Originally posted by Clovie
no it wasn't.
since at the begging of their activity they were planning to increase social-life level of ppl.
later it turned out terrible.
That's just meaningless! They were not applying socialist policy!
My statement is true. They did deliberately create a meanginless name; it was their intent.
Originally posted by Darth Revan
Discriminating against gays in a country that supposedly gives equal rights to everyone could hardly be seen as a moral thing to do. Yes, it does say in the Bible that people shouldn't be gay--but if you interpret that as "we should punish gay people for being who they are," you're a moron. The Bible also tells you not to be judgemental to people who choose not to believe what you believe, and putting your bullshit discriminatory doctrine of restricting gay rights into the US constitution is clearly judgemental. How is not allowing gay people to marry NOT homophobic? 🙄 And don't give me any of that "I believe in gay rights, but they shouldn't be allowed to marry!" shit.I'm not a Democrat either, if you must know...
ure the man ✅
I said if this is a fascism state then why do we get to vote?Yes the german people did vote for Hitler but not all germans liked hitler and what about the other countrys?
THey did not do any voting there!Compare to a fascism country we are pretty lucky!Also we have freedom of speech and region.If we live in a fascism country there be no such thing and we would not be able to do that.
1984 Is sort of like a fascism world(the book i am talking about)and lucky for us we don't have that here like in the book.Down with big brother!
(looks around to see if any thought police heard her)well I guess I am safe.See you around.JM
Originally posted by FeceMan
That may be your intent...but still, it is anti-Bush.You do realize that some of us Bush supporters support him because, well, we are...how would one say it?...MORAL people? I'm a Christian. I follow the Bible. Therefore, I vote for the party that most closely follows what the Bible says. As in, I am Republican. I agree with some of the economic stuff that the Democrats idealize, but to say that the Bush agenda is homophobic, sexist, etc. is a pile of steaming fecal matter. We all know that BOTH candidates focused heavily on the war in Iraq, dodged social issues, and used economy as their backbone.
Also, the two extreme ends of the political spectrum have little difference between them.
Once again, a supposed "Christian" stating that he is voting for religion, not a president. Well, boyo, we don't live in a theocracy, and I didn't vote for a religious leader. I voted for a president who would make policy that would benefit the nation AS A WHOLE, and not some group of evangelical "Christians" that are in the majority.
And how do you equate a vote for Bush as being a "moral" vote? Is there anything moral about launching a pre-emptive, unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation? Is there anything moral about monetarily taking care of your big corporate interests through this immoral war? And, most importantly, is there anything moral about the death of thousands of innocent men, women, and children?
If you don't mind the mass murder of over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians, then go ahead and support this "moral" president.
cornponious
Originally posted by Jackie Malfoy
I said if this is a fascism state then why do we get to vote?Yes the german people did vote for Hitler but not all germans liked hitler and what about the other countrys?
THey did not do any voting there!Compare to a fascism country we are pretty lucky!Also we have freedom of speech and region.If we live in a fascism country there be no such thing and we would not be able to do that.
1984 Is sort of like a fascism world(the book i am talking about)and lucky for us we don't have that here like in the book.Down with big brother!
(looks around to see if any thought police heard her)well I guess I am safe.See you around.JM
dumbing down yet another debate i see. isnt there a coloring book or a sandbox somewhere with your name on it?
Originally posted by Ushgarak
See... there is a confusion here because of wildly varying definitions of the word 'liberal' between the Continents. In fact, a lot of people are ignorant of the meaning 'Liberal' can have. Very odd that SS says that Tpt makes liberals look Conservative, and that RR says that it was Reagan who demonised the term...... because Margaret Thatcher's Conservative Government in Reagan's day, was the most liberal we've ever had., And if you don't understand that, it's because, as I say, you don't understand the meanings of Liberal. One of her most famous statements was 'I am a Liberal'.
Trouble is, 'Liberal' in the States, and increasingly over here, is becoming synonomous with 'Left Wing'. Which is odd, because the Left Wing has never necessarily been about Liberal Government- often to the contrary.
There is a reason the Lib Dems in this country are seperate from Labour, because here, Liberalism and Left Wing are different. Liberal Government is Government that aims to empower people with choices; Thatcher's Government was Liberal because of her pledge to 'roll back the frontiers of the state'- i.e. to reduce state control in national affairs, basically by privatising everything. She didn't think it was the job of the state to run railways and the electricity boards etc. She thought people should have a choice with everything, a policy the Conservatives still have today. School vouchers are a good example of this- Conservative policy is still to introduce them, on the idea that you shouldn't be forced to enter into the overlording State system of state schools; you should be empowered with the choice to choose a school of appropritate value, hence the vouchers. This is called Liberalism. Likewise, Thatcher gave people the right to buy their own Council homes, rather than have them run by the state, and to take out their own private pension plans, rather than use the State pension...
Our current Labour Government is the opposite of that, as Labour rather tends to be- they may have abandoned the clause that puts the principle of Public Ownership as top priority, but their default is still for the State to dictate/advise the way things are done (hence the 'Nanny State' criticisms it receives). This, again, is an instrument of left wing policy. Their idea is instead of giving people lots of choices, which might all be crap, they should sponsor their own options for people and make them as good as possible. This is all very well and good, but it does not fit the definition of Liberal.
So by its proper defintion, and the way it is still mostly used over here- except by people who only learned their language from the States, or are just too ignorant to know- Left Wing is very opposed to liberalism. Last week, the offiical recommendation was made that anyone who took out a private pension in the last 20 years... should junk it and go back to State ones again. When the Conservatives come back (if that ever happens...), I am sure they will aim to re-liberalise the system.
But in America, as I say, the term has basically come to mean people who want more rights, and that sees to be associated with what the Americans call Left wing, though to be sure that's nothing like what the Europeans call left wing (we'd call your Left Wing Centre-Right, to be honest). Whereas in the UK, Thatcher's Government- very right wing, and often accused of facist tendency, and no lover of gay rights etc.- was what we would call one with a Liberal policy. The association of Liberalism with morals like gay rights and abortion and minority rights simply did not exist.
Off topic, I know, but interesting, seeing as the term has been flying around...
In the US, Liberal has come to mean left-wing...to be honest, that was the only definition of the word I'd ever heard.
...and have you ever talked about politics with Tpt? His views are so left-wing that he can make me look like a moderate...and I'm quite far left in my political views, much more so than the majority of people. Which is what I meant when I said that our views can make a lot of people in this country who have liberal views look quite conservative.
And even in this country, where you are has a lot to do with how your political beliefs are 'classified' (for lack of a better word). Example -- my friend Meg, who has very similar beliefs to mine, went down to Texas during the summer to visit her cousins at college. She said that a lot of the people down there thought she was completely crazy (I guess she, her cousins, and some of her cousins' friends started talking about politics or something...), and one of her cousins' friends, who down there was considered a fairly left-wing person, would be considered a slightly right-wing moderate up here in Chicago.
Originally posted by Silver Stardust
In the US, Liberal has come to mean left-wing...to be honest, that was the only definition of the word I'd ever heard....and have you ever talked about politics with Tpt? His views are so left-wing that he can make me look like a moderate...and I'm quite far left in my political views, much more so than the majority of people. Which is what I meant when I said that our views can make a lot of people in this country who have liberal views look quite conservative.
As for the Liberal definition, goes to show, I guess... but basically look at it this way. The more left wing your politcs, the more you believe in state control of public institutions, until you go ALL the way left to Communism, where the State controls the lot.
Livberal Government in the sense I was using it before is about releaxing State control... hence liberalism.
As for the conservative thing... I wasn't doubting you. I was just pointing out it was amusing that the example I was about to use for Liberalism was from our (literally named) Conservative party.
Once again, a supposed "Christian" stating that he is voting for religion, not a president.
Damn straight. Although I'm not sure how I'm being a "supposed" Christian.
And, continuing with the gay marriage thing--I could see where gay marriage would be acceptable if a good number of people were both homosexual and wanted to be married. The truth is, however, that neither of these are true.
All gays are for gay marriage. Whether they personally want to be married is irrelevant, they want the right to be married. A good number of straight people want to grant them that right too. I think there is a big enough group of people for it. The people who are against gay marriage have absolutely no good reasons for that stance. I have not heard one yet at least. The main reasons I tend to hear are "protect the sanctity of marriage" and "gays can't have children." Both are extremely weak arguments. They don't want to say the real reason which is "the bible says gays are evil." I respect people's right to worship, but keep the bible out of the white house. Not saying the president can't be religious, just that he shouldn't shape his agenda around it.
Yu guys do have to admit that when Presidents say they ae going to do something they don't always do it.It does not matter what side.And to me that is wrong but it happens all the time.
I still think we still live in a pretty good country never the less.Do yu guys want a mortal man to be our president or a man who has no morals and does stuff like Clintin did?
I think we can both argee that it is better for a mortal man then a woman abuser.coughBillcough.JM
All gays are for gay marriage. Whether they personally want to be married is irrelevant, they want the right to be married.
That statement is incorrect.
Darth Revan, sorry, I did not understand that you were an extremist...I just didn't "get" what you were saying at the time. Gotcha.
The thing is, I have seen the evil that is in the hearts of men. Unwittingly, I have released this evil from myself. No, I didn't murder someone, or rape someone, or torture someone, or do anything of the nature. In fact, I did a project.
It was a couple years ago in one of my computer classes. Towards the end of the year, the students were supposed to create a Powerpoint presentation on anything we wanted. I was stuck. I couldn't think of a single thing on which to do a project, so I dinked around with Powerpoint. After a bit of playing around and a bit of philosophizing, I discovered precisely what to do. So I typed and typed and was a pure genius with my ideas. And then, when I had finished and viewed my work, I shoved the keyboard back in horror and deleted everything.
My entire presentation revolved around the weakness in humans, how we, with our "emotions" are inferior to species of animals. I denounced the things known as "love" and "kindness"; I stated that we allowed our genes to be corrupted. Animals with disabilities do not live long or procreate--why should humans? I went on and on, slandering our species for its incompetence, how we needed to better ourselves.
Then I truly saw what I had written. This unadulterated evil had spewed forth from my mind. This ATROCITY that I dared to call magnificent. Upon studying World War II and learning more about Adolph Hitler did I realize what I had written.
Believe it or not, this evil is within us all. We all contain within ourselves a horrific darkness, a corrupted taint upon our souls. THIS is why I cannot allow our morals to slip any more. I think of it as my "Lord of the Flies" philosophy.
Heaven help us if this beast ever gets free.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Damn straight. Although I'm not sure how I'm being a "supposed" Christian.And, continuing with the gay marriage thing--I could see where gay marriage would be acceptable if a good number of people were both homosexual and wanted to be married. The truth is, however, that neither of these are true.
Avoiding a reply to most of my post. That figures.
corn
Avoiding a reply to most of my post. That figures.
Not avoiding--I just didn't read it. I figured it was more of the same, but, if you insist, I'll read the rest of it. I just saw the first part, replied to it, and left.
...
And how do you equate a vote for Bush as being a "moral" vote? Is there anything moral about launching a pre-emptive, unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation? Is there anything moral about monetarily taking care of your big corporate interests through this immoral war? And, most importantly, is there anything moral about the death of thousands of innocent men, women, and children?If you don't mind the mass murder of over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians, then go ahead and support this "moral" president.
Call me callous, call me a bastard, call me whatever you want, but I don't care. I see that it is a horrible thing to have the deaths of innocent men and women, but I am not able to emote as one would expect.
I don't believe Bush used the war to "cover his ass", and you make it sound as though it was a systematic murder of Iraqis. The real question is this: is it better to lose lives now and relieve a dictator of his throne, or is it better to allow a psychotic dictator to rule--a man who has no trouble killing people for minor offenses or for torturing children? A man who gouged out the eyes of a woman with his thumb in public because disagreed with him?
Call me crazy (or a jerk), but I am more concerned with what is happening in the U.S. than what is happening in a desert thousands of miles away. In social issues in the United States, Bush supports what I support. That's why he got my vote.
There's a reason that terrorists threatened to attack us if Bush got reelected and said they would leave us alone if Kerry was elected president--they know who would put his foot down.
Speaking of unnecessary military tactics, what do you think of the bombing of an aspirin factory during the Clinton administry?
First of all, I wonder how a person who calls himself "FeceMan" and "The Master of Excrements", and who uses such foul language, can also call himself a Christian. (For the record, I too consider myself a Christian, and as a Christian, I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ. In the Old Testament, we had the Old Law, an eye for an eye. When Jesus came into the world, he brought with Him the New Law. When your enemy hits you on the cheek, offer the other cheek to him.)
But I digress...
I don't believe Bush used the war to "cover his ass", and you make it sound as though it was a systematic murder of Iraqis. The real question is this: is it better to lose lives now and relieve a dictator of his throne, or is it better to allow a psychotic dictator to rule--a man who has no trouble killing people for minor offenses or for torturing children? A man who gouged out the eyes of a woman with his thumb in public because disagreed with him?
The US government (and Bush in particular) is an opportunistic government. We will crawl in bed with any country that will help us with what we need or want at any given time. Take a look at these pictures:
Do you see that well-dressed "gentleman" yucking it up with our illustrious president and the sec. of defense? That is Islam Karimov, president of Uzbekistan. He is a dictator and a torturer. He likes to boil people alive, pull their fingernails off, beat people, and torture them in general. But hey, he's letting us station troops in his country for the holy war on terrorism, so he's A-OK in Bush's book!
Sure, Hussein was a dictator, and a harsh one at that. But he posed no threat to us, NONE. We had weapons inspectors in Iraq looking for weapons for over 8 years, and they found NOTHING! IN 8 YEARS! But what do we do? We fly in and bomb the hell out of them, killing men, women, and CHILDREN. Over 100,00 of them so far. Children like this:
http://mindprod.com/images/burnedbaby.jpg
You mentioned torturing children?
Having a problem looking at the picture? The US media has sugarcoated the Iraq war by not showing the gruesome nature of it. If you support Bush, then you support this.
Call me crazy (or a jerk), but I am more concerned with what is happening in the U.S. than what is happening in a desert thousands of miles away. In social issues in the United States, Bush supports what I support. That's why he got my vote.
Let me guess, the "social issues" that you and Dubya see eye-to-eye on are:
1. gay marriage
2. abortion
3. school prayer
Am I right? You have succumbed to the insidious Rovian ploy to harvest the Evangelical Christian vote by playing to their "moral" beliefs, and making you believe that a vote for Bush is a vote for morality. And in so doing, Rove and the Bush administration have hijacked this election by covering up the real issues, like the economy, jobs, our government's lack of action before Sept. 11, and biggest of all, the failed Iraq war. Judging by your statement, you have been dupped into this ploy, because you voted for Bush on "social issues" and "morality".
There's a reason that terrorists threatened to attack us if Bush got reelected and said they would leave us alone if Kerry was elected president--they know who would put his foot down.
Show me the quote from a terrorist that says "If you vote for Kerry, we will leave you alone". There isn't one. It doesn't exist. You probably don't even know the real reason Bin Laden hates our government and has done the things he has done. He doesn't hate Americans in general, there are specific reasons he and Al-Quaeda have attacked us. Mind you, I'm not sticking up for the turd, but he's not quite the "madman" that our government has painted him as.
Respond if you wish.
