saided18 said:
I am 42 and have only lived in Florida the last 3 years the other 39 spent in the N.J./Philly area, spending much of my time in NYC, much of it after dark, and I much prefer it the old way.
Last edited:
Bush planned Iraq attack before 9/11 _
- Thread starter DigitalDuality
- Start date
I am 42 and have only lived in Florida the last 3 years the other 39 spent in the N.J./Philly area, spending much of my time in NYC, much of it after dark, and I much prefer it the old way.
shinzen said:
First, let me apologize for my son's inexcusable language. He mistakenly thought he was defending me. He has been duly chastised. He tried to post under his own name but ended up posting under mine. I'm sorry this happened and I deleted his posts.
I went to the site and took the test. My results were:
Personal Self-Government Score=80%
Economic Self-Government Score=70%
According to the test, my Political Philosophy is Libertarian, for whatever it's worth.
02 DX Millenium Red
Last edited:
7
70
shinzen said:
Hmmm...I took the little test. I don't like how they tied some questions together. I think some of those tow parters should have been two seperate questions. But anyway, I came out as a libertarian as well with:
Now to follow up with why I posted that quiz. There are some severe extremists on both sides, and there are people that are on other extremes that aren't nearly as well publicized(sp?). My scores on that quiz from a long time ago were 100% and 90%. A policy of non-interference(which is most definitely not cons or lib, but in the old days it was closer to cons) A policy of less governmental regs(now it would seem that the cons want more legislation infringing on personal liberties than the libs do) A highly trained privatized army- enough to defend our borders, not to invade and occupy. Read a bit on the site, take a look at the philosophies. Extremists? Yep. Do I agree with everything they want to do? Definitely not. But I do agree with a lot of the ideals. I didn't like Clinton's invasion, I don't like Bush's invasion. Now, in one year, we have more deaths in Iraq than in the first 4 years of Vietnam, and the casualties are not letting up- they are increasing. We are not wanted there.
Gold- thanks for the apology, as I mentioned this is an incendiary subject and people get heated over it.
On the NYC subject- saided you should be ecstatic! 7000 new cameras were just deployed to keep you safer! Now when you pick your nose on the street, it could be on the news!
Gold- thanks for the apology, as I mentioned this is an incendiary subject and people get heated over it.
On the NYC subject- saided you should be ecstatic! 7000 new cameras were just deployed to keep you safer! Now when you pick your nose on the street, it could be on the news!
saided18 said:
When Dinkins was mayor of NYC, I lived there (actually in Brooklyn). Crime was a major problem at the time, especially in the subways. Since I frequently had to ride the subways, I took to carrying a large switchblade knife in my pocket with me whenever I went underground. I never had to use it but I felt that at least I would have a fighting chance if someone tried to attack me.
I was attending night classes at graduate school at the time and as a consequence I often had to travel late at night. There were times when situations developed that I felt could be potentially dangerous for me but luckily, nothing ever developed into a major confrontation. Knowing I had the knife gave me a certain sense of security.
Under the administrations of Giuliani and now Bloomberg, the situation is completely different. Crime has been reduced to an extremely low-level compared to its incidence in the past and it's now safe to ride the subways again. Occasionally, my family and I visit NYC now to attend plays, musicals, concerts and other cultural events. We feel completely safe there, even on the subways and I no longer feel the need to carry a knife with me.
If it takes a certain amount of "police state" mentality and behavior (as the liberals so fondly love to call it) on the part of the government to insure the safety of my family and myself when in the Big Apple, I'm all for it.
After all, if one of those 7000 cameras takes a picture of me picking my nose, scratching my ass or adjusting my genitalia, thats fine with me if it also takes a picture of the sick, homicidal sociopath who gets up from his seat on the milk crate, saunters over to the mailbox and drops into it his homemade bomb.
02 DX Millenium Red
They only that really pisses me off about the whole Iraq thing is that Every single Demacrate that is against the War in Iraq was 100% behind Clinton when he felt Iraq possed a thread to the USA with his WMD's.
i just want some one to explian that for me. It was a good enough reason for Clinton but it's not a good enough reason for Bush. And when Clinton bombed Iraq no one was saying where are these WMD? we want proof.
i just want theis explained me b/c i still don't understand it.
i just want some one to explian that for me. It was a good enough reason for Clinton but it's not a good enough reason for Bush. And when Clinton bombed Iraq no one was saying where are these WMD? we want proof.
i just want theis explained me b/c i still don't understand it.
goldstar said:
Here's a quick statistic for you. We, as a nation have less crime per capita than the U.K.
The United Kingdom is the most heavily surveilled country in the world. So, more evidence that those programs don't work.
http://nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_tot_cri_cap
Which is also the reason I am wholeheartedly against increased cameras and surveillance. If we really wanted to reduce crime, there are much better ways to do it.
saided18 said:
There really is no rational explanation for this situation. Try not to get pissed off and instead try to see the humor and absurdity of it. Clinton was a liar, hypocrite, adulterer, thought to have committed criminal acts both before and during his presidency and ultimately impeached. But, Clinton was also a liberal Democrat who played to his liberal constituency and special interest groups at all times. Therefore, the liberal Democrats saw him as a god and felt he could do no wrong (or at least pretended to feel that way) as long as he gave them what they wanted and what they felt that they deserved. The fact that some people compared the contents of Clinton's character to the contents of an outhouse made absolutely no difference to these people. Recall that the Women's Liberation Group, NOW, continued to support Clinton despite all of his depredations against women. In a rare moment of honesty, not characteristic of an ultra radical, militant, left-wing group like NOW, they admitted their support for Clinton was based on his unwavering support for their positions.
Bush, on the other hand is a conservative Republican. For the liberal Democrats, this is all the definition needed. This implies he is intrinsically evil, stupid, immoral and determined to impose a dictatorship upon the United States. The actual content of his character is irrelevant. The fact that he is trying to fight a war against the terrorists who would destroy us and to promote and save our democratic way of life is totally lost on them. As you pointed out, no one accused Clinton of lying when he stated that Iraq had WMD. When Bush made the same statement and was so far found to be in error, he was called a liar. The difference--Bush is a Republican.
The real problem is that the liberals are out of power. The Republicans control the presidency, the Senate and the House and most of the state governorships. The liberals can't stand being out of power since they can no longer exert their ultra radical left wing control over us. Therefore, they have focused all their efforts on demonizing Bush in an attempt to destroy him and take back the presidency. That's why nothing is too outrageous to say about the man.
At least we have the comic escapades of Clinton to look back on.
He may have been one of the worst, most corrupt presidents in history but at least he entertained us. Who can ever forget the image of him standing up there with his finger in our faces saying "I never had sexual relations with that woman...", or the image of him walking out of church on Sunday morning (after the Lewinsky affair) carrying a bible in his hand. I also appreciated learning of his philosophical insights with his statement, "It depends on what the meaning of is, is" and his contention that oral sex is not sex. Perhaps the greatest comic moment occurred when the dress with the residue came to light (presidue?) which compelled our leader to once again step forward and proclaim, "Indeed I did have an improper relationship...". Clearly a man who deserves the admiration of the liberals.
All of this is very funny in a sick sort of way, but I'm afraid that someday the liberals will steal their way back into power (another term they like to use) and impose their freedom-robbing agenda on us. We won't be laughing then.
02 DX Millenium Red
7
70
shinzen said:
But Vietnam wasn't a full out war in the first four years. It started out completely differently, and overall, in the actual "war" part of Vietnam, we lost considerably more.
Also, with Iraqi Freedom, there have been zero MIA. There have been POW, but they all came home as well.
There are still a number of military personnel missing form Vietnam.
The problem I have with the current deaths in the Army right now over there is that the Army has a number of un-trained or under-trained personnel doing what-ever it is they are doing, and they are getting themselves killed in situations they shouldn't have been in.
Yes, there are some situation that could not be avoided, such as the recent bombing in Baghdad.
But the whole Jessica Lynch thing and a number of other situations could have been easily avoided with proper training.
StuttersC said:
Absolutely true Stutt. I forgot about that in vietnam. Having undertrained or untrained personnel is bound to happen in any conflict- send more troops=less highly trained troops. Overall in vietnam we lost about 48,000 troops I believe. Which was over the course of about 9 years.
In case anyone is interested- here is the source of that data.
http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/casualty/WCPRINCIPAL.pdf
http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/casualty/WCPRINCIPAL.pdf
Oh and btw stutters--
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108785,00.html
not going to apologize just yet
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108785,00.html
not going to apologize just yet
7
70
shinzen said:
Hmmm...
I wonder what that gooey looking crap was inside those things in the picture from the other story then.
Cream filling?
- :
- 2001 Pro 2.0 LX
bush sucks, end of discussion
7
70
vindication said:
Not really...Who's better?
