GENIUS FORUMS

It's all an act, dont you get it. He has nothing at all to sweat about.
If 67% of the people were truely opposed things would be very different, and on the streets. Many who vote "disapprove" would not interfere with Bush's military plans even if they could. They have money, they have safety, they have hope. It's all an act. The audience is the world.
Like a common animal you believe and react on all you see. Pluck out those useless eyes and seek wisdom. Your smarts are shallow and do not penetrate, though you think so highly of yourself. You dont need a dick, you need a miracle.

sschaula wrote:Why? Because it seems insane, boring, stupid and pointless? I just say it because it's true.

I meant that, if you set yourself up publically as an enlightened one, you will forever be bothered by deluded people, and it will be a big hassle.

Kind of like having children: you will always have to deal with childish things.

Well thankfully no one believes me or cares.

Kevin Solway wrote:

Not every state should be able to have nuclear weapons for their own defense, for the same reason that not every person, of every age and mental state, should be allowed to have a machine gun and grenade launcher.

But to say that a certain state has no right to defend itself against attack by a huge imperialist military force that has already conquered two countries bordering it, appears to me as a value judgement. "They're not as worthy as us so they can't have it too". I object to that on the basis that they have no other way of detering a US attack, or winning a war against them.

There is no controller of the US, which is why it can go in directions which another country would be ostracised for worldwide. For that reason there needs to be countermeasures to their expansion. Any country under threat has a right to use all and any means it can to defend itself against them.

The mental state of the current US administration clearly has gross failings, yet few are concerned at their possession of nuclear weapons in the English-speaking world. In continental Europe, George Bush is regarded as the greatest threat to world peace that currently exists. It seems only to be the US and its allies that largely tolerate his dangerous manoeuvers with little concern, and I see that Kevin is one of those. We are already seeing the risks to world stability that he is bringing about, and it will only deteriorate further so long as he reigns.

They have money, they have safety, they have hope. It's all an act.

Partially true.

People are not going to take to the streets unless their level of comfort is compromised.

But they will take to the voting booth, even if they are physically comfortable.

Comfortable USians were comfortable when Clinton was president and Bush Daddy before that and Reagan before that and on and on.

The comfort level does get compromised when one thinks that one's son or daughter could die in Iraq. For nothing.

Since there is no middle class in the US and the thug lifers are all drug addled and felons, rich kids are subject to the draft -- unless, of course, we can draft "guest workers," i.e., Mexicans to fight the war.

That's an idea. Keep that border porous.

Comfortable people are not likely to take to the streets. But they will vote.

The next president will not be a Republican. Even if you do not believe in the efficacy of the polls, that's a no brainer.

I do not think the next president will be Hilary Clinton.

Faizi

Thank you for your middle school mentality.

Everyone is not equal. Some people shouldn't have such devastating weapons. No one should, in fact. Nuclear or biological weapons are not "defense", they're "erradication". Iran has weapons. It's not like they couldn't defend themselves against an American attack. Yet they're provoking one by being defiant against agreements. You're saying they want to defend themselves...why would they so publicly announce "we will NOT stand for this!"?

More importantly, why do your type of people constantly play devil's advocate in politics? Anything sensible is thrown out the window in your mind. I'd like to know why it's such an epidemic.

In continental Europe, George Bush is regarded as the greatest threat to world peace that currently exists.

Wow, what an intelligent idea! George Bush threatens peace! Because there is a war, where the only violence is done by terrorists! Which whom the American military is fighting against!

Wait...isn't that illogical?

Yes! But we are intelligent people so if we say it, then it's reasonable!

I don't care if the entire world thinks that George Bush is a threat to peace, because all that would mean is that the entire world is a gigantic mass of dumb-shits.

Why are people so afraid of war? Why do you people assume war doesn't equal peace? Do you think that terrorists stop once you pull out of war and say you're sorry? Or if you don't go to war, do you think they won't attack? Has everyone forgotten 9-11? Don't you realize the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center were unprovoked? That's what this war is about. The war's goal is peace. Are you too near sighted to see that, avidaloca? I don't know how much common sense you'd have to hear in order for you to start thinking with some common sense.

It probably wouldn't take any hearing of common sense at all. It'd take a complete rebirth. Until then, I'll have to just say "You'll understand when you're older".

We are already seeing the risks to world stability that he is bringing about, and it will only deteriorate further so long as he reigns.

I like how you use the word "we". Very convincing....or just poorly written.

Marsha, you realize there actually isn't a draft...that there IS a middle class...that people will never be fully comfortable, even if you have those pleasant deluded memories of past presidencies.

You think parents fear their son or daughter is fighting in Iraq for nothing? Perhaps that's your own feelings, but mostly all I've heard are positive statements from parents of fallen soldiers. Anyone who's heard someone come back from Iraq seems to think positively about what we're doing over there.

Mostly it's girlfriends or wives of soldiers who complain. I read a book by Michael Moore full of letters. I was looking for one letter from a soldier and could NOT find one. You could say that soldiers are brainwashed as a defense, as someone else has said in this topic, but you'd only be proving your ignorance and stupidity.

What kind of world do you live in, down in Virginia? It's not the world I live in. It seems as if you live in Hollywood, listening to all the misinformed actors and actresses who dominate the silver screen.

Are you voting for Clooney the clown, instead of Hillary?

Scott wrote:

Everyone is not equal. Some people shouldn't have such devastating weapons. No one should, in fact.

But if one country does, and invades other countries, it's no surprise that sovereign nations under the same threat will want it also.

Iran has weapons. It's not like they couldn't defend themselves against an American attack.

Ultimately though, Iran would lose with conventional weapons. No-one would dispute that, and that's why they need nuclear weapons as a deterrent. I'm only saying I see their point of view. No-one wants nuclear weapons, and while world peace would appear safer without Iran possessing them, it may lead to the US occupying Iran, which may lead to something worse. It's hard to say what the answer is.

More importantly, why do your type of people constantly play devil's advocate in politics?

I call it scepticism. I can see the fervour you exhibit for Bush's policies, but I don't see much wisdom in what he's been doing up to now. That of course could change. I'm taking matters as I see them.

Wow, what an intelligent idea! George Bush threatens peace! Because there is a war, where the only violence is done by terrorists! Which whom the American military is fighting against!

Blair (America's "ambassador to the world") described Iraq as a "crucible of terrorism". But it was the US who made it that way! Before the war, anyone posing as a terrorist would have been executed within days by Saddam, who had nothing to do with 9-11 or Bin Laden/Al Qaeda. So the US has created it's own enemy, by drawing loose groups and individuals to a common warzone.

Do you think that terrorists stop once you pull out of war and say you're sorry? Or if you don't go to war, do you think they won't attack? Has everyone forgotten 9-11? Don't you realize the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center were unprovoked? That's what this war is about. The war's goal is peace. Are you too near sighted to see that, avidaloca?

In three years there seems to have been no real progress in the War on Terror. If anything, it seems to have gotten worse, more solidified, with more casualities and anti-US recruits. Based on that I think the Iraq war was a mistake, and did not target the perpetrators which is Al Qaeda and related groups. Although Bush fingered them as the target in his first post-911 speech, he soon shifted to Iraq for what I believe were economic (25% of world oil) and political reasons (to satisfy Israel).

To say that the current global situation has improved since the Iraq war would be false. It has reduced global stability, and the fear is that it could do so further. The profound depth of ignorance in large swathes of America's population was well demonstrated by Bush's last re-election. And those who supported him showed the shallowness of that support once more by Bush's recent record lows in popularity polls. To have faith in this administration or its supporters is a truly religious act of devotion, because to date they've done nothing substantially useful or beneficial.

If 67% of the people were truely opposed things would be very different, and on the streets.

People in the US might be on the streets if they were opposed to the government in general.

On the whole, USians are not opposed to the government. The majority just wants a different government.

Nothing much ever changes for the poor in the US. The poor are always poor. But we don't have to put up with a bullshit war.

Faizi

Marsha, you realize there actually isn't a draft...that there IS a middle class...that people will never be fully comfortable, even if you have those pleasant deluded memories of past presidencies.

There is not a draft yet. Males do have to sign up for the draft, in case one is re-instituted.

There is very little middle class left in the US. The middle class has been eroding since the early eighties, at least. In order to perceive this, I reckon you have to be on the underside. My parents would have been considered middle class thirty years ago. In California, their current home would sell for about six hundred thousand dollars.

In twenty lifetimes, I could not purchase a six hundred dollar home. Even in Virginia, it would probably go for a couple hundred thousand. Yet, it is just a middle class home. Kitchen, small dining room, living room, nondesript family room, three small bedrooms upstairs; one bedroom downstairs. Central air. Electric heat. Yard. Paved drive.

If you believe that there is yet an American middle class, you must be rich.

In the US, increasingly, there are only rich and poor.

I could never afford to buy my parents' house. Only a rich person could afford it.

Faizi

even if you have those pleasant deluded memories of past presidencies.

I am hardly deluded about past presidencies. I hate to have to explain it because I think that the obvious should be obvious. Irony.

When I extol Nixon -- well, it should be obvious that things suck pretty bad when Nixon looks good.

My IQ is only 88 -- borderline retarded -- but I think I need to be writing to a more intelligent discussion group.

Faizi

Scott queried:

Why do you people assume war doesn't equal peace?

What? Are you serious?

Do you not understand A=A, or are you asking on behalf of "you people"? I am going to assume the former.

But, first: that is such utter G Dubbya bollocks propaganda I can‘t believe you even tried to pass it off as a clever question.

War, by definition, does not equal peace. Twisted, it equals it for a defined group of benefactors and, thereby, allows an apparently justifiable contradiction. You know, that exception to the rule (apparently) “all people are not equal” that applies to nations that “harbour terrorists” and, “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” mentality.

Then again, there is some benefit to the question having been asked. It does give one some insight into why people like the current moronic US president are elected so and, thereby, why “you people” might object.

Unfortunately, you're right about one thing: most "you people" are anti-war for emotional reasons, they don't want to die -- just as those who are pro-war.

As for me, I have no particular demands regarding death. We're all going to die. Shit happens. One does begin to wonder, though, what is so much more valuable about a slow, cancerous Western death plagued by attachment over a quick, sharp terrorist one. I mean, really. Why afraid of death, period? Are you afraid you haven't had the chance to live?

But if one country does, and invades other countries, it's no surprise that sovereign nations under the same threat will want it also.

It's no suprise, you're right. There's also no reason to allow it. It seems that you think every country should be treated equal. I disagree.

Ultimately though, Iran would lose with conventional weapons. No-one would dispute that, and that's why they need nuclear weapons as a deterrent. I'm only saying I see their point of view.

Using nuclear weapons as a deterrent. Isn't that terrorism?

No-one wants nuclear weapons, and while world peace would appear safer without Iran possessing them, it may lead to the US occupying Iran, which may lead to something worse. It's hard to say what the answer is.

It's easy to say. Don't allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. If the US invades Iran, then that happens and Iran doesn't launch a nuclear attack on the US. I'd say that's better than the US invading Iran and Iran launching a nuclear attack on the US. Don't you agree?

I call it scepticism. I can see the fervour you exhibit for Bush's policies, but I don't see much wisdom in what he's been doing up to now. That of course could change. I'm taking matters as I see them.

I'm not some moron sucking on the President's tit. I'm a thinker. I believe in doing the best thing. I didn't agree on the UAE issue just a couple of weeks back, which Bush was pushing. I still don't know why he was pushing for that exactly. It only made him look shady.

Anyway, skepticism can only go so far. Once you uncover the truth, you keep it. You can't continue questioning what's true. If you attempt to, you just look like a moron...and are one. Also, taking matters as you see them doesn't work either. You need to think hard about what you see, also remembering what you know is true from the past.

Blair (America's "ambassador to the world") described Iraq as a "crucible of terrorism". But it was the US who made it that way! Before the war, anyone posing as a terrorist would have been executed within days by Saddam, who had nothing to do with 9-11 or Bin Laden/Al Qaeda. So the US has created it's own enemy, by drawing loose groups and individuals to a common warzone.

That paragraph is so untrue that I won't even comment on it. The US brought terrorists to Iraq to come fight...........makes tons of sense avida.

In three years there seems to have been no real progress in the War on Terror. If anything, it seems to have gotten worse, more solidified, with more casualities and anti-US recruits. Based on that I think the Iraq war was a mistake, and did not target the perpetrators which is Al Qaeda and related groups. Although Bush fingered them as the target in his first post-911 speech, he soon shifted to Iraq for what I believe were economic (25% of world oil) and political reasons (to satisfy Israel).

You think Bush was going for the oil? Where's your proof? That's even more unjustified than saying Iraq actually had WMD. You just don't know. It just isn't true. Where's ANY proof of that beyond your guessing?

To say that the current global situation has improved since the Iraq war would be false.

I agree with that. Big events scare some people, who are inable to see the future goal. These people shouldn't think about politics. I consider them part of the herd, who should merely work at their jobs and go home to sleep at night. Little sheep. Luckily you have people who know what they're doing, and people who give their lives for people like you, who faint at any real happening. Fainting goats. Baahing sheep.

Terrorism has been confined to the Middle East. There may be terror cells in the US, but the majority is stuck across the Atlantic. Attacks against the US have improved. What most of the sheepish Americans forget is that 9-11 ever happened. It seems like a distant dream, years ago now. We move on and toss the past out because it seems to be irrelevant.

This is wrong to do, for our own good.

Many of the sheepish Americans didn't consider that the reason we occupied Afghanistan and Iraq is that terror cells were present. Terrorist training camps, some of course which we set up years ago, to defend these people against Russia. Our little friends turned on us in the 90s. The terrorists responsible for 9-11 were planning the event for 5 years prior (before Bush came into office, during the Clinton years). They attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. They threatened more attacks. It's a good thing for the US that we occupied Iraq and Afghanistan, hunting down terrorist leaders. I also want to say that the Patriot Act is a good idea. Anyone who opposes it, I have to ask if there's something they're trying to hide. What is there that's so private in your life that you have to say "No, I don't want you listening in so you can find terrorists." Don't these little sheep remember the consequences of 9-11? If they have no fear of death, then do they worry about their neighbors at all? Or their families or friends? Don't they know how good America is? Ungrateful little fucking sheep.

It has reduced global stability, and the fear is that it could do so further. The profound depth of ignorance in large swathes of America's population was well demonstrated by Bush's last re-election. And those who supported him showed the shallowness of that support once more by Bush's recent record lows in popularity polls. To have faith in this administration or its supporters is a truly religious act of devotion, because to date they've done nothing substantially useful or beneficial.

You forgot to add, "in my opinion". I totally disagree with everything you've said, except that it caused fear and reduced global stability. You have to remember that these ARE your opinions and yours alone. People may agree, like sheep, and you may agree with the people that say these things, as the sheep that you are...but these statements just aren't true at all. Remember that.

There is not a draft yet. Males do have to sign up for the draft, in case one is re-instituted.

Of course. I was just kind of making a statement to you - why are you talking about the draft? It seemed pretty stupid to me.

There is very little middle class left in the US. The middle class has been eroding since the early eighties, at least. In order to perceive this, I reckon you have to be on the underside. My parents would have been considered middle class thirty years ago. In California, their current home would sell for about six hundred thousand dollars.

That's upper middle class.

In twenty lifetimes, I could not purchase a six hundred dollar home. Even in Virginia, it would probably go for a couple hundred thousand. Yet, it is just a middle class home. Kitchen, small dining room, living room, nondesript family room, three small bedrooms upstairs; one bedroom downstairs. Central air. Electric heat. Yard. Paved drive.

Different areas within a city have different pricings. In my city, if you're close to the river the cost raises. If you're in a rich neighborhood, despite the house, the costs will rise. There are also cheaper neighborhoods with no downsides. For a house like you described, the price could range from 80k-500k where I live. I'd say an 80k dollar house is definitely middle class.

If you believe that there is yet an American middle class, you must be rich.

Well no. I can afford a great apartment and I only work about 30 hours a week. I eat out, go to movies, buy my own groceries, etc. I don't have a problem. Rich people live at my apartment. My dad does drywall and builds houses, so our own house was built by us. It costs quite a bit, but it's fairly large. My family definitely isn't rich. I'd say we're middle class.

In the US, increasingly, there are only rich and poor.

I could never afford to buy my parents' house. Only a rich person could afford it.

There aren't just rich and poor. There's a whole spectrum of incomes. A whole spectrum of property pricings. They tried telling me in college that there's a disappearing middle class, but someone has yet to show me how that's true, seeing as how every city I go to is mostly only full of middle class homes. I'd say the middle class is expanding.

My IQ is only 88 -- borderline retarded -- but I think I need to be writing to a more intelligent discussion group.

Pretty ironic.

Leyla,

What? Are you serious?

Do you not understand A=A, or are you asking on behalf of "you people"? I am going to assume the former.

I don't like to talk about A=A. It was a rhetorical question, posed to make you think, "Could war actually equal peace?".

But, first: that is such utter G Dubbya bollocks propaganda I can‘t believe you even tried to pass it off as a clever question.

War, by definition, does not equal peace. Twisted, it equals it for a defined group of benefactors and, thereby, allows an apparently justifiable contradiction. You know, that exception to the rule (apparently) “all people are not equal” that applies to nations that “harbour terrorists” and, “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” mentality.

W.....what? Okay, it's not propaganda. It's just true. If you have an enemy who attacks you unprovoked, then there's no choice but to kill that enemy so that you can become peaceful.

I suppose death could be thought of as peaceful though, so laying back and taking it by some mujahadeen could be a good idea for you.

Then again, there is some benefit to the question having been asked. It does give one some insight into why people like the current moronic US president are elected so and, thereby, why “you people” might object.

Why are you trying to sound intelligent writing that way? Maybe I'm just too stupid to understand that second sentence. Must be. I'm pretty dumb.

Unfortunately, you're right about one thing: most "you people" are anti-war for emotional reasons, they don't want to die -- just as those who are pro-war.

Yet they're also anti-war for egotistical reasons. They're too "intelligent" to actually think about anything. To put it into a personal perspective, such as "Do I want my friends to be blown up in my town by a car bomb?" Or, "Would I like my friend's child to have to deal with a war zone America? Where troops patrol the suburban streets and where it's dangerous to play ball outside on sunny days?" Fuck that. That's why I'm pro war. For peace....don't you get it? This isn't philosophical in the sense that you've thought was philosophical...where A=A. ONLY PEACE EQUALS PEACE. That's just not truth. Like I said, if you have a resilient enemy who attacks unprovoked, you need to get rid of them in order to have peace again.

As for me, I have no particular demands regarding death. We're all going to die. Shit happens. One does begin to wonder, though, what is so much more valuable about a slow, cancerous Western death plagued by attachment over a quick, sharp terrorist one. I mean, really. Why afraid of death, period? Are you afraid you haven't had the chance to live?

It's more honorable to protect the people you live with and the land you grew up in. It's more honorable to die of cancer after protecting the place you live in, than to die saying "Oh I wish this war wasn't happening" like a bitch. If you hate your life and have no respect for the future people that will live where you lived, you just spread your suffering to them. So I can understand that you want to die a quick, sharp terrorist death...where you jump out of a tall building holding the hand of the person you love. Seeing the people you've had company baseball games and cookouts on Sunday afternoons with die in front of you. Thinking about their kids at home without a mom. Without a father figure, to shape them. It's understandable that you want to fly on a plane into a building full of innocent people, and just exit out of this life with no seeming effect to you. I mean, once you die you won't feel the regret of all your selfishness, so it'll be okay. Just blackness, like sleep.

You say you have no particular demands for death, as if you've accepted it. That may be so. You haven't accepted life yet, though...so death will be waiting until you do. You don't seem to have accepted that an unprovoked relentless enemy needs to be killed. You haven't accepted that everyone close to you could die, and that they may be afraid and not want to...because they love things in life. Sure, they may be "attached" and unspiritual. Who are you to decide if they should die or not, though? Because you ARE deciding when you take the viewpoint that you have. You're deciding to spread your legs and lay lifeless, letting the enemy fuck you over.

Which is why liberals are generally not thought of as men, but women. Which is why Hollywood is full of them. Because of the lack of thought and character.

Think about these things before you respond again, Leyla.

Scott,

L: What? Are you serious?

Do you not understand A=A, or are you asking on behalf of "you people"? I am going to assume the former.

I don't like to talk about A=A. It was a rhetorical question, posed to make you think, "Could war actually equal peace?".

That is not a new “question,” Scott. It was around well before you were born. More substantial, however, is the idea that you don’t like to talk about A=A. Thing is, when you propose such an idea as “war equals peace,” that’s precisely what you are attempting to talk about.

L: But, first: that is such utter G Dubbya bollocks propaganda I can‘t believe you even tried to pass it off as a clever question.

War, by definition, does not equal peace. Twisted, it equals it for a defined group of benefactors and, thereby, allows an apparently justifiable contradiction. You know, that exception to the rule (apparently) “all people are not equal” that applies to nations that “harbour terrorists” and, “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” mentality.

S: W.....what? Okay, it's not propaganda. It's just true. If you have an enemy who attacks you unprovoked, then there's no choice but to kill that enemy so that you can become peaceful.

Well, actually, there are a few more choices than just outright killing them. But, to exercise any of them, you have to first properly identify them and, second, catch them. Failing that: head on a pike. Head on a pike is more effective when the head you put on the pike closely resembles the enemy. Otherwise, people in general begin to feel very unsafe, indeed. So, for instance, if your enemy just so happens to have a few characteristics which have nothing to do with the reason he actually is your enemy and you pike a victim on that basis then you open yourself up to a lot of unnecessary bullshit. But, hey, if that’s the best within your capabilities, then there’s not much more that can be asked of you.

S: I suppose death could be thought of as peaceful though, so laying back and taking it by some mujahadeen could be a good idea for you.

You can’t fight death. It’s a fact of life. Truth is another matter though.

L: Then again, there is some benefit to the question having been asked. It does give one some insight into why people like the current moronic US president are elected so and, thereby, why “you people” might object.

S: Why are you trying to sound intelligent writing that way? Maybe I'm just too stupid to understand that second sentence. Must be. I'm pretty dumb.

No need to sacrifice yourself. I don’t mind whether or not you think I’m dumb or you're dumb, really. But I have no desire to further explain that particular sentence at the moment -- no matter whose dumbness might be in question.

L: Unfortunately, you're right about one thing: most "you people" are anti-war for emotional reasons, they don't want to die -- just as those who are pro-war.

S: Yet they're also anti-war for egotistical reasons.

Yes, emotional and egotistical being synonymous in this context for my part.

S: They're too "intelligent" to actually think about anything. To put it into a personal perspective, such as "Do I want my friends to be blown up in my town by a car bomb?" Or, "Would I like my friend's child to have to deal with a war zone America? Where troops patrol the suburban streets and where it's dangerous to play ball outside on sunny days?"

No, I don’t agree. Do you honestly think that “they” are doing what “they” are doing because they want to see their friends blown up by a car bomb, because they want their friends’ children to deal with a war-zone America where troops patrol the streets and where it’s dangerous to play ball outside? I mean, Scott, do you honestly think “they,” all “these people,” have not considered the safety and security of their own friends and family? I think that’s a very big statement to be making about a very large portion of society. I think it’s more likely that most people are too emotional to act rationally on the subject.

It’s no wonder you have such a hatred of “them.”

S: Fuck that. That's why I'm pro war. For peace....don't you get it? This isn't philosophical in the sense that you've thought was philosophical...where A=A. ONLY PEACE EQUALS PEACE. That's just not truth.

Yes, it is. Peace equals peace. That is truth. What is philosophical are the reasons and assumptions held as necessary to achieve it and, what is political, are the means through which you carry out a peace initiative.

S: Like I said, if you have a resilient enemy who attacks unprovoked, you need to get rid of them in order to have peace again.

No argument, there.

L: As for me, I have no particular demands regarding death. We're all going to die. Shit happens. One does begin to wonder, though, what is so much more valuable about a slow, cancerous Western death plagued by attachment over a quick, sharp terrorist one. I mean, really. Why afraid of death, period? Are you afraid you haven't had the chance to live?

S: It's more honorable to protect the people you live with and the land you grew up in. It's more honorable to die of cancer after protecting the place you live in, than to die saying "Oh I wish this war wasn't happening" like a bitch. If you hate your life and have no respect for the future people that will live where you lived, you just spread your suffering to them. So I can understand that you want to die a quick, sharp terrorist death...where you jump out of a tall building holding the hand of the person you love. Seeing the people you've had company baseball games and cookouts on Sunday afternoons with die in front of you. Thinking about their kids at home without a mom. Without a father figure, to shape them. It's understandable that you want to fly on a plane into a building full of innocent people, and just exit out of this life with no seeming effect to you. I mean, once you die you won't feel the regret of all your selfishness, so it'll be okay. Just blackness, like sleep.

Well, I actually meant dying as a result of a terrorist attack -- but, I can see how you would assume otherwise. Have you read Hamlet’s soliloquy?

S: You say you have no particular demands for death, as if you've accepted it. That may be so. You haven't accepted life yet, though...so death will be waiting until you do.

Only those who have accepted death accept life. Those who fear death cannot even begin to live. That’s philosophy, not politics -- or political philosophy. That’s why a great philosopher will never make a great politician. The masses, at the very best, are political philosophers. I think you are demonstrating a good deal of political philosophy.

S: You don't seem to have accepted that an unprovoked relentless enemy needs to be killed. You haven't accepted that everyone close to you could die, and that they may be afraid and not want to...because they love things in life. Sure, they may be "attached" and unspiritual.

Au, contraire. It is precisely that acceptance that causes me to drive them away from emotional attachments and towards life itself.

S: Who are you to decide if they should die or not, though? Because you ARE deciding when you take the viewpoint that you have.

I only wish I could be such a God. That sure would save a lot of breath -- and other things.

S: You're deciding to spread your legs and lay lifeless, letting the enemy fuck you over.

Never. I have handled my enemies rather effectively, so far. I must admit, though, I have seen them with much more clarity than “terrorists.”

S: Which is why liberals are generally not thought of as men, but women. Which is why Hollywood is full of them. Because of the lack of thought and character.

Interestingly, True Lies was on telly last night. You know, with that actor come Republican politician, “Arnie.” Yes, it seems lack of thought and character is not strictly reserved for Liberals in Hollywood.

S: Think about these things before you respond again, Leyla.

Thanks for the advice. I am doing the best I can. It must be good not to have to think like you, eh?

Leyla, this is getting boring. I said "War = Peace" and you somehow can't understand it. I'm not saying peace isn't peace, or war isn't just war. I'm saying war leads to peace against a relentless terrorist enemy. If you can't understand that, then I suggest you take more than one day to think about what I wrote.

I'm not some moron sucking on the President's tit. I'm a thinker. I believe in doing the best thing. I didn't agree on the UAE issue just a couple of weeks back, which Bush was pushing. I still don't know why he was pushing for that exactly. It only made him look shady.

In these sensitive times, the US cannot afford to appear anti-Islamic. We must convince the world we are serious about embracing all muslim people, and that as friends and business associates they are equal to christians.
Bush resisted with all awareness and even intent to lose, to not get his apparent way.
It was all an act. These days a president must be a good actor, its vital.

I didn't pay much attention to the matter, but from what I saw and know this seems to me the explanation. You mean about the 6 US docks once run by friendly middle-easterners, now controlled by US whites, right?
(opps, sorry. forgot you're not talking to me! forgive me lord!)

First of all, don't call me lord like some kind of asshole. I don't think I'm your lord, we're just having a discussion.

In these sensitive times, the US cannot afford to appear anti-Islamic. We must convince the world we are serious about embracing all muslim people, and that as friends and business associates they are equal to christians.

Really. For business deals, yea, the US needs to appear to be all embracing. It's not that simple though. Business goes on. You shake hands, and you both know it's only business. When you begin to make outlandish claims like "We should kill all sand-niggers" THEN the business may stop and there may be more fights. We don't have to bow to Muslims though. In fact, personally, I think the religion is stupid. I think anyone who believes it makes themselves stupid. Same with Christianity. I don't "embrace" these people, like a vicodin filled old woman meeting new people. That's fake. I prefer to be honest and say "I think Islam is a dumb religion".

I don't care. It's how I feel. It doesn't make me want to kill Muslims or anything. I just think these people are idiots, walking around in robes and pretending to be intellectual. Maybe one day I could meet an intelligent Muslim. I look forward to that day.

They aren't equal to Christians, though. I did say Christians are just as stupid, but the two religions are different. Christianity is about a whole different story and a whole different God. In fact, there are various faces of God in Christianity which all seem to be the same...as if God changed throughout time, which doesn't make sense to me. Anyway, Allah is said by many to be the same, yet I disagree. That's like saying the Christian God is the same as the Genius Forum's God...which is reality. It just doesn't pair up, since the majority of Christians don't understand reality.

What is the point of Islam? What is the point of having these beliefs? Why do these religious people all fight eachother over who's right? It just seems like a big Broadway musical, and I hate those. You can see right through the acting...and the songs suck.

Bush resisted with all awareness and even intent to lose, to not get his apparent way.
It was all an act. These days a president must be a good actor, its vital.

I didn't pay much attention to the matter, but from what I saw and know this seems to me the explanation. You mean about the 6 US docks once run by friendly middle-easterners, now controlled by US whites, right?

I'm talking about the ports, yep. He wanted the United Arab Emirates to own the docks for a few years, which is normal. It was a business deal where he was trying to show that the Arab people are all right with the US. They probably would've done fine, causing no troubles. All their job was, was to look over who would've been coming in or leaving the ports. They didn't do any inspections of shipments, or any guard duty. So many people said "Well, there will be no problems since their job is pretty hands off."

Their job would've been to track suspicious cargo shipments. If someone was coming from an area known to have been dangerous, the UAE would have caused the Coast Guard and whoever else working at the ports to check on the shipments. They'd have the shipment scanned (it's some sort of X ray type device) to see if there were any large items that weren't supposed to be on it. That wouldn't have been done by them either, they'd just have someone who worked at the port do it.

I didn't trust the UAE personally, because they're Arabs. They aren't Americans who live and have families here. Plus, why not give Americans the jobs? People are always whining about unemployment...well there you go. Stop hiring foreigners to do our work.

Yes...I said I don't trust the UAE because they're Arabs. They're based in Dubai. Sure they have some British officials, but I don't care. I don't trust Arabs to pull homeland security for our country. I'm sure they're fine, and good people, it's just that this is my country.

Keep in mind I'm not racist, just culturalist.

In these sensitive times, the US cannot afford to appear anti-Islamic. We must convince the world we are serious about embracing all muslim people, and that as friends and business associates they are equal to christians.

Really. For business deals, yea, the US needs to appear to be all embracing. It's not that simple though. Business goes on. You shake hands, and you both know it's only business. When you begin to make outlandish claims like "We should kill all sand-niggers" THEN the business may stop and there may be more fights. We don't have to bow to Muslims though. In fact, personally, I think the religion is stupid. I think anyone who believes it makes themselves stupid. Same with Christianity. I don't "embrace" these people, like a vicodin filled old woman meeting new people. That's fake. I prefer to be honest and say "I think Islam is a dumb religion".

But isn't your leader a church-goer?

I don't care. It's how I feel. It doesn't make me want to kill Muslims or anything. I just think these people are idiots, walking around in robes and pretending to be intellectual. Maybe one day I could meet an intelligent Muslim. I look forward to that day.

You think they look stupider than western men nearly chocking with those ties on?

They aren't equal to Christians, though. I did say Christians are just as stupid, but the two religions are different. Christianity is about a whole different story and a whole different God. In fact, there are various faces of God in Christianity which all seem to be the same...as if God changed throughout time, which doesn't make sense to me. Anyway, Allah is said by many to be the same, yet I disagree. That's like saying the Christian God is the same as the Genius Forum's God...which is reality. It just doesn't pair up, since the majority of Christians don't understand reality.

What is the point of Islam? What is the point of having these beliefs? Why do these religious people all fight eachother over who's right? It just seems like a big Broadway musical, and I hate those. You can see right through the acting...and the songs suck.

You're supporting the disruption of their lives and all without even knowing about them first?! Humm...

Bush resisted with all awareness and even intent to lose, to not get his apparent way.
It was all an act. These days a president must be a good actor, its vital.

I didn't pay much attention to the matter, but from what I saw and know this seems to me the explanation. You mean about the 6 US docks once run by friendly middle-easterners, now controlled by US whites, right?


I didn't trust the UAE personally, because they're Arabs. They aren't Americans who live and have families here. Plus, why not give Americans the jobs? People are always whining about unemployment...well there you go. Stop hiring foreigners to do our work.

Yes...I said I don't trust the UAE because they're Arabs. They're based in Dubai. Sure they have some British officials, but I don't care. I don't trust Arabs to pull homeland security for our country. I'm sure they're fine, and good people, it's just that this is my country.

Keep in mind I'm not racist, just culturalist.

Yeah, ok...

The disagreement isn't really about a particular God or faith. They ("radical muslims") are not killing westerners and their friends ("us") because of this. Neither do they insist we become as they are, live and believe as they do. Though they see many problems with our way of life, our freer cultures, I don't think they would attempt to force us to change direction except inasmuch as is necessary to preserve their way of life. They would certainly allow us to fall into the devil's hands and lose our souls, as they see it, if that is what we prefer. In fact they believe we've done exactly that. So what's going on?
Isn't it true that our ways are infiltrating their lives? Isn't it true that if they become like us many more families will disolve, their children will suffer greatly, that their entire culture would come under threat? That crime will increase, that children will have confused morals and become basket cases needing lifetime therapy? Isn't it likely the present balance of their world and lives will be greatly disturbed? There seems to be no end to the list of problems and disadantages that would accompany any transition to a western lifestyle. Nothing less than femininity conquering masculinity.
So there, never say then you don't understand why they are dying and killing so-called innocents. Perhaps they understand better than our fathers did the critical importance of making gradual changes and improvements to society, and the terrible cost perhaps fatal cost of not doing so.
Funny, isn't it, that the world feels no need to discuss these matters. Just "kill em savages before they kill us" approach.

Scott wrote:

What is the point of Islam? What is the point of having these beliefs? Why do these religious people all fight eachother over who's right? It just seems like a big Broadway musical, and I hate those. You can see right through the acting...and the songs suck.

If you don't understand Muslims you're not in the best position to be walking into their country and trying to change them to be the way you want them.

Well if they're all the same in that country, then they might as well have directed the airplanes in the towers. I might as well do whatever I'd like to them, then.

I don't believe they're all the same. I think there are people who want freedom and people who don't. Included in both categories are violent people. Included in all four of those categories there are terrorists.

Anyway I'm getting sick of all the bullshit in this topic. I've said more than enough for you guys to understand. If you're closed off and unwilling then you just won't get it. You could say the same for me, yet I won't change.

I think it's time to drop off, and leave this thing alone.

You mean drop off the end of the earth? That would be great.

But they will take to the voting booth, even if they are physically comfortable.

You think the grey-suits have an edge now? Perhaps, but not as much as it might seem. Not so much that can't be overcome with a half-decent Republican candidate. If they go with Kerry again it may be close, better to change I believe, but not to Dean for heaven's sake, that would be fatal and only a really foolish democratic committee would dare offer him up as front man the way things are. The American people would not embrace such a strongly anti-war candidate, no matter how many boys come back in boxes, not unless he changes his stance some or we get another 9/11, or worse.
Hillary? You think she has it in her? You think she'd care for all that work and responsibility? You may have the ego for it, but I dont think she has.
Perhaps Oprah will be our next glorious leader! How would you like those bananas?

Regardless, I reckon at this point either party is determined to keep up the pace and sock it to those mad extremists. We're taking out hundreds every month, you know. "If it aint broke, dont fix it." America may seem divided but when it comes to security this could disolve in a snap.

sschaula wrote:Why are people so afraid of war? Why do you people assume war doesn't equal peace?

This "War is Peace" thing is interesting, because it was a slogan in George Orwell's book 1984.

Is this something George Bush actually said? Do you think he got it from that book? He seems to be a good example of doublespeak and probably also doublethink (both concepts from that same book).

A comment from Amazon about 1984:
Once considered futuristic, it now conjures fear because of how closely it fits the reality of contemporary times.

Wow you are simple. Does it not make sense that if you have an enemy who wants to kill you because of who you are (what you can't change) that you have to defend yourself? How can that not make sense?

If you don't defend yourself, then you get killed and you're a moron, no matter how philosophical you think you are. And I guarantee, the misunderstanding of War=Peace shows how little everyone has grown since coming to the boards. Stop looking at the saying itself, war=peace. Of course it seems to not make sense. War=war and peace=peace. Duh.

If you think realisitically about what I've said explaining it you should understand it. I'm suprised that grown up people don't seem to here. I'm really suprised, seeing as how you're supposed to be somewhat smart to visit a "genius forum". In fact, it blows my mind. It makes me wonder about my own intelligence and sanity. What if I'm the stupid one! It feels as if I'm having a stroke in my brain.

I don't know what George Bush says. When he has news conferences I try to avoid them. I don't understand why if I agree with most of what he says, everyone at this fucking forum thinks I just leech onto his values. I'm not a Christian. I don't like ranching. I don't do politics. We don't have anything in common, beyond our love for peanut butter and jelly sandwiches (I heard he eats those on the Food network).

Anyway....begin thinking now and stop reacting.