white_0men

I'd !@#$%^&*osciate the way the media is presenting the war with the cold war a lot more than I would with the Vietnam war. Subs!@#$%^&*ute terror and communism and it's the same thing rehashed and reshaped, and the American public still fell for it. Read 1984.

What was it...some 90% of the media is owned by 5 or 6 companies. So they'll portray whatever it is they want to. What is important is that the people there need help and aren't getting any. Is it because they are black and don't have oil?

Analogies are horrible to use in arguments, but I feel this needs to be debunked anyway. 15 years. That rescue would have been an immediate response to a situation, not the final decision after 15 years of arguing. Would you really expect someone to survive a crash 15 years later? Would you still try a rescue operation 15 years after the crash occured if you've had no indication of any activity at the crash site? I certainly wouldn't. That's the problem with analogies, they can, and usually will, always fail a logical comparison of the two. Now, if you want to talk about the actual person, if they really wanted to save her they should have put her on ice until there existed a cure for brain damage, not kept her alive via feeding tube. I understand why they put her on it originally, but by the end they had to know how badly her brain was damaged, and how unlikely any kind of recovery could have been, or what her life would have been like had she recovered after say 10 years of being in a vegetative state. Legalize euthanasia! (and marijuana).

It's been a while since I've posted here, lost the link for a while, but I'm back...so on with the arguing! I too don't think that anyone has forgotten about 9/11. Instead, 9/11 has been used by Bush repeatedly to scare most of the population into allowing things like the patriot act. Hasn't anyone else made the connection between the cold war of our parents years and this war on terror? Neither was a war that could be won, but that didn't stop the government from using the fear of communists to drive their own agendas. Two weeks ago I was rudely awakened by the FBI at 6:30 in the morning because apparently my Pakistani roomate was such a threat to the country they had to deport him 5 days before he had planned to go back home. This wasn't even the first time they had deported him, they stopped him at the airport, kept him there for 12 hours, and then had him pay for a ticket back home. Why? Never gave him a reason. Is this the kind of government you want? The kind that turns away colege students with legal visas because of where they are from? Why give him the visa in the first place if you are just going to deport him? Ail, do you think that the way Bush is dealing with terrorism is really going to stop it from occuring? I'd imagine that his actions over the last couple of years have only served to recruit more terrorists. What better slogan could the muslim world have asked for than Bush? There are also the people who feel that Bush completely went about Iraq in the wrong way. Other countries like Syria and Iran either have nuclear weapons, or are trying to get them as we speak, yet here we are, still in Iraq. It's disgusting.

http://robertandtim.topcities.com/quiz/minority/hippy.jpg

She's about as far right on the conservative scale as you could possibly go, and an author. One of her books is !@#$%^&*led "How to talk to liberals". You've probably also seen her on Bill Maher's Real Time. She's cute, but the things that come out of her mouth make me want to strangle her.

Just one thing... At what point did Saddam invade Poland?

Wasn't this why there was a Desert Storm? Using the !@#$%^&*umption that you meant threat, and then following your logic. GWB knew and allowed 9/11 to happen to mobilize our country into a war with Iraq? Sounds awfully like what you could use to describe the way Americans used terror before 9/11. More powerful nations deserve more power... What does the size of one's country have to do with anything? We've got more land than you, must mean we're better! Where did all this crap about the UN deciding US security policy come from anyway? I missed the memo.

The dots are very easy to connect. They are people, they have opinions, message boards are used to voice opinions. Don't want to read their opinions? Don't open the message board named Political Discussion.

A NY Times article that states the CIA Director was telling Bush different things than he told the public is a liberal that knows html? Why do I think Bush needed some evidence to go to war? He's sending American troops. Those troops went over there and died because his intelligence was wrong. You have your beliefs, I have mine. No amount of deaths is ever worth it. Saddam would have to be cracked out to attack the USA, as would any other country, because they know we actually do have stockpiles of WMD's and we aren't hesitant to use them. Were you afraid of Iraq before 9/11? Were you afraid of Iraq after 9/11? Were you afraid of Iraq before/during/after the invasion? I certainly wasn't. And what would you call sending of a thousand troops to die while how ever many more come back injured fighting a war that didn't have to be fought. It hinges on whether or not you believe democracy is the way that they should run their country. Remember, this is a country that tells their women that the only part of their body that can be seen are their eyes and their hands. Maybe, just maybe, they aren't ready for democracy.

Ahh the good old days of sitting in class drawing out bases for aswz in my notes instead of paying attention...

An overstated threat? Why is it that everyone -*BAD WORD*-foots around calling it what it is? A major !@#$%^&*up. Although it does beg the question, does anyone know that they didn't overstate it for personal reasons? *Fans the flames harder* --- Cheney goes to Langley I had found the original newsweek post, but page 2 and 3 are down, so I link to this site, which has a link to the newsweek post. Know how many previous vice presidents visited C.I.A. headquarters? None. There, I think that's a big enough flame for now. Enjoy the heat.

And you do care about Iraq? How is "You hate bush therefore you don't care about Iraq" a valid reason? Iraq is somewhere I feel we shouldn't be. Go after the terrorists, rip their hearts out, kill the pieces of s!@#$%^&* that were responsible for what happened in New York. But, where's the valid reason for going into Iraq? Whether the country of Iraq is better off now than it was before is irrelevant. Who are we to say what's better or worse? Story Time: There is a family that lives down the street from me who blasts their salsa music into the early morning while I'm trying to sleep. My life would be better off without them. Does that mean that I can go drop a bomb on them? Absolutely not, but that's one of the reasons Bush used, and no one has said !@#$%^&* about it. Where is your validity now? --- Did you know that 42% of America still thinks that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11?

Wow, go W A M M. 8/8 isn't half bad.

Sadly people pay more attention to this than to the legality of the War on Terror (oops, I mean Iraq.)

Perhaps it's just my opinion, but the church shouldn't even exist in the state's eyes. I cringe every time I hear Bush mention God.

A big thanks goes out to hyp for already responding, but I promised a response. HAHAHAHA. The church and state have equal power and authority? Do I even need to respond after you make that kind of claim? Probably not, but I will anyway. Why should the state NOT be able to push its authority over the church? Are we talking every religion here, or just your religion? If it's all of them, like it should be, then the religion I just made up 5 minutes ago decrees that gay marriages are accepted. Not that my religion has anything to do with government perks for married couples, but since you claim that no religion will accept them, I just had to throw this out there. As for the denial of equal rights, here we go : 1. Married couples are allowed visitation while in the hospital, and can make decisions regarding their spouses if they are unable to. Gay couples who tell themselves they are married do not get this same treatment. 2. Social security benefits and pension plans are passed on to the spouse after death. Again, Gay couples telling themselves they are married aren't going to receive the rest of the benefits earned by the now dead spouse. 3. Health Insurance/Dental Coverage that would cover the entire family doesn't cover gay marriages effectively making gay workers earn less than someone in a heterosexual marriage. They are paying for coverage they can't use because their spouse is not recognized by the state. 4. Inheritance earned by a surviving spouse has a tax put on it for a same-sex partner. Married couples don't have to pay a single cent on it, what a surprise there. I'm sure there are more, but you get the drift. You can do your own research on the stuff mentioned above. Treating someone differently because of their sexual preference is bigotry. Plain and simple.

Your points hold nothing. Saying that religion has a position to deny other person's the right to be married by the state is ridiculous. The church has zero control over the actions of the state and the do-*BAD WORD*-ents the state gives out. What the third person thinks is also completely irrelevant to the fact that the state is not giving equal treatment based on sexual preferance. If someone else doesn't bother to pick apart your horrible analogy, I'll see what else I can come up with after class.

When you start giving tax breaks to married couples, it becomes everyone's right to be able to get married. What does a state marriage license have to do with religion anyway?

You are saying this about the same person that said ... ... Hypocrite.

Are you even thinking when you are writing? How did you get from gay marriage will lead to the right to slay each other to read litigation about what judges permit? Do you really expect me, or anyone else, to believe that a judge is going to go from allowing a gay couple to be married and then turn around and allow people to kill each other? I wasn't talking about frogs.

Ducky was wrong to call you bigots, but your reasoning doesn't seem to be much more logical. Gay marriages leading to sex in the streets? Gay marriages leading to legalized assault? Gay marriages leading to a right to slay each other? Are you -*BAD WORD*-ing kidding me? I guess it makes no difference that homosexuality has been observed in animals and that it seems to be completely natural. You just have a feeling that it's going to lead to something else, there's not much I can say to argue with that.

It usually helps if you give a reason that you think his opinion is screwed.

America stands and fights while everyone else runs away? So what did you really mean when you said that? Fear about the statement? Huh? Necromancing foreigners? Huh?

When the opinion is : Yup.