| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/26/2004 11:37:59 PM · #801 |
So, what do you think about gay marriage? (hee hee...)
|
|
|
|
02/27/2004 12:04:27 AM · #802 |
Originally posted by StevePax:
So, what do you think about gay marriage? (hee hee...) |
|
|
|
|
02/27/2004 01:14:41 PM · #803 |
Originally posted by Geocide:
When's the last war that that had christian vs christian. Even more interesting, when was the last war the was christian white vs christian white? This is interesting to me because the american gov't seem to have no problem bombing brown people. I have a feeling my point here will get lost or misunderstood...oh well |
What about WWII? Whites fighting whites. |
|
|
|
02/27/2004 01:19:18 PM · #804 |
Originally posted by lisae:
Originally posted by welcher:
"On a smaller scale, I'm sure there are people in the US whose only exposure to the opinions of people from other countries is through sites like this one. I'm glad that they get to see all sides of the argument and decide for themselves."
That is just ridiculous. To imply that Americans are the only ones in some kind of desperate need of outside contact, and that we are the only ones that need the internet to get it. I'd bet Australia is every bit as isolated from the outside as the US, and I'd bet you're every bit as dependent on the internet to come in contact with the "outside world" as the US. |
You missed my point completely. Dmitrii drew comparisons between the propaganda being pumped out by the US government and stories his (Russian) grandparents, etc. have told him about life under Stalin and Lenin.
My point was that nowadays we have the internet, which makes it impossible for people (in any country) to be completely controlled by government propaganda. It allows people to organise mass protests and be exposed to outside points of view. This is why China controls it so strictly.
I wasn't saying "Americans are stupid" or anything that ludicrous. |
Don't worry, Lisae, I'm pretty sure the majority of us knew what you were getting at. In no way did you single out the US as Welcher made it seem, it's too bad he/she saw it that way. |
|
|
|
02/27/2004 01:41:48 PM · #805 |
looks like my link in the gay marriage thing has revived the longest post ever.
p.s. i didn't realize how far back the post i responded to came.
well, at least i've added two posts to the record. |
|
|
|
02/27/2004 01:56:19 PM · #806 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by Rooster:
Tell it like it is MadMordegan! |
heh i try.. i just dont usually get good responses :/
speaking of? anyone going to throw down? |
Not to be facetious, but are you taking steps to combat all these issues in your own life? You can't control others, that's something we can all agree apon, but you can help yourself. I did feel a few of your statements sounded more like judgments [as in, those overweight people at walmart are obviously products of fast food?] than mere fact. I don't think you stated any real apiphonies, though. Sorry. But I posted because I would like to know [if you don't mind] a little more about you. |
|
|
|
03/17/2004 02:57:53 AM · #807 |
Since we are so given to ranting these past few days, I figured I'd make sure the "classic" thread remains alive, so people can get some sense of the history of this site, as well as the insights (?) and opinions(!) of former members ....
Here is an article from PC Magazine on the FBI's latest attack on our privacy. |
|
|
|
03/17/2004 10:29:19 AM · #808 |
Big Brother is here !
This is why they want to regulate the internet so desperately. When our communications is so totally controlled and monitored by gov't and industry then democracy doesn't have a chance.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Since we are so given to ranting these past few days, I figured I'd make sure the "classic" thread remains alive, so people can get some sense of the history of this site, as well as the insights (?) and opinions(!) of former members ....
Here is an article from PC Magazine on the FBI's latest attack on our privacy. |
|
|
|
|
03/17/2004 12:27:46 PM · #809 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Big Brother is here !
This is why they want to regulate the internet so desperately. When our communications is so totally controlled and monitored by gov't and industry then democracy doesn't have a chance. |
Stop whining, you have the best democracy in the World if you live here in the United States. :)
You see, I don't like it either when the government wants to monitor things like your internet connection, etc. But at the same time, I want to be secure from terrorism. So there's a fine line here between security and infringement on our freedoms, etc.
The new "powers" given to the FBI by George W. has almost certainly helped in fighting and catching these terrorist pigs in our country, and have stopped many terrorist plans from taking place. No doubt about it. Although it does comes at a trade off, which is the FBI can do this or that without having to get permission in some cases, and without the threat of an ACLU lawyer try suing them.
So if you bitch about (not anyone in particular) how your freedom's are erroding and you don't like the Patriot Act, etc., then don't bitch when we are attacked because the FBI and police agency's hands are tied. You can't have it both ways. You can't allow the ACLU to demand that the FBI not "racial profile" and also except them to be able to stop terrorists at the same time.
Personally, regarding this article, I don't want to go "this far" and allow government to monitor all ISP activity. I send financial info over the Internet and do NOT WANT THEM to be able to intercept it. So to this, I say NO. There's too much chance for the info to be misused.
However, I say YES to monitoring all IRC communications such as chat and Instant Messages. If you are dumb enough to send sensitive data over IRC then you are asking for trouble. And nobody in the gov. is going to care about your conversions unless you are engaged in criminal activity so who cares?
|
|
|
|
03/17/2004 12:30:19 PM · #810 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by Rooster:
Tell it like it is MadMordegan! |
heh i try.. i just dont usually get good responses :/
speaking of? anyone going to throw down? |
Not to be facetious, but are you taking steps to combat all these issues in your own life? You can't control others, that's something we can all agree apon, but you can help yourself. I did feel a few of your statements sounded more like judgments [as in, those overweight people at walmart are obviously products of fast food?] than mere fact. I don't think you stated any real apiphonies, though. Sorry. But I posted because I would like to know [if you don't mind] a little more about you. |
glad to see this thead alive again. and goldberry, i hadnt seen the above post till today.
to answer your question, yes i practice much of what i preach. my girlfriend and i recycle so much our back porch has turned from a balcony w/ a view to a massive store for our recycling lol. my gf tries to recycle everything, even the tiny plastic tab from our soymilk lids! haha
its hard to try and be good in todays world, especially considering you dont really get much support from others. not to mention, where i live they dont pick up recycle, we have to drive into a very busy area about 10 miles away and drop it off ourselves.
i do alot of other small things around the house, saving water, keeping air filters clean as to maximize heat/air efficiency, etc. we try to eat organic but damn that stuff is expencive! my gf used to work at a health food store a couple years back and got a sweet discount, oh how great that was. organic, unfiltered, non pasturized beer even! :)
and btw, the US gov pretty much allready regulates and controls the internet, but its so damn big they cant get to everything/everyone. altho, if the "email stamps" crap ends up going through, many less emails will be swirling around and it would be much easier to track.
i would like to quote one of the smartest minds of our time if i could:
"Where the world ceases to be the scene of our personal hopes and wishes, where we face it as free beings, admiring, asking and observing, there we enter the realm of art and science." -Albert Einstein
Message edited by author 2004-03-17 12:30:59. |
|
|
|
03/17/2004 12:58:39 PM · #811 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Since we are so given to ranting these past few days, I figured I'd make sure the "classic" thread remains alive, so people can get some sense of the history of this site, as well as the insights (?) and opinions(!) of former members ....
Here is an article from PC Magazine on the FBI's latest attack on our privacy. |
If you took the time to read the ENTIRE PC Magazine article, not just the e-week transcription, you would have found the NEXT paragraph, which says:
"The proposal seeks to extend to broadband providers rules already in place for telecommunications providers under the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), which became law in 1994. The CALEA rules require police in many cases to seek court approval before engaging in wiretapping, but many of those limitations were circumvented by the Patriot Act, which Attorney General John Ashcroft and the Bush Administration got quick approval for in the wake of the September 11th attacks." Ref The FULL PC Week Article
Note that the petition only seeks to extend to more modern technologies ( like packet switching ), those rules that were already in effect for the technology of the early 90's, as amended by provisions of the Patriot Act. The petition does not seek any authority not already in effect for older technologies. The reason is that under the existing rules, law enforcement agencies are limited in which technologies they may intercept, even when they have approval from the courts ( because the ISP providers do not have the technology in place ).
Ron |
|
|
|
03/17/2004 08:03:28 PM · #812 |
| hahaha i had to add this in, this t-shirt is great |
|
|
|
03/17/2004 08:42:42 PM · #813 |
You don't trust the gov't with your financial data, Chris?
But you would trust them not to infringe on your freedoms? I'm not talking about the freedom to speak on the internet without being monitored...I'm talking about the other freedoms that are needed by a democracy such as freedom to assemble peaceably and to speak out against injustice by our gov't. If you don't trust the gov't with your finacial data then how can you trust them with your freedoms?
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Big Brother is here !
This is why they want to regulate the internet so desperately. When our communications is so totally controlled and monitored by gov't and industry then democracy doesn't have a chance. |
Stop whining, you have the best democracy in the World if you live here in the United States. :)
You see, I don't like it either when the government wants to monitor things like your internet connection, etc. But at the same time, I want to be secure from terrorism. So there's a fine line here between security and infringement on our freedoms, etc.
The new "powers" given to the FBI by George W. has almost certainly helped in fighting and catching these terrorist pigs in our country, and have stopped many terrorist plans from taking place. No doubt about it. Although it does comes at a trade off, which is the FBI can do this or that without having to get permission in some cases, and without the threat of an ACLU lawyer try suing them.
So if you bitch about (not anyone in particular) how your freedom's are erroding and you don't like the Patriot Act, etc., then don't bitch when we are attacked because the FBI and police agency's hands are tied. You can't have it both ways. You can't allow the ACLU to demand that the FBI not "racial profile" and also except them to be able to stop terrorists at the same time.
Personally, regarding this article, I don't want to go "this far" and allow government to monitor all ISP activity. I send financial info over the Internet and do NOT WANT THEM to be able to intercept it. So to this, I say NO. There's too much chance for the info to be misused.
However, I say YES to monitoring all IRC communications such as chat and Instant Messages. If you are dumb enough to send sensitive data over IRC then you are asking for trouble. And nobody in the gov. is going to care about your conversions unless you are engaged in criminal activity so who cares? |
|
|
|
|
03/17/2004 10:00:07 PM · #814 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
hahaha i had to add this in, this t-shirt is great |
Except that it should be spelled "hippie" to differentiate the pot-puffing vegans from pot-bellied McDonald's habitués .... |
|
|
|
03/17/2004 10:09:56 PM · #815 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
You don't trust the gov't with your financial data, Chris? But you would trust them not to infringe on your freedoms? |
Correct. The difference is, there is a motive for people to use other people's financial data in an "inappropriate" way, whereas there is no motivation to infringe on people's freedom in most cases. See the difference?
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I'm not talking about the freedom to speak on the internet without being monitored...I'm talking about the other freedoms that are needed by a democracy such as freedom to assemble peaceably and to speak out against injustice by our gov't. If you don't trust the gov't with your finacial data then how can you trust them with your freedoms? |
Nobody is restricting anyone's right to assemble and speak out. Who is doing this??
|
|
|
|
03/17/2004 11:06:02 PM · #816 |
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
Nobody is restricting anyone's right to assemble and speak out. Who is doing this?? |
How about when protesters are kept in a restricted area far out of sight/earshot (like a mile away) of the President whenever he goes to speak in public? I'd say that's a significant "restriction" on people's right to "petition for redress ..."
It has nothing to do with safety concerns -- there are plenty of people around Him at the time, just not any who disagree .... |
|
|
|
03/17/2004 11:13:16 PM · #817 |
Sorry, Chris, but I don't see the difference. YOu don't think the gov't has anything to gain by taking away freedoms and rights of the people? Laws such as these have the potential for infringing on basic democratric rights and most likely will be used more against the general population than they will be used for finding terrorists. Haven't we had enough of programs like cointellpro and McCarthyism? As far as being able to peaceably assemble or demonstrate goes, there already have been problems as noted with the demonstrations in Miami held some months back to protest the FTAA. The demonstrators there were met with violence and strong arm tactics and the protestors were peaceful and did nothing to instigate. And last year when there were demonstrations around the world to protest the war against Iraq (before it happened) NYC tried to get them stopped but were met with so much resistance that they conceded and the demonstrations went on but with restrictions that were dangerous.
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
You don't trust the gov't with your financial data, Chris? But you would trust them not to infringe on your freedoms? |
Correct. The difference is, there is a motive for people to use other people's financial data in an "inappropriate" way, whereas there is no motivation to infringe on people's freedom in most cases. See the difference?
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I'm not talking about the freedom to speak on the internet without being monitored...I'm talking about the other freedoms that are needed by a democracy such as freedom to assemble peaceably and to speak out against injustice by our gov't. If you don't trust the gov't with your finacial data then how can you trust them with your freedoms? |
Nobody is restricting anyone's right to assemble and speak out. Who is doing this?? |
|
|
|
|
03/18/2004 01:50:34 AM · #818 |
just saw this video and thought i should share.
proof? deception? |
|
|
|
03/18/2004 09:46:12 AM · #819 |
But you would trust them not to infringe on your freedoms? I'm not talking about the freedom to speak on the internet without being monitored...I'm talking about the other freedoms that are needed by a democracy such as freedom to assemble peaceably and to speak out against injustice by our gov't. If you don't trust the gov't with your finacial data then how can you trust them with your freedoms?
Interestingly enough, many of you folks (not necessarily you, Olyuzi, just speaking in generalities here) who are so distrustful of our own government here in the U.S. are more than willing to give up some of our collective control in this REPUBLIC (again, this country was not set up as a democracy - that's only one step away from socialism) to the United Nations which is controlled by a host of other countries who do not share our idealogies.
|
|
|
|
03/18/2004 11:19:05 AM · #820 |
That is very true, Kaycee, our gov't is a republic and I don't believe anywhere in the constitution is the word "democratic" used, but I strongly disagree with your assessment that democracy is "only one step away from socialism." That said, the constitution does give us the right to assmeble peaceably and gives us freedom of speech to speak out against our gov't, but there have already been instances where these rights have been infringed upon and will most likely continue to be so. Our current gov't itself speaks of democracy but is not promoting that in other parts of the world, such as in Haiti and Venezuala.
I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say that people like me are so willing to give up our collective control to the UN...could you be more specific? And what countries and idealogies are different from ours?
Originally posted by kaycee:
But you would trust them not to infringe on your freedoms? I'm not talking about the freedom to speak on the internet without being monitored...I'm talking about the other freedoms that are needed by a democracy such as freedom to assemble peaceably and to speak out against injustice by our gov't. If you don't trust the gov't with your finacial data then how can you trust them with your freedoms?
Interestingly enough, many of you folks (not necessarily you, Olyuzi, just speaking in generalities here) who are so distrustful of our own government here in the U.S. are more than willing to give up some of our collective control in this REPUBLIC (again, this country was not set up as a democracy - that's only one step away from socialism) to the United Nations which is controlled by a host of other countries who do not share our idealogies. |
|
|
|
|
03/18/2004 01:07:02 PM · #821 |
Olyuzi -
At it's best, yes, a representative democracy is closest to a republic as our form of government was set up initially to be. At its worst, a general democracy will only cause a greater distinction between the "haves and have nots". A true individual democracy can really only work in a very limited or small area. There is no way to insure equality, as there are always going to be those who have more and earn more and whose votes are going to be given more credence - whether by those who look up to them or by their buying votes of those who have less. This, unfortunately, is the direction our government is headed. And it will not end well should we continue down this path. History shows us that this type of government is one that will eventually lead to dictatorship. A quick "google" on "democracy vs republic" brings up a number of well thought out articles written on this subject. One of them is here.
As to your second question, history has proven that a collective such as the UN cannot work. The League of Nations (which the US declined to join) was the first attempt of this kind set in place after WWI - and it was set up to try to keep the peace. The League of Nations was set up after the signing of the Treaty of Versailles (and we all know - or should - how well that didn't work). The League was sort of (in simplest terms) like a sign that says "keep off the grass" but without someone to enforce the message on the sign, there was no way to insure that countries followed the rules. So, they got together and the countries with the largest navies agreed to limit their size - and they came up with an anti-war treaty which was signed by 62 countries who promised to give up war. Despite this, Japan decided to invade Manchuria, the Italian army invaded Ethiopia, and civil war broke out in Spain - not to mention less than 20 years later Hitler's invasions leading to WWII. Why did these things happen? Because every country had and has its own ideas about what is right. People don't go to war because they believe they're doing wrong, but because they think they can do a better job than someone else. At any rate, when you have so many different views as there are in different cultures and ideas, how could any one governmental authority hope to maintain order. And, why should any country wish to give over control of their own resources and forces to an institution which cannot maintain any real control?
History is a great teacher, if only we're willing to learn from it. Just my .02 - that and $1.75 will get you a great cup of coffee from your local Starbucks.
Message edited by author 2004-03-18 13:07:30.
|
|
|
|
03/18/2004 01:18:54 PM · #822 |
Originally posted by kaycee:
History is a great teacher, if only we're willing to learn from it. |
ahh how true that is. |
|
|
|
03/18/2004 01:30:13 PM · #823 |
One way of curbing the buying of influence in gov't is to get rid of that aspect of our system...not allow that...set something else up so that big businesses can't unduly influence our leaders that we elect. That would probably take a big commitment from the media as to getting the truth out to the public about what's going on...and we own collectively the airways...they just lease a license...so the media is not serving the general interests of the public, but rather the private corporations.
Countries go to war because they think they can do a better job? Of what? I"m not following you here. I thought countries that initiate war are doing it for imperialistic reasons....for control of resources. What exactly didn't work with the UN?
Originally posted by kaycee:
Olyuzi -
At it's best, yes, a representative democracy is closest to a republic as our form of government was set up initially to be. At its worst, a general democracy will only cause a greater distinction between the "haves and have nots". A true individual democracy can really only work in a very limited or small area. There is no way to insure equality, as there are always going to be those who have more and earn more and whose votes are going to be given more credence - whether by those who look up to them or by their buying votes of those who have less. This, unfortunately, is the direction our government is headed. And it will not end well should we continue down this path. History shows us that this type of government is one that will eventually lead to dictatorship. A quick "google" on "democracy vs republic" brings up a number of well thought out articles written on this subject. One of them is here.
As to your second question, history has proven that a collective such as the UN cannot work. The League of Nations (which the US declined to join) was the first attempt of this kind set in place after WWI - and it was set up to try to keep the peace. The League of Nations was set up after the signing of the Treaty of Versailles (and we all know - or should - how well that didn't work). The League was sort of (in simplest terms) like a sign that says "keep off the grass" but without someone to enforce the message on the sign, there was no way to insure that countries followed the rules. So, they got together and the countries with the largest navies agreed to limit their size - and they came up with an anti-war treaty which was signed by 62 countries who promised to give up war. Despite this, Japan decided to invade Manchuria, the Italian army invaded Ethiopia, and civil war broke out in Spain - not to mention less than 20 years later Hitler's invasions leading to WWII. Why did these things happen? Because every country had and has its own ideas about what is right. People don't go to war because they believe they're doing wrong, but because they think they can do a better job than someone else. At any rate, when you have so many different views as there are in different cultures and ideas, how could any one governmental authority hope to maintain order. And, why should any country wish to give over control of their own resources and forces to an institution which cannot maintain any real control?
History is a great teacher, if only we're willing to learn from it. Just my .02 - that and $1.75 will get you a great cup of coffee from your local Starbucks. |
|
|
|
|
03/18/2004 01:48:40 PM · #824 |
I thought countries that initiate war are doing it for imperialistic reasons....for control of resources.
Exactly - they feel they can do a better job with resources belonging to other countries - in other words, greed. Other countries may then join in order to share the spoils, or because they believe it to be in the best interest of their own country to try to put a stop to it and protect the invaded country. Now, while many on the left believe that the US started the current war in Iraq, that is not my view/perspective. I believe that we went into Iraq after the UN had tried for 12 years to get confirmation of their disarming and destroying their WMD. Whether this was done or no, I cannot and would not argue - but I think it's fairly clear that no PROOF of the destruction was given to the UN. Countless thousands were murdered within that country during those 12 years, and natural resources destroyed (see here).
While there may or may not be a direct link between Al Quiada and Saddam Hussein, they're equal in my book. Both Bin Ladin and Hussein are/were terrorist thugs. Kinda like being a parent with two children who've performed some misdeeds. If my kiddos each do something wrong and when I discover it one is not currently available, I'm not gonna wait 'til the other shows up to address them both - better to handle each one as I can. Gives 'em incentive to clean up their act and stop misbehaving!
|
|
|
|
03/18/2004 02:07:39 PM · #825 |
The web site you refer to down below links to an organization for the restoration of the southern Iraqi marshlands...While I certainly support that effort, I'm not sure what it has to do with the current discussion.
None of Iraqi's neighboring countries felt threatened by Hussein and there were many who stated firmly that Iraq's wmd's were already destroyed by 1994, such as David Kay and Scott Ritter. And again, I'm not sure what evidence was showed by the Bush admin that they did have those weapons...maybe at one time...after all, the first Bush admin and the Reagan admin sold weapons to both Iran and Iraq and Bush I gave Hussein a "wink and nod" to go invade Iraq. Hussein was once our friend, back in the 80's and Rumsfeld went and visited him on a couple of occassions. And in the meantime, by deposing of Hussein we have destablized the mideast even more and by commiting resources to that war have allowed the true terrorists (al Quaeda) to regroup and gain in strength.
Originally posted by kaycee:
I thought countries that initiate war are doing it for imperialistic reasons....for control of resources.
Exactly - they feel they can do a better job with resources belonging to other countries - in other words, greed. Other countries may then join in order to share the spoils, or because they believe it to be in the best interest of their own country to try to put a stop to it and protect the invaded country. Now, while many on the left believe that the US started the current war in Iraq, that is not my view/perspective. I believe that we went into Iraq after the UN had tried for 12 years to get confirmation of their disarming and destroying their WMD. Whether this was done or no, I cannot and would not argue - but I think it's fairly clear that no PROOF of the destruction was given to the UN. Countless thousands were murdered within that country during those 12 years, and natural resources destroyed (see here).
While there may or may not be a direct link between Al Quiada and Saddam Hussein, they're equal in my book. Both Bin Ladin and Hussein are/were terrorist thugs. Kinda like being a parent with two children who've performed some misdeeds. If my kiddos each do something wrong and when I discover it one is not currently available, I'm not gonna wait 'til the other shows up to address them both - better to handle each one as I can. Gives 'em incentive to clean up their act and stop misbehaving! |
|
|
