kakoi_sugoi_yama Wrote:That is the funniest thing I have read in a long time. I would love to see politicians hitting each other with steel chairs and ladders. 
I've seen that happen. Apparently that's been happening a lot throughout Asia. I've watched the most hilarious yet shameful situations on the news.
'did you feel Clinton was out of line when he had his troop kill Christian Serbs on the behalf of Albanian Muslims?'
Are you taking the side of the serbs because they were christian and the ethnic cleansing happened to be facing muslims?
Does this mean that you consider these muslims 'infidels'?
Have they chosen the wrong path?
Is their blood accaptable?
Im not trying to insult you, I just feel that -as in the case of the bush administration- it would be prudent to know how far your pious nature pervades your concepts of morality.
One reason why America cannot hope to achieve an end to religious fundamentalism/fanaticism and political extremism is that it embraces them both at home and abroad. The current american approach is not a principled or consistent one and one that moderate thinkers the world over are rightly very dubious of.
It is clearly not about spreading true freedom but rather forcefully imposed conformity to a neo conservative 'straussian' notion of servile freedom and subservience to American corporate interests.
p.s. Kerry will screw America and the the rest of the world just in a slightly less offensive manner!
Bill Hicks explained this to you guys years ago, so hurry up, take some mushrooms and squeachy that third eye
.
Ossie Wrote:'did you feel Clinton was out of line when he had his troop kill Christian Serbs on the behalf of Albanian Muslims?'
Are you taking the side of the serbs because they were christian and the ethnic cleansing happened to be facing muslims?
Does this mean that you consider these muslims 'infidels'?
Have they chosen the wrong path?
Is their blood accaptable?
I am not taking the side of the Serbs because they were Christian. I have no problem with Muslims. I was just asking about that because I wondered if a person who hates Bush and Bush's war also hated Clinton's involvement of the US military in a conflict that lasted over a year. It is all about double standards.
rarnom Wrote:You still haven't answered my question. How do you reconcile an attitude of violence as a means to solve 'threats' when you claim to hate war? No matter what you hear from the left or the right, if there was a 'threat' of WMD's, then they acted. Yes, it does suck that it turned out to be wrong. But it is the same as if you thought someone threatened you, had your mature 'fist fight' and then found out you were wrong. As I see it you ARE wrong and you ARE a hypocrite. If you hate Bush's war, then you also have to hate violence in all its forms, you can't have any credibility by living a double standard. If you really feel that peace is the answer and war is evil, then your personal behavior would reflect that, but it doesn't.
then you obviously didn't read my last statement. They are completely different things, which is how I can justify fucking someone up for being a smarmy bitch and be apprehensive about starting global war. The reasoning is easy:
A) It's him vs me. No collatoral damage. I don't sick my posse on his posse and have them kill the other guys in my name. I beat his ass and that is it
B) There are no involvements of weak and or innocent people.
C) We don't kill each other
D) It's a personal conflict between two people vs two armies having at each othere unabased.
Unlike you, I can differentiate between a fist fight and a war (well, not technically a 'war' in the legal sense, but one nonetheless). No, I am NOT a hypocrite for wanting to get into a fist fight and not wanting to send our troops to Iraq, because I recognize them as being two fundamental things and you can spare me the freudian crap that what I do in my personal life is how I think about real world situations.
It's preposterous to think that I can't differentiate one type of force from another. In a 1 on 1 fight, there is a difference between getting into a fist fight, breaking a pool cue over their head and pulling a gun on them. And that's only in a single scenario! Plus, when it comes to one person being a stubborn asshole and not getting out of your face, there is not much you can do to get them to fuck off with out force. When it comes to an entire nation (especially one NOT impeding on you in any way shape or form), there are many ulterior things you can do beyond getting mixed up in war.
Point being: Getting into a fight is NOT tantamount to starting war nor are the mindsets one has to do so and thus I have no need to reconcile getting into a fight with one jackass versus getting into a war with another country, because they are two different things.
kakomu Wrote:Unlike you, I can differentiate between a fist fight and a war (well, not technically a 'war' in the legal sense, but one nonetheless). No, I am NOT a hypocrite for wanting to get into a fist fight and not wanting to send our troops to Iraq, because I recognize them as being two fundamental things and you can spare me the freudian crap that what I do in my personal life is how I think about real world situations.
So what does it take then for war to be 'o.k.' with you? If we actually did find WMD's then would you think the war was then a good idea? Is it only o.k. to start a war after we have been attacked on our soil? You can't have it both ways. You responding to a threat with another threat of violence is exactly the same thing. It is all about the mentality. I agree that the differences you noted about people dying and collateral damage are going to be obviously different. But it is the principal that is the same. You are responding to a threat. The US responded to a threat.
Here is another quote to show that at least one other person here agrees with my reasoning:
Zagatto Wrote:actually, threatening to respond to violence with violence is exactly how things escalate... especially if you are saying you will "fuck someone up" just for threatening you.
That sounds a lot like Bush attacking Iraq due to the threat of WMDs.
There was no attack from Iraq to provoke an invasion. It was just the threat of WMDs that mobilized the allied forces agains Saddam.
I guess if we look up to our world leaders then this is the right approach to take.
It is all about what your behavior and your actions say. I am sure you are convinced you are not a hypocrite, but very little in your mentality and attitudes about violence and personal conflict resolution seem to convince me otherwise. So you will have to live with the fact that at least one person thinks you are a hypocrite.
[QUOTE]B) There are no involvements of weak and or innocent people.
Without the killing of the weak and innocent it would be no fun. Think of the news channels, they need good ratings you know and the harming of others (especially children) bring in them in.
rarnom Wrote:It is all about what your behavior and your actions say. I am sure you are convinced you are not a hypocrite, but very little in your mentality and attitudes about violence and personal conflict resolution seem to convince me otherwise. So you will have to live with the fact that at least one person thinks you are a hypocrite.
You've got me very confused here.
What have I said that is hypocritical?
I'm sorry if I'm being slow here but I think I need this one spelled out for me.
I take great pride in never having been in a fight... not even during the summer when I was a bouncer. I have always believed that just about any conflict can be resolved through mediation if approached by all parties in a civilized manner.
If I ever came across in any way as someone who supports violence of any type then I appologize for that misrepresentation. My statement about looking up to world leaders was meant to imply that I DON'T look up to our current world leaders as examples of how I want the world run.
LOL. I was talking to Kakomu. I was using your statement as an example of someone who saw the point of what I was trying to say. I used your quote because you saw the connection and the similarity of the situations and how they both involve reactions to a threat.
Right before I quoted you I said: "
Here is another quote to show that at least one other person here agrees with my reasoning:" Then I quoted you to help my argument and then I finished up with more words for Kakomu. Sorry about any misunderstanding.
Ossie Wrote:'did you feel Clinton was out of line when he had his troop kill Christian Serbs on the behalf of Albanian Muslims?'
Are you taking the side of the serbs because they were christian and the ethnic cleansing happened to be facing muslims?
Does this mean that you consider these muslims 'infidels'?
Have they chosen the wrong path?
Is their blood accaptable?
Im not trying to insult you, I just feel that -as in the case of the bush administration- it would be prudent to know how far your pious nature pervades your concepts of morality.
One reason why America cannot hope to achieve an end to religious fundamentalism/fanaticism and political extremism is that it embraces them both at home and abroad. The current american approach is not a principled or consistent one and one that moderate thinkers the world over are rightly very dubious of.
It is clearly not about spreading true freedom but rather forcefully imposed conformity to a neo conservative 'straussian' notion of servile freedom and subservience to American corporate interests.
p.s. Kerry will screw America and the the rest of the world just in a slightly less offensive manner!
Bill Hicks explained this to you guys years ago, so hurry up, take some mushrooms and squeachy that third eye .
My apologies if I misunderstood. It just struck me as odd that you specified it in terms of christians and muslims, I was under the impression that it had more to do with Serbian nationalism. mmmm I suppose the two could quite easily be connected..... anyway sorry again
. It probably wasnt fair to use you to illustrate that point.
Ossie Wrote:My apologies if I misunderstood. It just struck me as odd that you specified it in terms of christians and muslims, I was under the impression that it had more to do with Serbian nationalism. mmmm I suppose the two could quite easily be connected..... anyway sorry again . It probably wasnt fair to use you to illustrate that point.
Excellent!
Ossie, I wish more people would take the time to look at things from other points of view as you have done here. Thank you for this post.
rarnom Wrote:It is all about what your behavior and your actions say. I am sure you are convinced you are not a hypocrite, but very little in your mentality and attitudes about violence and personal conflict resolution seem to convince me otherwise. So you will have to live with the fact that at least one person thinks you are a hypocrite.
In which case, do you concede that Bush is a hypocrite? I mean, he went after saddam on suspect and false info. Whereas both Iran and N Korea are note only suspected to have WMDs, they also both hate America. In fact, it would seem that a pre-emptive strike against either of those countries would be far more sufficient in ending unrule in the whole region in either case. In any case, N Korea's inhumane actions are probably far worse than Iraq's.
And no, humans aren't so hard-wired that they react the same way to everything. I won't respond to everything with force (and rarely do). In fact, i only made a threat. It's not like I even went over their and beat his ass.
What I want to know is: Why do you think War and a fist fight are the same? How can you reconcile that they are similar when the outcomes are so different?
I do see that there are differences between a fist fight and a war but at their most base level I see the two of them to be very similar.
A fist fight can (and has) ended in death.
The only thing physical violence shows is who is more proficient at dealing pain. Nothing is actually solved as far as settling the differences between two people.
Might does not make right.
If you believe that someone intends to harm you and you go "beat their ass" then all you've done is strengthen the anmity between the two of you.
If you find out what reason they may have for trying to harm you and spend some time figuring out a comprimise then you have found a solution to avoid future fights with that individual.
Don't think that all fist fights are so neat and tidy that they only involve the two people having the dispute. I have seen innocent bystanders hit in the head by baseball bats as the fighters were chasing each other in a crowded space.
Wars are essentialy large scale fist fights.
Instead of people having a dispute it's the leaders of nations.
Instead of only two combatants with mild injury you get thousands involved.
The outcomes aren't that different.
When trying to settle differences through conflict, the end result is one person claiming to be victorious while the other person cowers away... usually plotting their revenge.
If differences are settled through negotiation or arbirtration then there is a chance that both sides will walk away with a better understanding of their nemesis. This can take much more work and more time to accomplish but in the end, if followed through, can yield the best results.
kakomu Wrote:In which case, do you concede that Bush is a hypocrite? I mean, he went after saddam on suspect and false info. Whereas both Iran and N Korea are note only suspected to have WMDs, they also both hate America. In fact, it would seem that a pre-emptive strike against either of those countries would be far more sufficient in ending unrule in the whole region in either case. In any case, N Korea's inhumane actions are probably far worse than Iraq's.
And no, humans aren't so hard-wired that they react the same way to everything. I won't respond to everything with force (and rarely do). In fact, i only made a threat. It's not like I even went over their and beat his ass.
What I want to know is: Why do you think War and a fist fight are the same? How can you reconcile that they are similar when the outcomes are so different?
I completely understand your point about North Korea and Iran. Here is how I view it:
Contrary to what a lot of people think, I am not convinced that Bush is a war happy president. I know that he knows that taking a country to war is serious business. Can you imagine how much the world would hate him if he attacked Iraq, Iran, AND N. Korea? Seriously, that would be just nuts. I believe that the president is privy to intelligence that is only for him. I don't care what Michael Moore, Al Franken, or anyone else tries to tell you about what the government did and did not know. I am sure that there is STILL intelligence that has not been released and is still confidential. I remember when the Iraq conflict was brewing that the President gave Sadaam SEVERAL ultimatums to comply with the inspectors and other stipulations. I never felt liked we 'rushed' to war. That is my opinion. I believe that in a world post-9/11 the president was not interested in a repeat attack on America. I believe that they felt that Iraq posed a very serious threat. A threat that was more serious and pressing than any threat from N. Korea or Iran. Many don't believe the president. I won't argue that. I think that if N. Korea genuinely posed a pertinent and dangerous threat that was a bigger threat than Iraq then we would have acted differently.
And to answer your question, I think ALL politicians are hypocrites from one time to another. Bush has been a hypocrite, but I don't see the value in him admiting he is wrong. Does John Kerry admit he is wrong? No candidate will admit they were wrong during an election. That is what sucks about politics. Everybody lies, everybody has problems and everyone is a hypocrite at one point or another.
I voted for Bush because I agree with him on more issues than Kerry. Bush has saved me money as a school teacher making less than 30K a year by reducing my taxes. He has funded education better than any other president, even with the budget for No Child Left Behind being 'cut', it still is better than it has been in the past. This year alone my grade school is getting $170,000 dollars for school reform and improvement. That is a TON of money for a grade school. There are more reasons that I don't feel like listing, but I think the 'I agree with Bush' reason is enough.
I also just don't belive in Kerry. I don't trust him to make the changes he promises as well as PAY for them. I don't see anything impressive in his senate record. I don't like how he touts his Vietnam 4 month tour of duty so much in this election. I don't like how Kerry has the nerve to critisize Cheney for getting 5 defermits during Vietnam when Kerry himself got FOUR and the reason he had to go to Vietnam was because his 5th defermit didn't come through.
and to your last question:
I think war and a fist fight are the same because it is a show of force and power. It is a way to send a message. Be it, don't attack America or don't threaten me to my face. It is a way to send a message and establish power and also a level of authority.
Ossie Wrote:My apologies if I misunderstood. It just struck me as odd that you specified it in terms of christians and muslims, I was under the impression that it had more to do with Serbian nationalism. mmmm I suppose the two could quite easily be connected..... anyway sorry again . It probably wasnt fair to use you to illustrate that point.
Hey no big deal Ossie, I felt you were very nice in the way you brought up your question and I was glad to be able to explain where I was coming from. I would hate for someone to think I was being critical of a religion/ethnic group. I actually used the 'christian' and 'muslim' terms because I had read that in a comparison of Bush's war and Clinton's war.
rarnom Wrote:And in regards to taxes, when I was 20 and a student I also didn't care a whole lot about taxes. But now that I am older, have a house, a family, and a regular job, I care a lot more about how much I bring home at the end of the month. //..........// I made less than 30k last year and in addition to not having to pay much in taxes (child tax credit) I also got two of those $400 tax surplus checks that Bush promised AND delivered on. I like having my money and I don't trust a person with Kerry's record on taxes to let me keep my money the way Bush did //.....//Bush has saved me money as a school teacher making less than 30K a year by reducing my taxes.
Wow!! That's so narrow-minded. You talk like Bush's tax cut is free money. Tax surplus check? What is this phantom surplus? Bush delivered? Must be the check part. Definitely not the tax surplus part.
Why don't you go to ATM machine right now, take out $400 cash using your credit card, and have more money in your hands? That is exactly the same as Bush's tax cut. Bush is using our national credit card to give us extra $ on our paycheck and is running up trillion $ of debt. You and I will eventually have to pay for it (to rich people and to foreign governments), and that includes interest as well.
This is what happens when our government borrows money to pay for tax cut. Our treasury has to issue IOU such as governmental bonds and treasury notes, which are heavily bought by foreign governments and rich investors. When too many IOUs by government are issued, it normally reduces the buying power of currency. That means it will cost more to pay for all essentials such as health care, food, gas, etc. At the end, it is not enough for extra money to pay for all the increased costs in goods and services. When Kerry said during the debate, our take-home pay by middle class has been lowest in history despite the tax cut, Kerry was exactly right.
On top of it, our government still has to pay interest to rich investors who own IOUs (which makes the rich richer, of course!!). To do that, our government has to increase tax, or slash the budget greatly, or issue even more IOUs. What did Bush choose? He issued even more IOUs, thereby increasing the budget deficit to all time high. It's a vicious cycle.
But only thing you see is $400 extra, even though the budget deficit can have a devastating effect on our lives. If Bush keeps on increasing the deficit at the current level, the economy could collapse. Your teaching job can easily be a history. Unfortunately, that is not tangible for everyone to see like $400 check in your hands. But anyone can understand how bad it is to have a huge credit card bill. If Bush can balance the budget AND give us the tax cut, I am all for it. Otherwise, his tax cut is purely a political tool that doe not benefit everyday people in reality.
I understand what you say, but I don't see how it damages my life. You mention how his tax cut does not benefit everyday people? How am I not everyday people? I am as middle class as it gets: House, wife, child, modest income. I have to pay very little in taxes and on top of that I got money back. Call it what you want, but that money goes back into the economy.
Your last paragraph is interesting, but it is filled with a lot of extreme doomsday type rhetoric. The economy was worse in the 90's. There is no way I will lose my job as a teacher. I have taken the steps to educate and train myself so I have the credentials that make me marketable. I have a Russian speaking endorsement and an endorsement to teach non-native English Speakers. I will never be out of an teaching job. But that is the way I do think. I take care of my own business first. I don't wait for the government to tax me more and then organize the funds the way they see fit.
I'd be interested in how Kerry can pay for all his programs, properly fund the war, AND pay down the deficit. And just so you know the defict HAS been larger.
*EDIT*
I had a stat here that I realized was the national DEBT from the 90's, not the deficit. oops.
One more point to consider: I got my $400 checks before 9/11. At that point the economy was fine. After 9/11 jobs were lost, money had to be reorganized and spent on military efforts, etc... It was a big deal. Any president would have to do what they could to get more money and that means going into debt and reexamining your options.
Anyway, If you want to think I am narrow minded I really don't mind. Most Liberals think Conservatives are narrow-minded and that is the way it is. I do enjoy discussing this though. It is always good to see different points of view.