Dan Rather's fake documents?

    As I pointed out earlier, this is the Horatio Alger MYTH. It sounds good -- that anyone can get ahead if they just work hard enough -- but it simply isn't true.

    It isn't? My great-grandfather was an Italian immegrant with nothing. Literally nothing. He served in the Great War and became a sargent and my grandfather opened up a highly succesful buissiness. Those were some pretty successful people for having nothing. Why? Because they worked hard. Of course you'll just say I'm lying and delusional like you always do because these REAL LIFE stories don't fit with YOUR reality.

    hmm, it doesn't seem to likely that hard work will make you rich.

    You don't need $400,000 dollars a year to be rich. That's a gross exageration.

    Another lie right out of the Conservative playbook.

    How is it a lie? The Red Cross did better than FEMA. Heck, Sol (a liberal) had his own story proving it (even if he didn't mean to.)

    So now you're the most mature person posting here? We already know you have no morals and a serious reading comprehension problem...

    Well I suppose that statement proves that I'm more mature than you are at least.

    I don't care if Congress approved it. Our Congress can't approve an unprovoked war of agression with a sovereign nation!

    Unprovoked? Saddam shot at our planes for years! What do you mean unprovoked? Saddam was training terrorists!

    support it for it's dreamy words like "equality" and "fairness"

    Exactly, they support it because it sounds good. That's what communism is based on, making things sound good. In fact that what liberalism is based on too. (What's the betting dervish twists that statement so it seems I said liberals were commies?) Unfourtuanatly sounding good isn't being good. If you look at the facts capitilism is good and communism is bad. It's historically proven. That's why I don't understand why these communist sypathizers think it could still work.

     
  • At 16/3/06 8:35 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... I think it's the arguement that counts more. If you need to correct someones spelling to argue then you have no arguement of your own. Anyone can run thier comment through a spell check like you do, but an arguement is the result of a single person.

    I pointed out your most egregious spelling errors. If you're going to continually use the words "capitalism" and "conspiracy" you can at least spell them right. I'm not talking about typos or occasionally used words -- I'm talking about words you use OVER AND OVER -- exuse me if I find it annoying that you keep mispelling them! However, as you will surely agree, after I pointed out your spelling errors I proceeded to present my arguements. I know you read my arguments because you responded to them. So exactly HOW do I have no argument? If I had no arguement what were you responding to??

    DarkSaturos said... Oh so the law is always right? Okay I can argue like that. The Patriot Act is right. Since it passed Congress the war is right also. End of discussion.

    The Motion Picture Association assigns movie ratings, not Congress. Also, the MPA rating system is volunatary -- so this doesn't have anything to do with laws -- therefore your arguement and conclusion is invalid. Do you think ALL movies rated "R" are pornography, or just those which feature gay protagonists?

    Pornography the representation of the human body or human sexual behaviour with the goal of sexual arousal, similar to, but distinct from, erotica, though the two terms are often used interchangeably. (from wikipedia)

    The goal of Brokeback mountain was to tell a story, not to elicit sexual arousal. Therefore it isn't pornography. Pretty simple to understand.

    DarkSaturos said... No I said that I don't care because it's still not right what he did. Why is it that when I actually agree with a liberal they still argue? I guess it's just automatic rejection of what the other party says without thinking. Where did I leave this discussion exactly? You should probably think before you put out something as blatantly false as that statement.

    NO, we are NOT in agreement!! And you're still dodging the question. Why are you REFUSING to answer the question? Probably because even acknowleding that it is a valid concern raises the question that bush may be corrupt. Again you are proving my point that avoiding the question is typical behavior for a wing-nut. When they're losing, they dodge the question and pretend they don't know what you're talking about. How is what I said blatantly false? I don't see an answer to my question anywhere in your response.

    DarkSaturos said... No one is guilty until after a trial. Maybe you just want to convict people without trial, but some people support the idea of having one.

    hmm, so you think Saddam may be innocent? I never said I wanted to convict anyone without a trial. Your saying that I do is "blatantly false".

    DarkSaturos said... Proof? How about Dan Rather's fake documents?

    Nice try, but that doesn't prove anything. Karl Rove was the source of those fake documents. After CBS couldn't prove that they were authentic the result was that this issue went away completely -- just like Rove wanted.

    Dan Rather Takes A Bullet: While the Right was demonizing the crusty ol' newsman, BushCo got away with murder, again. (excerpt) Paperwork or no paperwork, the allegations against Dubya are entirely true. It is common knowledge. Dubya was a family embarrassment. A none-too-bright problem child. A mediocre student and AWOL National Guardsman whose whereabouts can't be accounted for during large chunks of his "service", unless you happened to look in the bars down in Tijuana.

    He skipped out on Vietnam due to Daddy's connections and was spoon-fed and coddled, and he binge drank his way through most of his adult life, and no matter how much the GOP fluffs up his threadbare "record", even they can't deny that Bush looks like a spoiled little Texas brat who could no more wear a military uniform with dignity and pride than a drag queen can wear a khaki pantsuit from the Gap. (By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist. 9/29/2004)

    DarkSaturos said... My great-grandfather was an Italian immegrant with nothing. Literally nothing. He served in the Great War and became a sargent and my grandfather opened up a highly succesful buissiness. Those were some pretty successful people for having nothing. Why? Because they worked hard. Of course you'll just say I'm lying and delusional like you always do because these REAL LIFE stories don't fit with YOUR reality.

    YES you're lying! Not about your relatives who worked hard and succeeded, but that because they did ANYONE and EVERYONE who works hard can get ahead. That simply isn't true. Some people can get ahead with hard work and LUCK, but it's getting harder and harder. Especially under Republican rule. A success story concerning your GREAT grandfather and your grandfather proves what? How does that relate to anything that is happening TODAY?

    The Mobility Myth. (excerpt) The gap between the rich and everybody else in this country is fast becoming an unbridgeable chasm. David Cay Johnston, in the latest installment of the New York Times series "Class Matters", wrote, "It's no secret that the gap between the rich and the poor has been growing, but the extent to which the richest are leaving everybody else behind is not widely known".

    Consider, for example, two separate eras in the lifetime of the baby-boom generation. For every additional dollar earned by the bottom 90 percent of the population between 1950 and 1970, those in the top 0.01 percent earned an additional $162. That gap has since skyrocketed. For every additional dollar earned by the bottom 90 percent between 1990 and 2002, Mr. Johnston wrote, each taxpayer in that top bracket brought in an extra $18,000.

    Put the myth of the American Dream aside. The bottom line is that it's becoming increasingly difficult for working Americans to move up in class. The rich are freezing nearly everybody else in place, and sprinting off with the nation's bounty.

    As far as the Bush administration is concerned, the gap between the rich and the rest of us is not growing fast enough. An analysis by The Times showed the following:

    "Under the Bush tax cuts, the 400 taxpayers with the highest incomes -- a minimum of $87 million in 2000, the last year for which the government will release such data -- now pay income, Medicare and Social Security taxes amounting to virtually the same percentage of their incomes as people making $50,000 to $75,000. Those earning more than $10 million a year now pay a lesser share of their income in these taxes than those making $100,000 to $200,000".

    The social dislocations resulting from this war that nobody mentions have been under way for some time. But the Bush economic policies have accelerated the consequences and intensified the pain.

    A big problem, of course, is that American workers have been hurting badly for years. Revolutionary improvements in technology, increasingly globalized trade, the competition of low-wage workers overseas and increased immigration here at home, the decline of manufacturing, the weakening of the labor movement, outsourcing and numerous other factors have left American workers with very little leverage to use against employers.

    Many in the middle class are mortgaged to the hilt, maxed out on credit cards and fearful to the point of trembling that all they've worked for might vanish in a downsized minute.

    The privileged classes, with the Bush administration's iron cloak of protection, avoid their fair share of taxes, are reluctant to pay an honest dollar for an honest day's work (the federal minimum wage is still a scandalous $5.15 an hour), refuse to fight in their nation's wars, and laugh all the way to their yachts. (By Bob Herbert, The New York Times. 6/6/2005)

    hmm, I guess all these people are lazy, right?

    DarkSaturos said... You don't need $400,000 dollars a year to be rich. That's a gross exageration.

    You missed the point, as usual. The majority of people get rich NOT by working hard, but by inheriting their money.

    DarkSaturos said... How is it a lie? The Red Cross did better than FEMA. Heck, Sol (a liberal) had his own story proving it (even if he didn't mean to.)

    How is it a lie?! Go back and read the article I posted: Myth: Welfare can be replaced by charity. That should answer your question.

    The Red Cross did better than FEMA? How does this help your case? The failure of FEMA under bush was shameful. Of course you don't hold him responsible at all. Sol's story proved no such thing. His story proved homeless people wanted food, not drugs. Sol didn't say he went back every day thereafter to distribute food, did he?? My guess is that people went hungry before and after that one day he gave out food... And you'd describe his story as a private charity success story??

    DarkSaturos said... Well I suppose that statement proves that I'm more mature than you are at least.

    It does??

    DarkSaturos said... Unprovoked? Saddam shot at our planes for years! What do you mean unprovoked? Saddam was training terrorists!

    More lies. Saddam didn't train terrorists.

     
  • At 17/3/06 2:47 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    after I pointed out your spelling errors I proceeded to present my arguements. I know you read my arguments because you responded to them. So exactly HOW do I have no argument?

    At first you do. Then they become weaker and weaker until its the spelling and "reading comphrehension" shit again.

    he Motion Picture Association assigns movie ratings, not Congress.

    This is true. But the ratings help determine to whom the movie should be shown by law.

    Do you think ALL movies rated "R" are pornography, or just those which feature gay protagonists?


    I clearly said I don't like ANY scences like that.

    NO, we are NOT in agreement!!

    Okay you win Bush was right. (I still think he was wrong though.)

    Why are you REFUSING to answer the question?

    What question was that exactly? I'll gladly answer if I know what it is.

    hmm, so you think Saddam may be innocent?

    Personally? No. In law terms though I should not decide until after the trial.

    Nice try, but that doesn't prove anything. Karl Rove was the source of those fake documents.

    Oh yeah, obviously Karl Rove was in on a big conspericy to get Dan Rather fired. *Rolls eyes.* Can you liberals take anything at face value? Can't you go with reality for once. If it was a conspericy then why did CBS fire Dan Rather?

    From your article: in their mind's eye a slightly oozing picture of BushCo's master puppeteer and most favoritist overfed pit bull Karl Rove, sitting there all puffed up and wheezing and hunched over his grease-stained nail-studded Compaq Presario after yet another three-Martini, four-baby-seal-kabob lunch

    Oh yeah, this isn't biased at all.

    YES you're lying! Not about your relatives who worked hard and succeeded, but that because they did ANYONE and EVERYONE who works hard can get ahead. That simply isn't true. Some people can get ahead with hard work and LUCK

    I resent your implication that my faimily got ahead through luck. They got ahead through hard work and discipline. Learn some.

    A success story concerning your GREAT grandfather and your grandfather proves what? How does that relate to anything that is happening TODAY?

    Because my mother and father did it too. We're not wildly rich or anything but we do okay. I'll get back to you in a few years, when I've done it through hard work, which I promise you I will. By the way, the article you cited was an editorial. It was opinion not fact.

    You missed the point, as usual. The majority of people get rich NOT by working hard, but by inheriting their money.


    Some of them yes. And so what? Where do you think their parents got it?

    The Red Cross did better than FEMA? How does this help your case? The failure of FEMA under bush was shameful.

    Oh of course, I forgot, everythings Bush's fault right? Come on. If that's so why do Democrats support Micheal Brown?

    And you'd describe his story as a private charity success story??

    Yes. Because obviously the government wasn't going to do what he did. It's simple math. One day the government gives 0 food. One private citizen gives 1 piece of pizza.

    1>0.

    It does??

    Yes. Insulting me shows that you are too immature to argue correctly.

    More lies. Saddam didn't train terrorists.

    More lies. Saddam
    did
    train terrorists. It's own SADDAM'S OWN TAPES.

     
  • At 17/3/06 2:52 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

  • At 17/3/06 3:05 PM, Blogger Sol Kauffman said…

    dervish and darksaturos, can we please stop the silly gay argument? You're both smart, mature guys. I think it's clear that ds is merely disgusted by the concept of homosexuality (as most heterosexual people tend to be) and does not hate gay people outright because of their sexual affiliation.

    "Um excuse me are you saying that a plumber is more skilled than a lawyer?! You might want to look at that again."

    What I'm trying to show is that physical labour is at least as hard as mental labour is-could a lawyer install a toilet? Of course not. Therefore if they both work hard (although the comparison is hard to do because one is physical and the other is not) then shouldn't they both be able to gain the same benefits and etc?

    "Then why are most world dictators communists and virtually none capitalists?"

    They aren't! If most of the world's dictators were communist then they would all be happy to be paid as much as the common worker and would not act so superior to their people. Clearly they are all capitalist as they WORK HARD to gain control of a country and illegally gain more wealth and possesions than they deserve.

    "Nope, because CONGRESS APPROVED IT. It's called a republic."

    It's not about the fact that it's legal in the US, it's about the fact that it was illegal in the UN and the rest of the world, like w-dervish said.

    "No, capitalists WORK for their money, not take over countries."

    Taking over a country isn't work?

    "If it doesn't work then isn't it a flawed idea?"

    So if you... I don't know, build a model and it collapses, then you just give up because the model is horribly flawed?

    "I just don't like to see the government have much power. It leads to government corruption."

    So it's not ok to allow the government to provide people with health care using taxpayer's money, but it's fine for them to pass a law that allows them to take away people's rights?

    "That's correct. I'm just pointing out that many immature people support communism until they get a job"

    Your statement felt like a personal attack to me.

    "Well let's see, communism took over and the places went to hell. What exactly was the cause if not communism?"

    Starvation, insufficient wages, evil dictators with selfish capitalist agendas, etc. The failure of the idea in that environment is a product of the environment, you see?

    "Well obviously your government isn't taking care of the, but you are. That's an example of private charity working better than government isn't it?"

    A lot of people don't get welfare checks (or have to support kids/etc. with the meagre amount) or are addicted to drugs and don't have enough money for food, and that's why they will happily and thankfully accept food. Like w-dervish said, this wasn't an example of private charity working better because it didn't work better-it was only a temporary boon to them. If you took away those welfare checks they would be much poorer. And don't say "well if they got off the drugs, they'd have enough money", because addiction is a disease that cannot always be beaten by willpower, especially a will that has been crushed by years of downtrodden begging on the streets.

    "But I guess avoiding the question is typical behavior for a wing-nut. When you're losing, drop an insult and then leave. Hypocrite."

    Cut it out dervish. Just because one of them said it before is no reason to do the same thing back. Personal attacks are childish and stupid, and I'm sure he regretted it afterwards anyway. We're all more mature than that, come on.

    "There's no way you can have a country with no government yet so much order (as Marx wanted)."

    You sure can't in impovrished Russia, or peasant North Korea, or slave labour China. If the people want Communism they are willing to enforce the laws themselves without electing people to do it for them.

    "The only way to have order and equality is to have a dictator."

    Oh-now I see why you guys elected Bush...

    "Marx's theory was flawed"

    Ok, true. But not intrinsically flawed. It's a good idea, but the details have holes that tend to be exploited by greedy dictators that see it as a way to repress the people.

    "Marx's theory was evil as it required violent revolutions"

    A revolution can be either violent or non-violent, but that depends on the people enacting the coup. And besides, wouldn't you say that the conversion of Iraq from an essential dictatorship to a democracy is a violent revolution? A hell of a lot of people have died so far...

    "Communist countries go as close to Marx's theory as possible"

    Not true, most countries that are labeled as communist are not really communist but are a lesser level of it, like a social dictatorship, because the dictator wants to be in power and decides that he will force the people to share instead of them willingly doing it.

    "Simply stated, Communism sucks on all levels. The people who ignore this and support it for it's dreamy words like "equality" and "fairness" suck even more."

    You're entitled to your (incorrect in my opinion) beliefs. However, I resent the quickly following personal attack. Also-you think equality and fairness are dreamy words? This is odd coming from a republican who believes that murderers should be given the death sentence (fairness/justice). I'm not particularly suprised about the equality one though-that seems to be an issue these days.

    "It isn't? My great-grandfather was an Italian immegrant with nothing. Literally nothing. He served in the Great War and became a sargent and my grandfather opened up a highly succesful buissiness. Those were some pretty successful people for having nothing. Why? Because they worked hard."

    Good for them. Really. But that's one lucky example. What about the hundreds of thousands of asian immigrants to Vancouver or mexican immigrants to California who work in horrible conditions for pennies to try and bring their families into a better country, only to be denied citizenship and kicked back out because they illegally escaped from the unsafe and terribly living conditions of their home country? American dream, yeah, right.

    "You don't need $400,000 dollars a year to be rich. That's a gross exageration."

    Sure, you can be rich in other ways or whatever, but we're talking about strictly monetary value here, and besides, $400,000 minus taxes, living expenses, tuition, and etc. for a family (especially an immigrant or devout religious one with lots of children) definitely does not constitute richness.

    "How is it a lie? The Red Cross did better than FEMA."

    It was the government's responsibility to fix those dams and take care of the situation, which they horribly failed to do. If we take your argument then the government should just ignore crises (which poverty definitely is) and help the rich get richer?

    "Unprovoked? Saddam shot at our planes for years! What do you mean unprovoked? Saddam was training terrorists!"

    So? North Korea is has been openly building nukes (and besides, they're "commies" too!), China has a hell of a lot of bored, unmarried young men (soldiers) hanging around, etc. etc. And besides, you've got enough issues in the US alone to deal with without invading other places and having to deal with their problems as well (although other countries usually end up picking up the mess anyway). If the military budget was slashed just a bit, it would help out the deficit a hell of a lot and could even be used to help rebuild New Orleans, help out disabled soldiers, help feed the poor, institute a nation-wide health care system even. Is the only thing you know how to do is make war?

    "Exactly, they support it because it sounds good. That's what communism is based on, making things sound good. In fact that what liberalism is based on too."

    You must have forgotten that conservatism is based on making things sound good too. All political system are. It's only when we see them in action that we learn how they really work. I gotta say, conservatism's America United ideas sounded a lot better than they're working-seems more like America is united against arabs, the poor, and immigrants, because you know, they aren't really citizens anyway.

     
  • At 17/3/06 4:14 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... At first you do. Then they become weaker and weaker until its the spelling and "reading comphrehension" shit again.

    My arguements keep getting weaker and weaker?? Well, I do have to keep explaining the same thing OVER AND OVER... but that's because you don't understand what I'm saying the first half dozen times -- Like the question I asked in regards to the WND article I posted. If I ask the same question for a third time you'll finally answer it?! I very seriously doubt it.

    Sol Kauffman said... dervish and darksaturos, can we please stop the silly gay argument? You're both smart, mature guys. I think it's clear that ds is merely disgusted by the concept of homosexuality (as most heterosexual people tend to be) and does not hate gay people outright because of their sexual affiliation.

    You don't see it? He is CLEARLY a gay hating homophobe, otherwise he wouldn't be persisting with this ridiculous argument that Brokeback Mountain is gay pornography. The sole purpose of pornography is to elicit sexual arousal. What about the hetrosexual people who PAID to see the movie?? Does DarkSaturos think they were sexually aroused?? Does he think the movie turned them gay?

    Can't you see that this is the SAME argument Conservatives use to describe every group of people that they hate? Poor people are poor because they CHOOSE to be poor -- because they're lazy. Gay people CHOOSE to be gay. It allows them to put the blame on the people they hate and it justifies their hatred. I find it sickening. I seriously believe there is something mentally wrong with conservatives, and bush Republicans in particular.

    Sol Kauffman said... Cut it out dervish. Just because one of them said it before is no reason to do the same thing back. Personal attacks are childish and stupid, and I'm sure he regretted it afterwards anyway. We're all more mature than that, come on.

    No, I won't "cut it out". It isn't childish, it is pointing out that he is a hyprocrite. Cody accuses liberals of avoiding answering questions if they are losing the arguement -- and now both he and DarkSaturos are doing the exact same thing! Then he pretends not to know what the question is! I'd call that childish.

    I posted an article from World Net Daily (a website that we have already established is conservatively biased), which stated that bush's motivations for pushing for the DP World Port deal may have been financially motivated.

    My claim is that everything bush does is financially motivated. National security doesn't mean anything to these thieves when there is a profit to be made.

    DarkSaturos said he was against the deal because he thought it was a bad idea, security-wise. I don't know that is necessarily true, since an honest investigation was never conducted. So we are NOT in agreement! I said bush pushed for the deal because of GREED, and Cody said he thought bush pushed for the deal for "public relations" reasons.

    The article clearly states that bush and friends are going to make money off this deal! Don't either of you have a problem with this clear CONFLICT OF INTEREST??? They know what they're doing is wrong, otherwise they wouldn't be trying to hide it! How much more proof do you need that this guy is corrupt?!

    The article was from World Net Daily -- from which Cody has repeatedly quoted! So the old "biased site" argument doesn't cut it -- and that is why they are both avoiding answering the question. HYPROCRITES!

    BTW Reagan was a lying scumbag who receives ZERO respect from me. The USSR collapsed on it's own -- Reagan had nothing to do with it. In fact he PROLONGED the cold war.

     
  • At 17/3/06 7:20 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    What I'm trying to show is that physical labour is at least as hard as mental labour is-could a lawyer install a toilet?

    Would a plumber know how to get an innocent man out of trouble? Which is more important here?

    They aren't! If most of the world's dictators were communist then they would all be happy to be paid as much as the common worker and would not act so superior to their people. Clearly they are all capitalist as they WORK HARD to gain control of a country and illegally gain more wealth and possesions than they deserve.


    You can't exactly call dictatorship a job, or compare it to a capitilist position.

    It's not about the fact that it's legal in the US, it's about the fact that it was illegal in the UN and the rest of the world, like w-dervish said.

    The UN is completely corrupt. Ever hear of the Oil for Food Scandel?

    So if you... I don't know, build a model and it collapses, then you just give up because the model is horribly flawed?


    If the model is missing pieces which are impossible to get then it can not be finished.

    So it's not ok to allow the government to provide people with health care using taxpayer's money, but it's fine for them to pass a law that allows them to take away people's rights?


    You don't even live here, don't tell me my rights are being taken away. They're not. Terrorist rights are, and I'm fine with that.

    Starvation, insufficient wages, evil dictators with selfish capitalist agendas, etc. The failure of the idea in that environment is a product of the environment, you see?


    Starvation? Do I need to go into Stalin again? Wages? We have a minumum wage here. Dictators?! Show me one, just one capitilist dictator from history.

    are addicted to drugs and don't have enough money for food, and that's why they will happily and thankfully accept food.

    Whose fault is that? Not mine. It's their fault if they're hooked on drugs. No one forced it one them.

    addiction is a disease that cannot always be beaten by willpower

    The more you libs tell them that the more they'll believe it. And it isn't true.

    Oh-now I see why you guys elected Bush...

    That's not fair at all. Bush is not a dictator and you know it.

    try and bring their families into a better country, only to be denied citizenship and kicked back out because they illegally escaped from the unsafe and terribly living conditions of their home country? American dream, yeah, right.

    They're CRIMANALS! They are not entitled to the American Dream! They are criminals who take American Dream jobs away from AMERICANS.

    It was the government's responsibility to fix those dams and take care of the situation, which they horribly failed to do.

    Exactly. The government failed. The private sector could have done better.

    If the military budget was slashed just a bit, it would help out the deficit a hell of a lot and could even be used to help rebuild New Orleans, help out disabled soldiers, help feed the poor, institute a nation-wide health care system even. Is the only thing you know how to do is make war?


    What do you know about America? Without our military we wouldn't be here! Without our military your country would be bombed to oblivion by terrorists! Without our military we wouldn't be the best country on earth! Slash the military budget indeed! And what? Become socilists like you who have to rely on us to secure the world?! You should be thanking us for making you and your citizens and the worlds' citizens safer rather than berete us for fighting for freedom and safety! For YOUR freedoms! For the world! Without the United States military and fighting spirit you'd all be in a worse world! Everyone comes here for a better life, not to Canada. To America. And it's all because of OUR soldiers and OUR resolve. You help, oh you help, but who leads the war? We do! And for all our help, for all our struggles and deaths we get SCOLDED for saving all your asses. We create a better world and all we get is a big "fuck you" from you socilist countries. Well thanks a lot, I'm REAL sorry for being the best and freeist country on Earth.

    You must have forgotten that conservatism is based on making things sound good too

    Not really. We tell you what we think. We don't care about how it sounds.

    If I ask the same question for a third time you'll finally answer it?! I very seriously doubt it

    Why don't you just freakin ASK it already instead of dodging the point?

    You don't see it? He is CLEARLY a gay hating homophobe, otherwise he wouldn't be persisting with this ridiculous argument that Brokeback Mountain is gay pornography.

    Arguing with your own kind now dervish? I don't give what you think about my attitude towards gays. I don't hate them, that's all there is too it.

    No, I won't "cut it out". It isn't childish

    What you just said sounded childish.

    and that is why they are both avoiding answering the question.

    What freaking question? You won't even tell us what it is!!!

    BTW Reagan was a lying scumbag who receives ZERO respect from me. The USSR collapsed on it's own -- Reagan had nothing to do with it. In fact he PROLONGED the cold war.

    Sure dervish sure. Whatever. You need to study your modern history ok?

     
  • At 17/3/06 9:42 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... What freaking question? You won't even tell us what it is!!!

    For the 4th time:

    The article clearly states that bush and friends are going to make money off this deal! Don't either of you have a problem with this clear CONFLICT OF INTEREST??? They know what they're doing is wrong, otherwise they wouldn't be trying to hide it! How much more proof do you need that this guy is corrupt?!

    The article was from World Net Daily -- which Cody has repeatedly quoted! So the old "biased site" argument doesn't cut it.

    I don't expect an answer. If you had any intention of answering you would have already. This must be pretty hilarious to you, huh? I think it's pretty damn childish.

    I said: "hmm, so you think Saddam may be innocent?"

    To which you responded, "Personally? No. In law terms though I should not decide until after the trial".

    Well, I feel the same way about bush.

    DarkSaturos said... The UN is completely corrupt. Ever hear of the Oil for Food Scandel?

    The bush administration is completely corrupt! Did you ever hear of the money for no results Iraq contracts scandal? I've posted about it numerous times on this blog.

    Exactly. The government failed. The private sector could have done better.

    Exactly. That is bush's plan. Privatize everything so he can funnel taxpayer money to his rich cronies. The failure of FEMA under bush is totally acceptable to you? Now it all makes sense -- you said earlier that bush did all he could... What you really meant was that he did all he should have, right? Leaving people to die was part of the plan from the beginning. Your callous indiffernce to other people's suffering is amazing! How did you get to be so cold-hearted at such a young age?

    That's not fair at all. Bush is not a dictator and you know it.

    Not yet, but he's working on it.

    DarkSaturos said... Sure dervish sure. Whatever. You need to study your modern history ok?

    I posted an article which laid out what Regan's lies were. Are you denying that those things happened?

    I think you're letting your hero worship of Reagan blind you to the facts.

    The Myth of the Gipper: Reagan Didn't End the Cold War. (Excerpt) George F. Kennan agrees. The former US ambassador to the Soviet Union, and father of the theory of "containment" of the same country, asserts that "the suggestion that any United States administration had the power to influence decisively the course of a tremendous domestic political upheaval in another great country on another side of the globe is simply childish". He contends that the extreme militarization of American policy strengthened hard-liners in the Soviet Union. "Thus the general effect of Cold War extremism was to delay rather than hasten the great change that overtook the Soviet Union".

    Gorbachev's close adviser, Aleksandr Yakovlev, when asked whether the Reagan administration's higher military spending, combined with its "Evil Empire" rhetoric, forced the Soviet Union into a more conciliatory position, responded: It played no role. None. I can tell you that with the fullest responsibility. Gorbachev and I were ready for changes in our policy regardless of whether the American president was Reagan, or Kennedy, or someone even more liberal. It was clear that our military spending was enormous and we had to reduce it. (By William Blum, 6/7/2004)

    Debunking Ronald Reagan. The biggest myth being spread this week about Reagan is that he "ended the Cold War". This is an interesting fantasy for right wingers who want to think they ended radical leftism, but it has been debunked by historians, researchers and the sheer amount of evidence that has emerged since the end of the Soviet Union. The argument that Reagan "ended the Cold War" relies on the myth that Reagan's efforts to increase the U.S. nuclear arsenal ended up bankrupting the Sovet government which couldn't keep up. Leaving aside the fallacy that an increase in U.S. miitary spending would "bankrupt" the Soviet Union in a period of less than five years, the important thing to understand is that evidence uncovered since the fall of the Soviet Union suggests that the Soviets gave up on the arms race in the 1960s. The U.S. had been exaggerating the "Soviet threat" for decades in order to justify increased military spending. The Pentagon and the military-industrial complex are a sophisticated form of corporate welfare that is disguised as "national security needs", but is actually an important way that the U.S. government keeps the American capitalist utopia operating. If there was no military spending, the U.S. economy would have collapsed long ago. In a sense, Reagan ended up screwing Americans by increasing the budget deficit to support military spending, not to mention the sheer robbery from people in the form of taxes. And Reagan is widely seen as having prolonged the Cold War and delaying the eventual end of the Soviet Union. (Infoshop.org)

    DarkSaturos said... Arguing with your own kind now dervish? I don't give what you think about my attitude towards gays. I don't hate them, that's all there is too it.

    First of all, I don't believe in Communism, which is why I haven't defended it. Secondly, I wasn't arguing with Sol, I was just clarifying a few things for him. Lastly, you do hate homosexuals -- even if you won't admit it to yourself -- the same as you hate poor people and (probably) liberals.

     
  • At 18/3/06 4:36 AM, Blogger Sol Kauffman said…

    "Would a plumber know how to get an innocent man out of trouble? Which is more important here?"

    That's not the point. The plumber does at least as much work in comparison as the lawyer does, so therefore he should recieve the same amount of money. However he doesn't. Would you say that soldiers deserve more salary than lawyers because their work is more important?

    "You can't exactly call dictatorship a job, or compare it to a capitilist position."

    Yes, I can. Being a dictator is a job.

    "The UN is completely corrupt. Ever hear of the Oil for Food Scandel?"

    That's not the point. If the US government is corrupt (which I think we all can agree it is to an extent) then is it to be ignored by criminals? Same deal.

    "If the model is missing pieces which are impossible to get then it can not be finished."

    True. But I think Communism could work with the right conditions and motivation.

    "You don't even live here, don't tell me my rights are being taken away. They're not. Terrorist rights are, and I'm fine with that."

    Alright, fine, allow the dictator to seize more of your possessions, I don't care anymore.

    "Starvation? Do I need to go into Stalin again? Wages? We have a minumum wage here. Dictators?! Show me one, just one capitilist dictator from history."

    What? This doesn't make sense. What I'm saying is those conditions were present before communism came in, and that's why it failed-those conditions weren't created by communism. I also don't get how a minimum wage in the US has anything to do with this argument. Like I said before, all dictators are by default capitalist, for the reasons I stated before. They just don't run democracies, because then they'd lose their power. For them, communism is just a way to instill nationalism, control the people, and hold on to their rulership.

    "Whose fault is that? Not mine. It's their fault if they're hooked on drugs. No one forced it one them."

    Lots of people force drugs on others. And lack of education about those drugs can cause people to not know the risks.

    "The more you libs tell them that the more they'll believe it. And it isn't true."

    Ho boy, yes it is. The brain develops a dependence so much that it cannot properly function without the drug. This is clinically proven.

    "That's not fair at all. Bush is not a dictator and you know it."

    Sure seems like one to me. Ilegally seizing power, perpetrating an illegal war, using nationalism to attack protesters for being "unpatriotic" and to unite the people against a common foe so as to ignore the issues within the country... Yeah, typical dictator behaviour.

    "They're CRIMANALS! They are not entitled to the American Dream! They are criminals who take American Dream jobs away from AMERICANS."

    They sneak up on normal Americans and beat them up and steal their Walmart Employee IDs? I think not. They come to America because they know they can get hired, and they get hired because shady capitalist managers will hire whoever will work for the lowest salary because their company, shareholders, and board of directors demands it. And they're crim-anals for escaping their impoverished and corrupt country in the hope of something better?

    "Exactly. The government failed. The private sector could have done better."

    I'm not going to do this one because dervish got it already-privatisation is a bad thing because it puts profit over people.

    About your YOU NEED US rant: You need us a hell of a lot more than we need you. Countries don't hate Canada-we don't invade, bomb their buildings, and kill their friends and families in the name of democracy, our forces go in and rebuild after the warmachine wreaks it's havoc. Besides, do you like having fresh water, lumber, oil, and electricity? Because a lot of that comes from us. We could always export that someplace else... But you'd probably just invade. It's too late for you to radically slash the defense (lies, you don't need B-52s or Abrams tanks for defense) budget, because you're right, terrorists would attack-however, a smaller cut would not be that damaging. You already hugely overpower the terrorists in terms of technological and economical might, and you don't need tanks to fight guerillas, you need guerillas. Also, most people don't think you're the greatest on earth, just Americans, because you think you're superior to everyone else-which is why you can ignore the world's laws and invade other soverign countries without punishment. Never claim to be fighting for my freedom, either. The Taliban won't come to Canada and take away my rights, and I'll fight for my own damned freedoms, thank you very much, I sure as hell don't need you cowboys rampantly killing in the name of my rights. Also, a ton of people come to Canada from China and the rest of the world seeking a better life-you happen to get Mexico's immigrants because you're closer to them. Don't you dare claim that you alone shoulder the world's needy or the responsiblity of defending everyone's rights and freedoms. Arrogance is a sin, and you have it in bucketloads. You're as stereotypical a blind, patriotic, deluded, prideful, and egotistical American as can be.

     
  • At 18/3/06 10:47 AM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Sol Said... It's too late for you to radically slash the defense (lies, you don't need B-52s or Abrams tanks for defense) budget, because you're right, terrorists would attack-however, a smaller cut would not be that damaging. You already hugely overpower the terrorists in terms of technological and economical might...

    Defense spending is a scam to steal taxpayer dollars. The "war on terror" was a fantastic opportunity for the bush administration to dramatically increase the rate and amount of that theft.

    Proud to be American? Not While it Chooses Bombs Over Bread. (excerpt) Jay Garner wants us to be proud. The man in charge of rebuilding Iraq was quoted in the New York Times on Thursday saying, "We ought to look in the mirror and get proud, and stick out our chests and suck in our bellies and say, Damn, we're Americans".

    Well Jay, I am sorry to say that I am not feeling it. American soldiers shooting unarmed Iraqi demonstrators and killing at least 17 in two separate incidents. American police officers firing rubber and wooden bullets at unarmed American demonstrators outside of Oakland. Thousands of Iraqi civilians killed in a so-called precision war for their liberation. A multibillion dollar empire building effort underway in Iraq that is masked as a humanitarian reconstruction effort, while children are hungry, seniors are without medication, and education is less and less accessible right here in USA.

    There are people profiting from war -- and Jay Garner the proud American is one of them. And there are those who are not.

    General Jay Garner the head of the Pentagon's new Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance. In that capacity he is overseeing and coordinating the relief and rebuilding efforts in Iraq. He is also a personal friend of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

    He is also the president of SY Coleman, a subsidiary of L-3 Communications, a high tech defense contractor that specializes in missile-defense systems and makes the targeting systems for conventional weapons. He is not retired from that position, he is on "leave" or on "loan". And he is profiting from war.

    In February Garner's company announced that its revenue in the most recent quarter had soared to $1.3 billion-up from $705 million a year ago. They attribute the windfall to a doubling of military communications and electronics sales. Overall, the company expects a 20% increase in sales and earnings this year.

    If the Bush administration were to consciously set out to pick a person most likely to raise questions about the legitimacy of the post-war rebuilding process, they could not have selected a better man for the job than Jay Garner. As one observer noted, "If it's not a conflict of interest, it's certainly being tone deaf".

    The weapons industry -- companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman -- are also pretty tone deaf. With the country on a permanent war footing, the sky is literally the limit for America's second most heavily subsidized industry.

    A new report from United for a Fair Economy, "More Bucks for the Bang: CEO Pay at Top Defense Contractors", found that the boys with the big guns making the big bucks.

    Median CEO pay at the 37 largest defense contractors rose 79 percent from 2001 to 2002, while overall CEO pay climbed only 6 percent. The typical U.S. CEO made $3.7 million in 2002, while the typical defense industry CEO got $5.4 million.

    The average Army private risking his or her life in Iraq is paid just $19,585 -- just about the national poverty rate. The average defense CEO made 577 times as much in 2002, or $11,297,548.

    So, we know who is benefiting from war -- but who is on the losing side? We are. We are more insecure and more threatened than ever before.

    There is plenty of cash to pay for war and empire building in Iraq, but when it comes to meeting the American public's need for housing, health care, food, education and other necessities, the cash drawer is empty. (by Frida Berrigan, 5/2/2003)

    Sol Said... Arrogance is a sin, and you have it in bucketloads. You're as stereotypical a blind, patriotic, deluded, prideful, and egotistical American as can be.

    No kidding.

     
  • At 18/3/06 5:16 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    The article clearly states that bush and friends are going to make money off this deal! Don't either of you have a problem with this clear CONFLICT OF INTEREST???

    If it is true then of course I have a problem with it. I'm just not sure if it is true. I don't have enough evidence.

    I don't expect an answer. If you had any intention of answering you would have already.

    There's nothing to answer to. World Net Daily is not an editorial site, unlike your sites.

    Well, I feel the same way about bush.

    You're comparing Bush to Saddam? Wow you are insane.

    Did you ever hear of the money for no results Iraq contracts scandal?

    No, since it doesn't exist. Who's leading the investigation on that one dervish?

    How did you get to be so cold-hearted at such a young age?

    I think with my mind, not my emotions. That's how.

    Not yet, but he's working on it.

    You need help dervish. As for Reagan, I clearly said I'm not debating it.

    Lastly, you do hate homosexuals -- even if you won't admit it to yourself -- the same as you hate poor people and (probably) liberals.

    Of course dervish. I just want to kill all of my poor friends deep down. I just want to kill my liberal friends deep down. Oh yes, I will kill all of my friends. I will! Is that what you want me to say? You're nuts.

    That's not the point. The plumber does at least as much work in comparison as the lawyer does, so therefore he should recieve the same amount of money.

    That's insane. The plumber made it so you could take a dump, the lawyer saved your life. Who are you gonna pay more?

    Yes, I can. Being a dictator is a job.

    Gee, where do I send my resume for that one?

    Would you say that soldiers deserve more salary than lawyers because their work is more important?


    There's different circumstances. The soldier's pay is actually quite high because his food is paid for.

    That's not the point. If the US government is corrupt (which I think we all can agree it is to an extent) then is it to be ignored by criminals?

    Yes, if laws are unfair to an extreme they should be broken.

    True. But I think Communism could work with the right conditions and motivation.


    What conditions? What motivation? Dictatorship? Because that's what happens usually in communism.

    Alright, fine, allow the dictator to seize more of your possessions, I don't care anymore.


    YOU. DON'T. (FUCKING). LIVE. HERE. Stop telling me about my own country. You think I know less about my own country than you???

    Sure seems like one to me. Ilegally seizing power, perpetrating an illegal war, using nationalism to attack protesters for being "unpatriotic" and to unite the people against a common foe so as to ignore the issues within the country... Yeah, typical dictator behaviour.

    I thought you were sensible. You're as crazy as dervish! You're literally insane if you think the pres. is a dictator.

    They sneak up on normal Americans and beat them up and steal their Walmart Employee IDs?

    No they steal their social security actually.

    those conditions were present before communism came in, and that's why it failed-those conditions

    Really? Then how come N. Korea failed and S. Korea flourished?

    Lots of people force drugs on others.

    No one holds a gun to your head and say "take drugs."

    Ho boy, yes it is. The brain develops a dependence so much that it cannot properly function without the drug. This is clinically proven.

    Oh? And how come people have quit then? Thought you said that was impossible.

    And they're crim-anals for escaping their impoverished and corrupt country in the hope of something better?


    Yes. They came to the country illegally and stole our social security. Yes they ARE crimanals.

    You need us a hell of a lot more than we need you.

    Yeah when I'm low on maple syrup. Please.

    we don't invade, bomb their buildings, and kill their friends and families in the name of democracy,

    Oh? Your country's in Iraq too you know.

    Besides, do you like having fresh water, lumber, oil, and electricity? Because a lot of that comes from us.

    Yeah and a lot of the Iraqis basic commodities come from US.

    It's too late for you to radically slash the defense (lies, you don't need B-52s or Abrams tanks for defense)

    You're not the ones that got 3,000 citizens killed in one day. You're not the ones who got attacked. You've never had to go through what this county's had to and we ended up better than you.

    You already hugely overpower the terrorists in terms of technological and economical might, and you don't need tanks to fight guerillas

    No but we need them so that other countries will be afraid to attack US. Don't you understand that defense is not about fighting all the time?

    Also, most people don't think you're the greatest on earth, just Americans,

    That's bullshit and you know it. When you think of success you think of us. Go on any web server or to a foreign country. Our slang is EVERYWHERE.

    because you think you're superior to everyone else

    Damn straight buddy, damn straight.

    Never claim to be fighting for my freedom, either.

    Just because it embarresess you? YOu think Al Quada would stop at America? They would continue until they subjugated the entire west. And whose the country with the balls to fight them? Us mostly.

    The Taliban won't come to Canada and take away my rights, and I'll fight for my own damned freedoms, thank you very much

    No you won't. You don't even want to. Your anti-war status proves that.

    I sure as hell don't need you cowboys rampantly killing in the name of my rights.

    And I don't need you telling me my president is a dictator in the name of mine.

    Don't you dare claim that you alone shoulder the world's needy or the responsiblity of defending everyone's rights and freedoms.

    Dude we invented modern freedom. You were still kissing up to the king while we built a republic from scratch.

    You're as stereotypical a blind, patriotic, deluded, prideful, and egotistical American as can be.

    That's a compliment to me. Unlike you I love my country. Screw you and may God bless America.

    Defense spending is a scam to steal taxpayer dollars. The "war on terror" was a fantastic opportunity for the bush administration to dramatically increase the rate and amount of that theft.


    Really? Then how come he cut taxes?

    The rest of your post is ranting. How about some summarazation?

    Sol Said... Arrogance is a sin, and you have it in bucketloads. You're as stereotypical a blind, patriotic, deluded, prideful, and egotistical American as can be.

    dervish said...No kidding.


    You scumbag little traitor. Why don't you move somewhere else?

     
  • At 18/3/06 10:12 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... If it is true then of course I have a problem with it. I'm just not sure if it is true. I don't have enough evidence. There's nothing to answer to. World Net Daily is not an editorial site, unlike your sites.

    What?! The article I posted IS from World Net Daily. If it isn't an editorial site (meaning they only print facts) then the story MUST be factual!

    You're comparing Bush to Saddam? Wow you are insane.

    They ARE both murders... However, Saddam's crimes pale in comparison to bush's.

    DarkSaturos said... No, since it doesn't exist. Who's leading the investigation on that one dervish?

    It doesn't exist?? You are deluded and insane beyond comprehension!

    Money for Nothing. (excerpt) Billions of dollars have disappeared, gone to bribe Iraqis and line contractors’ pockets. When the final page is written on America’s catastrophic imperial venture, one word will dominate the explanation of U.S. failure -- corruption. Large-scale and pervasive corruption meant that available resources could not be used to stabilize and secure Iraq in the early days of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), when it was still possible to do so. Continuing corruption meant that the reconstruction of infrastructure never got underway, giving the Iraqi people little incentive to co-operate with the occupation. Ongoing corruption in arms procurement and defense spending means that Baghdad will never control a viable army while the Shi’ite and Kurdish militias will grow stronger and produce a divided Iraq in which constitutional guarantees will be irrelevant.

    The American-dominated Coalition Provisional Authority could well prove to be the most corrupt administration in history, almost certainly surpassing the widespread fraud of the much-maligned UN Oil for Food Program. At least $20 billion that belonged to the Iraqi people has been wasted, together with hundreds of millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars. (By Philip Giraldi, Information Clearinghouse. 10/18/2005)

    DarkSaturos said... I think with my mind, not my emotions. That's how.

    The only emotions you know are greed and arrogance.

    DarkSaturos said... You need help dervish. As for Reagan, I clearly said I'm not debating it.

    I don't care if you debate it or not. Whatever you might say wouldn't change the fact that Reagan was scum.

    DarkSaturos said... Of course dervish. I just want to kill all of my poor friends deep down. I just want to kill my liberal friends deep down. Oh yes, I will kill all of my friends. I will! Is that what you want me to say? You're nuts.

    You can hate someone without wanting to murder them.

    Really? Then how come he cut taxes?

    bush's primary goal as President is to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. That's why he cut taxes for WEALTHY taxpayers! That's why WEALTHY war profiteer Defense Contractor CEOs are raking in the dough and thanking bush!

    Working poor suffer under Bush tax cuts. (excerpt) The Bush administration and Congress have scaled back programs that aid the poor to help pay for $600 billion in tax breaks that went primarily to those who earn more than $288,800 a year.

    To offset the loss of the tax revenue, the administration has amassed record federal deficits and trimmed social spending. The affected programs -- job training, housing, higher education and an array of social services -- provide safety nets for the poor. Many programs are critical elements in welfare-to-work initiatives and were already badly underfunded. (9/26/2004)

    This story has GOT to be wrong! How could anyone who's WORKING be poor? bush's tax breaks mainly went to people who earned more than $288,800 a year?? That's got to be wrong too, huh DarkSaturos? Damn lying liberal media!

    The Bush Tax Increase. (excerpt) President Bush said on 2/12/04 that "we cut taxes, which basically meant people had more money in their pocket". However, for the majority of Americans, the tax cuts meant very little. By next year, for instance, 88% of all Americans will receive $100 or less from the Administration's latest tax cuts. But even above and beyond this, the tax cuts and the deficits they have created have forced the Administration to raise fees and cut services for most Americans -- which is an effective tax increase on average Americans. In many ways, the Administration's fiscal/budget policies are actually taking more money out of people's pockets.

    State Tax increases brought on by bush budget: The latest Bush tax bill/budget proposes a 3% decrease to federal grants to states, a $16 billion decrease in state tax revenues -- all while proposing between $23-$82 billion in unfunded mandates. Because of this "millions of American individuals and businesses face tax hikes this year... wiping out the savings that some taxpayers would otherwise see on their federal 1040".

    Tax Increase on low-income families and kids: According to the National Association of State Budget Officers, 32 states have effectively increased taxes on low-income families by raising their Medicaid co-payments. Additionally, "50 states reduced or froze payments to Medicaid providers, 34 states have reduced or restricted Medicaid eligibility, 35 states have reduced Medicaid benefits".

    Tax increase on veterans: "Two years after tripling the co-payment that veterans pay for prescription drugs the Department of Veterans Affairs wants to raise it again." Specifically, President Bush's 2005 budget would increase prescription "drug co-pays from $7 to $15 for many veterans." In 2002, the co-pay went from $2 to $7". (The Center for American Progress. 2/20/2004)

    What the hell? DarkSaturos said bush cut taxes! I'm confused... why does this article say some people are actually paying MORE in taxes and governmental fees?! Also, this article seems to imply that bush hates our troops -- why else would he be cutting their benefits, and making it more expensive for them to get the medical attention they need for injuries they sustained during their military service? These have to be more liberal lies!

    Unfortunately they are not lies. bush hates poor people, and bush hates our troops. The only people he cares about are other rich people like him.

    DarkSaturos said... (to Sol) YOU. DON'T. FU**ING. LIVE. HERE. Stop telling me about my own country. You think I know less about my own country than you??? ... (to me) You scumbag little traitor. Why don't you move somewhere else?

    I live here and I say his opinion of the bush administration is 100 percent accurate. YES, I think you know less about your own country than Sol. Also, I say YOU are the traitor! You are against everything America stands for. You CLAIM that everyone should have a chance to make it though hard work and determination, yet you support a president who fiscal policies hurt poor Americans!

    The Bush Economy: Declining Income and More Uninsured Americans. (excerpt) Today (8/31/2005), the Census Bureau issued its latest national report on income, poverty and health insurance. The figures are troubling. Under President Bush's failed leadership, wages have actually declined by nearly $1,700 and more than a million middle class Americans fell into poverty. The number of Americans without health insurance has also increased by 6 million since Bush took office in 2001. (Democrats.org)

     
  • At 19/3/06 9:55 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    What?! The article I posted IS from World Net Daily.

    I know, I know. I was reffering to some other sites of yours when you you were arguing the bias site point in the same comment. Sorry, that was misleading.

    If it isn't an editorial site (meaning they only print facts) then the story MUST be factual!


    Right sure, I think WND is usually right, I just don't think enough information was provided. This happens with a lot of other WND stories actually. I just try to pick the ones with evidence in them.

    They ARE both murders... However, Saddam's crimes pale in comparison to bush's.


    You know that's not true. Must you make yourself look so ignorant? That comment really doesn't make you look good to either side you know.

    It doesn't exist?? You are deluded and insane beyond comprehension!


    Please show me where an actual investigation took place please. I also resent that you thought I wouldn't notice that this link you gave was an editorial taken from another site and put on that website. You thought I'd miss this dislaimer did you?: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

    So not only was that an editorial but you tried to make it look like a news story too. Clever but not clever enough.

    The only emotions you know are greed and arrogance.

    If that was true then logically I couldn't hate right? And since I can't hate (according to you) I can't hate those groups you say I do.

    You can hate someone without wanting to murder them.

    You're insinuating I hate my friends?! Maybe you don't have friends dervish so I'll try to explain it. Friends are people you like, not hate. Get it now?

    bush's primary goal as President is to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. That's why he cut taxes for WEALTHY taxpayers!

    That's not true really. Look the tax is a percentage right? So therefore if a rich guy has 1,000,000 dollars and pays 15% he pays $150,000. If a poor guy has $1,500 then he pays $225. So actually the rich are paying MORE THAN the poor. It's simple economics. Again your articles are all from editorials designed to look like news pages. Stop trying to fool me it will NOT work.

    bush hates our troops

    Then why do our troops love Bush?

    I live here and I say his opinion of the bush administration is 100 percent accurate.

    You may be wrong but at least you have more of a right to say it.

    You CLAIM that everyone should have a chance to make it though hard work and determination, yet you support a president who fiscal policies hurt poor Americans!


    I explained this already. See above about economics.

    Let's see where your final article is from. Oh Democrats.org! That's really not biased at all! That's a real source for news. You moron. Stop taking editorials for fact!

     
  • At 19/3/06 2:23 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    "The article clearly states that bush and friends are going to make money off this deal!"

    So what!? That's why it's called a fricken deal! They would get port maintnence in exchange for some money. What the hell is the problem with that?

     
  • At 19/3/06 6:22 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... Right sure, I think WND is usually right, I just don't think enough information was provided. This happens with a lot of other WND stories actually. I just try to pick the ones with evidence in them.

    How convenient. Somehow I think you will always believe that bush is an honest Christian man who is doing what he thinks is right -- no matter what the evidence against him is. The fact is he's deceiving you.

    DarkSaturos said... You know that's not true. Must you make yourself look so ignorant? That comment really doesn't make you look good to either side you know.

    It stands to reason that if I think the war in Iraq was illegal under international law then I think must also think that he's responsible for the deaths this war has caused. He is a WAR CRIMINAL! If you believe that the war was illegal then he must be a war criminal. It's a logical conclusion. How does that make me ignorant?

    I think YOU'RE ignorant! I explained to you (in DETAIL) why the war was illegal -- and all you did was present nonsense arguments to refute me.

    DarkSaturos said... Please show me where an actual investigation took place please.

    Of course the bush administration is squelching any investigation into the role they played! Yes, they have offered up a few sacrificial lambs (The most blatant offenders) -- but you know damn well bush wouldn't authorize an investigation into his own role in the theft! His family is rich and well connected. His drunk driving conviction was covered up, and the insider trading investigation went nowhere. Because of his family's wealth and connections. There are ways around the law when you're wealthy.

    DarkSaturos said... I also resent that you thought I wouldn't notice that this link you gave was an editorial taken from another site and put on that website. You thought I'd miss this dislaimer did you

    I don't give a damn what the hell you "noticed". Editorial doesn't equal fiction.

    DarkSaturos said... So not only was that an editorial but you tried to make it look like a news story too. Clever but not clever enough.

    Boy am I ashamed... I guess you outsmarted me! (just so there's no confusion -- I meant that sarcastically.)

    DarkSaturos said... If that was true then logically I couldn't hate right? And since I can't hate (according to you) I can't hate those groups you say I do.

    People who are arrogant are also usually filled with hatred for those who they think they are better than.

    DarkSaturos said... You're insinuating I hate my friends?! Maybe you don't have friends dervish so I'll try to explain it. Friends are people you like, not hate. Get it now?

    So you've told all your gay friends that you think they're going to hell? You've told all your liberal friends you think they're going to hell for supporting the "murder" of babies? How do they feel about your condemnation of their beliefs?

    DarkSaturos said... That's not true really. Look the tax is a percentage right? So therefore if a rich guy has 1,000,000 dollars and pays 15% he pays $150,000. If a poor guy has $1,500 then he pays $225. So actually the rich are paying MORE THAN the poor. It's simple economics.

    No, it's not true -- as my article pointed out. Poor people are actually paying MORE because of increased state taxes, higher governmental fees, and no funding for necessary social programs.

    DarkSaturos said... Again your articles are all from editorials designed to look like news pages. Stop trying to fool me it will NOT work.

    The people who wrote the articles I linked to are not trying to fool anyone. I'm not trying to "fool" anyone. I'm trying to open people's eyes to the truth.

    DarkSaturos said... Then why do our troops love Bush?

    They do? Who told you that? Why would they support the man who sent them to a foreign country to die in an illegal war? Maybe because the information they have access to while they are in Iraq is censored? Maybe because their heads are being filled with propaganda every day? Maybe because they can't accept the fact that they're fighting a war based on lies?

    Even so, it looks like military support for bush continues to decline:

    Troops Widely Reject Bush's Iraq Strategy as Civilian War Support Hits New Low. Three out of four U.S. soldiers in Iraq reject their commander in chief's strategy to keep them there, according to a unique poll that on Tuesday became the latest survey to evoke an increasingly isolated White House. President George W. Bush has said U.S. troops will continue to be deployed in Iraq for a number of years because the United States needs to "stay the course'' to vanquish terrorists and other foes of democracy and stability.

    However, 29 percent of the troops serving in Iraq favor immediate withdrawal, about half say the U.S. should pull out within six months, and 72 percent say they should leave the country within a year, said a poll released Tuesday by Zogby International and the Center for Peace and Global Studies at Le Moyne College in Syracuse, NY. By contrast, 23 percent said they should remain in Iraq "as long as they are needed", the survey said. (OneWorld United States. 2/28/2006)

    DarkSaturos said... Let's see where your final article is from. Oh Democrats.org! That's really not biased at all! That's a real source for news. You moron. Stop taking editorials for fact!

    My articles are based on verified facts. The authors take those facts and draw OBVIOUS conclusions, you moron.

    Cody O'Connor said... So what!? That's why it's called a fricken deal! They would get port maintnence in exchange for some money. What the hell is the problem with that?

    OK, I understand you now. All this time you've been trying to convince everyone that you strongly believe in capitalism -- and all this time you've been lying. What you actually believe in is corrupt capitalism -- also called "Crony Capitalism".

    Crony Captialism: "Crony capitalism" or "crapitalism" is a pejorative term describing a capitalist economy in which success in business depends on an extremely close relationship between the businessman and the state institutions of politics and government, rather than by the espoused "equitable" concepts of the free market, open competition, and economic liberalism. It may be exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, and so forth.

    Crony capitalism arises when political cronyism spills over into the world of business, and the relationships between powerful businessmen and powerful politicians form a kind of aristocratic social hierarchy, influenced by self-serving friendships and family ties, to the extent that it corrupts public-serving economic and political ideals. (from wikipedia)

    Isn't it a little ironic, given that you've been arguing that large scale Communism can't exist without eventually becoming corrupt? It's also EXTREMELY hyprocritical.

     
  • At 19/3/06 7:21 PM, Blogger Sol Kauffman said…

    This argument has devolved from an interesting discussion on the idea of communism into a party-bashing hatefest. I give up. Darksaturos, you refuse to see the situation any other way than your self-righteous American standpoint, which biases your opinion in all respects and stops you from understanding and recognizing alternate circumstances. You arrogantly believe everyone loves you, and that you do nothing but good in the world, when in fact the United States is one of the most hated, polluting, prideful, scorned, and meddlesome countries on the planet. Because you have the biggest army you ignore international laws and go for broke doing whatever the hell you want, without any respect or acknowledgement of other people's and countries' rights or beliefs. I cannot debate someone who is totally closed to any alterior standpoint.

    You and your prideful, blind, and foolish republicans go ahead and drive your obese, corrupt, and overpowerful country into the ground, and then blame the democrats for screwing it up when the public decides you blow and elects someone else-that's the way it's gone in history and that's the way it will go as long as people are as closed-minded as you. Enjoy your prepackaged, forced-patriotic, earth destroying, rights-trampling lifestyle, just don't invade my country and kill my family, thanks.

     
  • At 20/3/06 6:19 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    Sol, I used to think you were a pretty reasonable guy, now you just sound like a nut. But it doesn't matter since by the looks of things you are leaving. I think that's a good thing. You can take your pro-Communist views somewhere else.

    dervish said...
    "OK, I understand you now. All this time you've been trying to convince everyone that you strongly believe in capitalism -- and all this time you've been lying. What you actually believe in is corrupt capitalism -- also called "Crony Capitalism"."

    What are you talking about?! It's a D-E-A-L!! Would you rather they got our ports for free? I suppose you would right, because that's much better than having a fair deal, right? Really derivsh, I thought you were smarter than this...

     
  • At 20/3/06 3:32 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    How convenient. Somehow I think you will always believe that bush is an honest Christian man who is doing what he thinks is right -- no matter what the evidence against him is. The fact is he's deceiving you.

    What are you talking about?! I agreed with you. Are you so far gone that you don't agree with yourself?!

    It stands to reason that if I think the war in Iraq was illegal under international law then I think must also think that he's responsible for the deaths this war has caused.

    Ok then, if that's how you wanna play, let's kill Bill Clinton, because he missiled terrorists in the same places as well you know. Only he didn't do as well.

    Of course the bush administration is squelching any investigation into the role they played!

    Proof please?

    I don't give a damn what the hell you "noticed". Editorial doesn't equal fiction.


    It equals opinion. Don't get pissed because I saw through your little deception.

    People who are arrogant are also usually filled with hatred for those who they think they are better than.

    Well how convienent for you.

    So you've told all your gay friends that you think they're going to hell? You've told all your liberal friends you think they're going to hell for supporting the "murder" of babies? How do they feel about your condemnation of their beliefs?


    I don't have gay friends. I've told my liberal friends that I don't support abortion, but I never said or thought they're going to hell. You made that part up actually. I hadn't even thought of it. How do they feel about? Well since they're good people they don't rant. They don't swear. They don't call Bush a criminal. In short, they don't act like YOU. That's why they're my friends.

    No, it's not true -- as my article pointed out. Poor people are actually paying MORE because of increased state taxes, higher governmental fees, and no funding for necessary social programs.


    No, your EDITORIAL said that.

    The people who wrote the articles I linked to are not trying to fool anyone. I'm not trying to "fool" anyone. I'm trying to open people's eyes to the truth.


    Nice speech dervish, but your sites still aren't valid.

    They do? Who told you that?

    THEY DID. The soldiers did! Don't you listen to them? Or do you go to Democrats.com to find a few you can qoute?

    My articles are based on verified facts. The authors take those facts and draw OBVIOUS conclusions, you moron.

    Democrats.com is NOT a valid news source. It's biased right there in it's name. That's an OBVIOUS conclusion you moron.

    I give up. Darksaturos, you refuse to see the situation any other way than your self-righteous American standpoint

    That's correct, since the American was is the best.

    You arrogantly believe everyone loves you, and that you do nothing but good in the world, when in fact the United States is one of the most hated, polluting, prideful, scorned, and meddlesome countries on the planet

    Really? You said the immagrants came here for the best life they could get. Yet we're "hated?" Bull, and you KNOW it.

    obese, corrupt, and overpowerful country into the ground,

    You know WHY we're powerful? Because we don't take crap from people like YOU.

    just don't invade my country and kill my family, thanks

    That's a Canadian answer. Let me show you an American answer:

    If you invade my country or kill my family I'll blow your friggen head off.

     
  • At 20/3/06 9:46 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    What are you talking about?! It's a D-E-A-L!! Would you rather they got our ports for free? I suppose you would right, because that's much better than having a fair deal, right? Really derivsh, I thought you were smarter than this...

    What are YOU talking about?? It's called a C-O-N-F-L-I-C-T O-F I-N-T-E-R-E-S-T!!


    When you use your political influence to make money for your friends and family it's called crony capitalism -- Not only is it a conflict of interest -- it's corrupt capitalism! And you clearly support it!

    I didn't say anything should be given away! Where the hell did you get that from?? My problem is WHO is making money from the deal. My problem is that it is a CONFLICT OF INTEREST! Really, I thought YOU were smarter than this...

    bush pushed though the deal (and initially tried to hide it) because his friends and family stand to profit! He is NOT concerned with national security! When are you going to wake up???

     
  • At 21/3/06 3:28 AM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... What are you talking about?! I agreed with you. Are you so far gone that you don't agree with yourself?!

    What are YOU talking about?! You said you didn't believe the WND article because there "wasn't enough evidence". Now that the deal is dead there will be no investigation, so where will this additional evidence which could convince you going to come from?? Answer: Nowhere. There isn't going to be any more evidence -- so you will NEVER believe it! I believe the article, and you'll never believe the article. Yea, it sounds like we are 100 percent simpatico. Are you so far gone that you really believe that's the case?

    DarkSaturos said... Ok then, if that's how you wanna play, let's kill Bill Clinton, because he missiled terrorists in the same places as well you know. Only he didn't do as well.

    Bill Clinton did not wage an illegal war against another nation! You think 9 TRILLION in debt, more than 2300 soldiers killed, more than 30000 innocent Iraqis killed, and civil war is "doing well"?! What a wacko!

    DarkSaturos said... Proof please?

    You want proof that they're covering up the proof? Where do you think this evidence is supposed to come from? All the articles I've posted you have dismissed as "biased" or "conspiracy theories". There is NOTHING I could post that you would believe. No matter how much evidence there is you will deny it.

    DarkSaturos said... It equals opinion. Don't get pissed because I saw through your little deception.

    It's a lie. It's an opinion. I could use that same argument against any article you might quote -- but you didn't actually prove anything I posted wrong. To bad I saw through your little deception.

    THEY DID. The soldiers did! Don't you listen to them? Or do you go to Democrats.com to find a few you can qoute?

    What about a poll conducted by going out into the field and talking to the soldiers?

    Troops say they want to come home. Poll of forces in Iraq shows majority think U.S. should leave within a year. Nearly three of every four American troops serving in Iraq think the United States should withdraw all its troops and end the war within a year, according a Zogby-Le Moyne College poll released Tuesday.

    Le Moyne faculty helped develop and word the poll's questions, which were given to troops in face-to-face interviews in Iraq, pollster John Zogby, of New Hartford, said.

    Despite President Bush's declaration that American troops should remain in Iraq as long as needed, 72 percent of 944 military members polled there said he should bring all the troops home within 12 months.

    More than a quarter said American forces should leave immediately. "The results are startling", Zogby said. "I'm not the first person to use the term Vietnam, but it does suggest somewhat of a morale issue -- certainly a disagreement".

    Other people have done polls in Iraq, but this is the first time anyone has quizzed soldiers on duty. Zogby said he did not know of any other poll of on-duty troops during previous wars.

    "The highest levels of the military have invited me to make a presentation (on the poll results), and I intend to do that as soon as I can", Zogby said without elaborating. He said they got an 85 percent response rate, nearly three times the typical 30 percent response rate he said he receives for telephone polls conducted in the United States. Zogby said the poll, conducted between Jan. 18 and Feb. 14, has a plus or minus 3.3 percent margin of error. (Zogby International. 3/1/2006)

    So when did the soldiers tell you they "loved" bush? How many soldiers did you talk to?

    DarkSaturos said... Really? You said the immagrants came here for the best life they could get. Yet we're "hated?" Bull, and you KNOW it.

    First of all, I don't know what an "immagrant" is. Second of all, what Sol said isn't bull -- it's the truth -- and YOU know it.

    America The Hated?. (excerpt) "We pray for America's destruction day and night," says Haider Khan, who drives a taxi in Pakistan's capital, Islamabad.

    But beyond the zealots and outside the Muslim world, many others are torn between admiration for Americans and things American -- they cite democracy, technology, Hollywood movies -- and the discomforting reality of America the sole superpower, able and willing to fight alone if need be, despite international opposition. (CBS News. 2/19/2003)

    DarkSaturos said... That's a Canadian answer. Let me show you an American answer: If you invade my country or kill my family I'll blow your friggen head off.

    America hasn't been invaded. Iraqi insurgents want to blow the heads off American soldiers -- given that Iraq is the country that was actually invaded -- you support them in their efforts?

     
  • At 21/3/06 6:18 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    What are YOU talking about?? It's called a C-O-N-F-L-I-C-T O-F I-N-T-E-R-E-S-T!!"

    Now you're just mocking me, you have absolutely no point to make whatsoever.

     
  • At 21/3/06 9:25 AM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    I explained my point very clearly. You just don't want to answer the question. I thought you said that only liberals ran away when they were losing the argument?

     
  • At 21/3/06 2:57 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    You said you didn't believe the WND article because there "wasn't enough evidence".

    No, I said I believed it but it didn't give enough DETAIL to make an informed decision. I didn't say it was lying.

    Bill Clinton did not wage an illegal war against another nation! You think 9 TRILLION in debt, more than 2300 soldiers killed, more than 30000 innocent Iraqis killed, and civil war is "doing well"?! What a wacko!


    Again with the death toll. Look let's do the math.

    3,000,000
    - 32,000
    -----------
    2,968,000

    Bush has saved 2,968,000 lives from Saddam.

    You want proof that they're covering up the proof? Where do you think this evidence is supposed to come from? All the articles I've posted you have dismissed as "biased" or "conspiracy theories". There is NOTHING I could post that you would believe. No matter how much evidence there is you will deny it.

    In other words you have no proof. Ok.

    It's a lie. It's an opinion. I could use that same argument against any article you might quote --

    Not really, because my sources were news and facts, not opinions and editorials.

    What about a poll conducted by going out into the field and talking to the soldiers?


    Qoutes from soliders:

    "Now there's a gov't in place and things are looking up."

    "The roads ahave been improving , we've been cleaning up the city, it's improved a lot since I was here last."

    Iraq is getting better and our soldiers think so too.

    First of all, I don't know what an "immagrant" is.

    You must be really stupid if you can't read a spelling error. See most people can guess at a mispelled word. Maybe you have a reading comphrehension problem eh?

    America hasn't been invaded. Iraqi insurgents want to blow the heads off American soldiers.

    Yeah, it was a play off Sol's comment. Do you understand sarcasm as a literary device?

     
  • At 22/3/06 6:17 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    "I explained my point very clearly. You just don't want to answer the question. I thought you said that only liberals ran away when they were losing the argument?"

    Dervish, I just don't care about the Carlyle group, I really don't. Heck, I just watched Fahrenheit 9/11, and I still am not worried about the Carlyle group. I told you my position, it was a fair deal, I wasn't against if for the money involved, I was against it for the security issues.

     
  • At 22/3/06 3:46 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Cody O'Connor said... I just don't care about the Carlyle group, I really don't. Heck, I just watched Fahrenheit 9/11, and I still am not worried about the Carlyle group. I told you my position, it was a fair deal, I wasn't against if for the money involved, I was against it for the security issues.

    I guess that's a partial answer... Check out my definition of Crony Capitalism again -- If you read the WND article I think you'll agree that the allegations (if true -- and I believe they are), amount to Crony Capitalism.

    Since you "don't have a problem with" the Carlyle Group, you must not have a problem with Crony Capitalism.

    Since you came out strongly in favor of capitalism, and since Crony Capitalism is actually a CORRUPT form of Capitalism, I'm confused as to why you wouldn't have a problem with the Carlyle group's involvement.

    Basically, what you're saying is that you don't have a problem with corruption in the bush administration so long as it doesn't compromise national security. Let me give you a clue -- it does!

    From the article I posted earlier, Money for Nothing: The American-dominated Coalition Provisional Authority could well prove to be the most corrupt administration in history, almost certainly surpassing the widespread fraud of the much-maligned UN Oil for Food Program.

    All this money that was lost to corruption was money that couldn't be spent on rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure. Iraqi's KNOW this. It angers them and fuels the insurgencey. bush administration policies are making the insurgencey WORSE! bush administration policies are making terrorism WORSE! bush administration policies are getting our soldiers KILLED!

    Don't give me this NONSENSE about your being against the deal because of "security issues", but not because of crony capitalism -- they are directly related!

     
  • At 23/3/06 3:31 AM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... No, I said I believed it but it didn't give enough DETAIL to make an informed decision. I didn't say it was lying.

    Did I say you said the article was lying... No. I said you'd never believe it. Which you won't.

    DarkSaturos said... In other words you have no proof. Ok.

    No, I provided LOTS of proof. Your delusion doesn't allow you to acknowledge it.

    DarkSaturos said... Not really, because my sources were news and facts, not opinions and editorials.

    Proof please? How about an example? As far as I can recall you hardly ever provide links to back up anything you say. The last link I can remember you providing was to a WND article -- and I already proved that their credibility is suspect.

    From Wikipedia: The reliablity of facts appearing in the WND-authored stories has been repeatedly questioned by journalists in the mainstream media.

    DarkSaturos said... Iraq is getting better and our soldiers think so too.

    Proof please? The quotes you posted -- where did they come from? Did you make them up, or just read them on a conservatively biased site?

    What about the Zogby poll I referenced? All lies? They didn't interview our soldiers? It was totally made up?

    DarkSaturos said... Bush has saved 2,968,000 lives from Saddam.

    Proof please? You've cited the 3 million lives figure several times now. Where does it come from?

    The Death toll under Saddam. The true number of people killed under Sadam's rule is around 1.5 million. The other 1.5 mill are attributed to the sanctions. Now, you could blame these on Sadam, but then you'd pretty much have to include every one whose died of anything in this war as a casualty of US action -- as they are the ones who stopped the power, water, food etc when they invaded.

    About 750,000 of the 1.5 mill were killed due to war -- namely the Iran war and the Kuwait war. Which leaves 750,000 over 30 years -- 68 a day, give or take. (ABC Online, 9/04/2003)

    According to Iraq Body Count 33,710 civilians have been killed since the war began. Doing the math results in a "lives saved" total of 40,515 -- NOT 2.9 million (31 per day versus 68 per day; multipled by 3 years). And that isn't counting the deaths of insurgents, coalition soldiers or journalists.

    But I don't believe "Iraq Body Count" is accurate -- I think the real figure is a lot higher.

    Summary of casualties of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Counts of civilian deaths individually documented range from 33,679 to 37,795. The most comprehensive estimate, the Lancet Study, is that total deaths up to October of 2004 ranged from 8,000 to 194,000 at a 95% confidence interval. (From the Wikipedia entry "Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003")

    100,000 Civilian Deaths Estimated in Iraq. One of the first attempts to independently estimate the loss of civilian life from the Iraqi war has concluded that at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians may have died because of the U.S. invasion. The analysis, an extrapolation based on a relatively small number of documented deaths, indicated that many of the excess deaths have occurred due to aerial attacks by coalition forces, with women and children being frequent victims, wrote the international team of public health researchers making the calculations.

    The researchers called their estimate conservative because they excluded deaths in Fallujah, a city west of Baghdad that has been the scene of particularly intense fighting and has accounted for a disproportionately large number of deaths in the survey. "We are quite confident that there's been somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 deaths, but it could be much higher", Roberts said. (By Rob Stein, The Washington Post. 10/29/2004)

    So if the actual figure is closer to 100,000 -- and I believe that it is -- then the average number of people killed per day due to the US invasion and occupation of Iraq is HIGHER than under Saddam's rule.

    Nice try, but I saw through your little deception.

    In any case, this is a bogus argument. What about all the other murderous dictators in the world? If our "liberation" of Iraq is a case of "doing the math", then why the hell hasn't bush done more to help the people of Darfur?!

    DarkSaturos said... Maybe you have a reading comphrehension problem eh?

    No. A reading comprehension problem means you have trouble understanding what you're reading -- it doesn't have anything to do with not ignoring someone's bad spelling.

    DarkSaturos said... Yeah, it was a play off Sol's comment. Do you understand sarcasm as a literary device?

    But you forgot to add "(sarcasm)" at the end!

     
  • At 23/3/06 6:48 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Did I say you said the article was lying... No. I said you'd never believe it. Which you won't.


    I din't say I didn't believe it. Are you just so nutso that you'll disagree with whatever I say even if it was an earlier position of yours?

    No, I provided LOTS of proof. Your delusion doesn't allow you to acknowledge it.


    That's not a real or valid arguement.

    Proof please? How about an example? As far as I can recall you hardly ever provide links to back up anything you say. The last link I can remember you providing was to a WND article -- and I already proved that their credibility is suspect.

    So what you're saying is that if I post a news site, you'll say you don't believe it. Wheares it's okay for you to put in an editorial and say it's fact. Hm.

    Proof please? The quotes you posted -- where did they come from?

    USAA Radio News, March 21, 2006.

    Proof please? You've cited the 3 million lives figure several times now. Where does it come from?


    I gave you several sites during a previous debate. YOU go look them up, I'm not gonna go get them again for you.

    100,000 Civilian Deaths Estimated in Iraq.

    Really? MSNBC a liberal station, says it's 30,000.

    In any case, this is a bogus argument. What about all the other murderous dictators in the world? If our "liberation" of Iraq is a case of "doing the math", then why the hell hasn't bush done more to help the people of Darfur?!


    You're very ignorant about military tactics and logistics. What does Darfur have to do with terrorism? And why do you NOT want to be in Iraq yet you want to go into everywhere else?

    No. A reading comprehension problem means you have trouble understanding what you're reading --

    Right, and if you can't read a simple error, you have a problem.

    But you forgot to add "(sarcasm)" at the end!

    Ah no arguement again I see. Resorted to picking on someone's mannerisms. How pathetic. Still if you're so dumb you need it there then I'll put it, just for you okay dervish?

     
  • At 23/3/06 11:35 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... I din't say I didn't believe it. Are you just so nutso that you'll disagree with whatever I say even if it was an earlier position of yours?

    Yes you did. You said there wasn't enough evidence -- meaning you don't believe it. Don't try to play word games.

    DarkSaturos said... That's not a real or valid arguement.

    Sure it is. You call everything I post an "editorial" or an "opinion", even though all the articles I post contain FACTS. Facts which you COMPLETELY ignore.

    DarkSaturos said... So what you're saying is that if I post a news site, you'll say you don't believe it. Wheares it's okay for you to put in an editorial and say it's fact. Hm.

    No, that is what YOU are saying! Anyway, if you want to disagree with any of the conclusions contained in any of the articles I post that's fine. If you think any of the FACTS contained in those articles are false why don't you say so? NO, what you do is COMPLETELY dismiss the entire article by calling it an "editorial". Which conveniently allows you to ignore the facts contained in these articles. It's what you would call a "deception".

    DarkSaturos said... USAA Radio News, March 21, 2006.

    I meant verifiable proof, which you damn well know. Am I supposed to take your word for it that you heard this on the radio? I provided verifiable proof, which you completely ignored -- of course.

    DarkSaturos said... I gave you several sites during a previous debate. YOU go look them up, I'm not gonna go get them again for you.

    In other words you can't back up this claim. I'm not surprised, seeing as most of what you post is B.S. I've looked at all the links you've provided (not very many). You've NEVER provided a link which verifies this figure. Provide a link NOW or shut the hell up.

    DarkSaturos said... Really? MSNBC a liberal station, says it's 30,000.

    Not 30,000 -- 33,679 to 37,795. This is the more widely accepted number -- but that doesn't mean that it is correct. In any case the US Government isn't even keeping track!

    As for my 100,000 figure, I backed it up with a link. I guess you missed that. It read as follows:

    The most comprehensive estimate, the Lancet Study, is that total deaths up to October of 2004 ranged from 8,000 to 194,000 at a 95% confidence interval.

    Lancet survey of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. A survey published in The Lancet on 29 October 2004 estimated the casualties of the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq to be 98,000 (95% confidence interval: 8000 to 194000) more than would have been expected without the invasion. To date, this is the only serious scientific attempt to estimate the excess mortality as a result of the invasion. (From the Wikipedia Entry)

    DarkSaturos said... You're very ignorant about military tactics and logistics. What does Darfur have to do with terrorism? And why do you NOT want to be in Iraq yet you want to go into everywhere else?

    You are very ignorant -- period. Did I say Darfur had anything to do with terrorism?! Getting more involved in stopping the genocide in Darfur has to do with SAVING LIVES! That is what we were talking about, right? You tried to change the topic to make me look bad, huh? Nice try, but I saw through your deception.

    I want to be in places were we are actually needed. Where our soldiers can actually save lives, instead of being targets.

    DarkSaturos said... Right, and if you can't read a simple error, you have a problem.

    Your disregard for the English language is my problem? I don't think your teachers would buy that arguement -- your grade would be lowered if you turned in a paper with as many spelling errors as you post here.

    DarkSaturos said... Ah no arguement again I see. Resorted to picking on someone's mannerisms. How pathetic. Still if you're so dumb you need it there then I'll put it, just for you okay dervish?

    YOUR post was the one that contained no arguement. You provided ZERO links to back up any of your claims. Your entire post was all meaningless rambling which proved NOTHING except that YOU are the one who is pathetic.

     
  • At 24/3/06 4:04 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Yes you did. You said there wasn't enough evidence -- meaning you don't believe it.

    Wrong. It means I believe what evidence it did have.

    Sure it is. You call everything I post an "editorial" or an "opinion", even though all the articles I post contain FACTS.

    When it's not an editorial then I'll believe it.

    DarkSaturos said... So what you're saying is that if I post a news site, you'll say you don't believe it. Wheares it's okay for you to put in an editorial and say it's fact. Hm.

    dervish: No, that is what YOU are saying!


    What? When did I post an editorial?

    I meant verifiable proof, which you damn well know. Am I supposed to take your word for it that you heard this on the radio?

    They got a website. Look it up.

    In other words you can't back up this claim.

    No, in other words do your own research. Lazy bum. No wonder you like welfare.

    Did I say Darfur had anything to do with terrorism?!

    You asked why we didn't go there. I told you. It's pretty simple.

    Your disregard for the English language is my problem?

    No it's not your problem, so stop correcting it eh?

    I don't think your teachers would buy that arguement -- your grade would be lowered if you turned in a paper with as many spelling errors as you post here.


    That's why I don't turn in bad papers. Arguements however have nothing to do with spelling.

    YOUR post was the one that contained no arguement. You provided ZERO links to back up any of your claims. Your entire post was all meaningless rambling which proved NOTHING except that YOU are the one who is pathetic.

    Am I the one picking on you for petty spelling mistakes? No, I am not. Also, I told you where I got the info and you called me a liar. What am I supposed to do?

     
  • At 24/3/06 6:04 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    I it YOUR job to provide links to back up your claims, not mine!

    I did a google search on both your 3 million lives saved and soldier comments claims -- and found nothing.

    Until I see some links I will assume that you are lying. Not surprising, since virtually everything you post here is a lie.

    DarkSaturos said... Wrong. It means I believe what evidence it did have.

    From the Article: As reported in the Guardian as early as 2001, Bush 41 and 43 have been connected to the Carlyle Group in various ways resulting in substantial compensation to the Bush family from Carlyle Group investments.

    The article goes on to point out: [1] The Carlyle Group acquired a majority stake in CSX in 2002.

    [2] Dubai International Capital commonly participates in co-investments with the Carlyle Group.

    [3] CSX was sold to DP World in 2004.

    Question: Was the reason bush threatened a veto financially motivated?

    I'm guessing that you "agree" with points 1-3, but do NOT think the answer to the question posed is "yes" because there "isn't enough evidence".

    So, to summarize:

    You think the answer is "not enough evidence" to determine (but probably no).

    I think the answer is YES.

    We are NOT in agreement!

    (Cody's answer is "I don't care", because he sees nothing wrong with a US president being corrupt.)

     
  • At 24/3/06 9:14 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    I it YOUR job to provide links to back up your claims, not mine!

    Here's an idea to get ahold of. I don't give a shit whether you believe me or not. How about that eh? The fact is that I've backed it up numerous times and if you want to lie about it that's your problem. It hardly matters since I did provide a source and you called me a liar. Why should I back it up if you think I'm lying anyway?

     
  • At 24/3/06 10:51 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... Here's an idea to get ahold of. I don't give a shit whether you believe me or not. How about that eh?

    Here's an idea for you to get ahold of -- you're full of shit and your post proves it.

     
  • At 25/3/06 8:26 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Here's an idea for you to get ahold of -- you're full of shit and your post proves it.

    Haha, excellent. Ok so you wanna call the debate over since were pretty much want to kill each other now? That's what happens anyway, usually after you start losing and call someone stupid.

     
  • At 25/3/06 12:29 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... Haha, excellent. Ok so you wanna call the debate over since were pretty much want to kill each other now? That's what happens anyway, usually after you start losing and call someone stupid.

    The debate is over and you are the winner?! Even though I called you on your lies and you could not back up your claims?! RIGHT.

    Last chance -- Stop lying about providing the links earlier (which you did NOT), and give them to me now. If you can't do it then I declare myself the winner.

     
  • At 25/3/06 1:20 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Last chance -- Stop lying about providing the links earlier (which you did NOT), and give them to me now. If you can't do it then I declare myself the winner.


    Okay then declare yourself the winner. You think I care about something as petty as that?

     
  • At 25/3/06 2:43 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    You just said I was losing the argument! Sounded like you cared to me. I can declare myself the winner (which I most certainly am), but it doesn't mean a lot since you'll never admit you were wrong -- despite your inability to produce those links.

    But, OK, I accept your concession of defeat. At least you are able to admit when you are beat -- I'll give you that.

     
  • At 25/3/06 3:40 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    But, OK, I accept your concession of defeat. At least you are able to admit when you are beat -- I'll give you that.

    If it makes you feel better to think you won then fine. My point is that nobody "wins" debates. One side does however start "losing." But no one is ever a real victor, nor does anyone agree that the other side is said victor.

     
  • At 25/3/06 6:51 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... If it makes you feel better to think you won then fine. My point is that nobody "wins" debates.

    No backpedaling. You conceded defeat and I accepted.

    If I were you I'd stop posting. Aren't you embarassed that you were caught in a lie and unable to BS your way out of it?

    For the record, I, as the victor, would like to take the opportunity to point out just what I have proven:

    [1] More lives are being lost under the US occupation of Iraq than were lost (on a daily basis) during Saddam's rule. The claim that we invaded Iraq to "save lives" is complete BS.

    [2] Most US Soldiers question why we are in Iraq. Most soldiers think we should withdraw within a year. (They support the Murtha Plan.)

    [3] Republicans are the party of hate, bigotry, corruption and hypocrisy --

    Even though the hyprocrite Cody has lambasted Communism (as practiced in the USSR, Cuba, China, North Korea, etc) as being corrupt, he sees nothing wrong with Crony Capitalism (which is a corrupt form of capitalism).

    If you hate someone, that means you desire to murder them. You want to kill me because I'm a liberal. I don't want to kill you, but I will defend myself. I don't own a gun (so I can't blow your head off), but I do have some kitchen knives I could use.

    You probably have access to firearms, so I'm most likely doomed if you decide to come gunning for me. Also, we know that murder being morally wrong won't deter you, since it isn't really a crime unless you get caught.

     
  • At 26/3/06 8:26 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    "Even though the hyprocrite Cody has lambasted Communism (as practiced in the USSR, Cuba, China, North Korea, etc) as being corrupt,"

    And I will do so as long as I live

    "he sees nothing wrong with Crony Capitalism (which is a corrupt form of capitalism)."

    I never said that. What you have brought up as I've said before is a simple business deal, there was nothing corrupt about it. I do not support corruption, and I have never said I did.

    But I wouldn' expect you to be smart enough to figure something that simple out after 100 comments. And I just love how you accuse everyone of lying all the time, then you turn around and slander me. nice job, Hypocrite.

     
  • At 26/3/06 4:40 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    It is NOT a "simple business deal"!!

    The fact that the Carlyle group (a company in which the bush family is deeply involved), and bush appointee John Snow stand to profit from the deal is a clear CONFLICT OF INTEREST. You said you didn't have a problem with that. Therefore I deduced that you support Crony Capitalism.

    But I wouldn't expect you to be smart enough to figure something that simple out after 100 comments. The fact that you continue to call this a "simple business deal" PROVES you support corruption, hypocrite.

     
  • At 26/3/06 7:26 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    W-Dervish said...
    "But I wouldn't expect you to be smart enough to figure something that simple out after 100 comments. The fact that you continue to call this a "simple business deal" PROVES you support corruption, hypocrite."

    Dervish, little pathetic dervish. Must you mock the things me and Darksaturos say EVERY time? It really does get old. Seriously. I wish I could slap you or something.

     
  • At 27/3/06 3:40 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Cody O'Connor said... Dervish, little pathetic dervish. Must you mock the things me and Darksaturos say EVERY time? It really does get old. Seriously. I wish I could slap you or something.

    So you don't dispute what I said about you supporting corruption? It's about time you admit the truth.

    And, yes, if it's stupid I'll mock it. I find it hilarious every time.

    Do you even know what a conflict of interest is? I did provide a link, why don't you go back and read it. It doesn't matter if this really is a "simple business deal" (it's not). It has the appearance of possibly being corrupt (because it is) -- these people should know better than to put themselves in that position.

    Here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia entry:

    In fact, a conflict of interest does exist even if there are no improper acts as a result of it.
    One way to understand this is to use the term "conflict of roles". A person with two roles -- an individual who owns stock (or has an interest in the Carlyle Group) and is also a government official (the president, for instance) -- may experience situations where those two roles conflict. The conflict can be mitigated (by having your investment placed in a "blind trust") -- but it still exists. In and of itself, having two roles is not illegal, but the differing roles will certainly provide an incentive for improper acts in some circumstances. (end Wikipedia Entry)

    Also, see the section on Recusal, which is what John Snow should have done -- considering he sat on the board that approved the deal the first time! Do you really believe that he is that stupid -- it didn't occur to him that he should recuse himself -- or do you agree with the obvious conclusion that he remained on the panel and championed the deal because he knew there would be a BIG payday for him if he did.

    (which, by the way, is the same reason bush threatened a veto.)

    COME ON -- use your brain instead of blindly trusting the corrupt bush administration!

     
  • At 28/3/06 6:23 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    I never said I don't agree with your whole conflict of intrest thing, how could one debate against it?

    "And, yes, if it's stupid I'll mock it. I find it hilarious every time."

    You know what would be even more hilarious? Me deleting every single one of your comments. I'm almost at that point so if I were you I'd cut the crap out.

     
  • At 28/3/06 12:35 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Cody O'Connor said... I never said I don't agree with your whole conflict of intrest thing, how could one debate against it?

    So you think that there is a conflict of interest, but you just don't care? Why not -- because you trust bush? That must be why Congress isn't living up to it's oversight obligations... they trust bush and so don't believe he could be doing anything wrong (either that or they don't care that he is corrupt, since they are too).

    In any case, it doesn't matter. Congress is supposed to provide oversight! Lots of accusations have been made by Democrats (and outside sources), but they refuse to investigate any of them! I suppose you don't see anything wrong with that either?

    If bush hasn't done anything wrong then why won't he allow anyone to PROVE it?

     
  • At 20/5/06 11:33 PM, Blogger Eddie Radcliffe said…

    Yes Cody your correct teachers do try to corrupt the minds of teachers. This isn't truelly about communism its about how teachers have there own beliefs and try to FORCE interpretations and personal beliefs into there teachings. Granted that this class has nothing to do with politics, saying that communism is a good thing is completely ridiculouse. And trying to debate about this and saying "what are you basing your information on" I think that you based it on something great HISTORY and present day expierences.

    And He did in turn contradict himself by saying that Karl Marx's books are too confusing to understand, then why would it everwork in the real world if it doesn't even work on paper

     

Post a Comment

<< Home