Government: Let's Talk!

[striker_1818]

Originally Posted by sickyute

how long did it take them to plan 9/11 ...
how long was it since the last terrorist attack before 9/11 ...

i know u are smarter than that BLU ... i know u don't expect an attack every 6 months or whatever ...

they wait, they watch, they analyze, they plan, they save, they are opportunists...

+ 1 for added security and vigilance though.

uhhh I don't think so...
my friend went through inspection and he had this sorta scissors that can be disarmed and make it look like a keychain. That was in LAA. JFK sameshit no1 cares for security yet our tax money goes to them. There's no "added" security and vigilance but invasion of privacy when someone with no authority from the supreme court has access to our private records. Who knows what "some of those people" will do with them. Sell it to spam companies perhaps? I don't know but come on

[striker_1818]

almost forget...tapping minority phone conversations. People think terrorists means brown people but peole are still forgetting the oklahoma bombing...dude was white

[Biggeo]

Might be best if I crept away from this post. Interesting viewpoints everyone holds...and holds strong.

I am pro-gun, extremely pro-choice (no one should be forced to have a baby in this day and age, in fact more then less should not), for *** marraige, and I truely want the war to end.

[VoLTr0n]

Originally Posted by striker_1818

uhhh I don't think so...
my friend went through inspection and he had this sorta scissors that can be disarmed and make it look like a keychain. That was in LAA. JFK sameshit no1 cares for security yet our tax money goes to them. There's no "added" security and vigilance but invasion of privacy when someone with no authority from the supreme court has access to our private records. Who knows what "some of those people" will do with them. Sell it to spam companies perhaps? I don't know but come on

i remember reading a few articles a couple of months ago about testing the security at airports. they were able to get objects through that could be considered weapons without any trouble. i also read an article about a lady that had her medication taken away in an airport for "security" reasons and ended up having a seizure. really made me wonder how secure we really are

[striker_1818]

Originally Posted by VoLTr0n

i remember reading a few articles a couple of months ago about testing the security at airports. they were able to get objects through that could be considered weapons without any trouble. i also read an article about a lady that had her medication taken away in an airport for "security" reasons and ended up having a seizure. really made me wonder how secure we really are

That's why I never trusted this gov't with the fishy elections on 2000 and 2004.

[MordeKyle]

OK!!!

first off id like to say thanks to everyone for their post and for being calm and non agressive about this. everyone has had some wonderful and very interesting things to say.

-death penalty- yes, im all for it.
-*** marriage- yes, all for it. what you do in your life is fine with me as long as it dosnt effect my life or anyone elses life. im not so sure about the *** couple adoption or sperm donor babies, im in the middle of that one... cant say yes or no

gonzo- i voted for president bush in the 04 election. i beleive he has done wonders for our economy. the tax cuts have helped out very very much. tax cuts for the rich gives them more money to spend on i.e. gardeners, constuction, maids, servents... ect ect. this gives more money to the blue collar. also they may buy more things, such as cars and boats and big houses ect thus putting money back into the economy and making it go up!

i dont know what president bush's motive for the iraqi war is... i really dont and i dont think anyone else knows either. but the fact is, no matter how we got there, that we are over their saving hundres of thousands if not millions of lives all because one man(sadam) has been removed from power(and hung by his country). Now, i do agree money is an issue. A LOT of tax dollars have been spent in iraq. TOO MANY US lives have been lost in iraq. but how... ALL OF YOU TELL ME HOW, DO YOU JUSTIFY THE FACT THAT OUR MONEY AND OUR LIVES ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF IRAQI CITIZENS LIVES?!?!?!?! yes we are going to lose soldiers, and i really hate that and i really wish it wouldnt happen. i hold our american soldiers very high in my heart. i give them all the credit in the world. but you have to look at it as WE are the world power. WE are not an evil world power. because WE are a world power, WE must come to aid other countrys. and in the same prosess we have created a foothold to get the war on terror under control. now all of this isnt going to happen over night, as much as we would like it to, but it will happen if we keep at it.

please, give me you input everyone.

and i really hope im not offending anyone by this, if i am, please PM me and let me know!

[Special Ringpop]

Originally Posted by MordeKyle

-PRO CONSTITUTION

Agreed. However, I am not a strict constructionist, by any means. The beauty of the constitution lies in the open ended nature of it.

Originally Posted by MordeKyle

-Pro Gun(second amendment FTW)

Amen, x100. Limiting and restricting gun usage does not lower crimes. Statistics of countries who have done it prove that crime does NOT go down.

Originally Posted by MordeKyle

-Pro Choice

I agree, again. I don't feel, as a man, I have any right to make a law that doesn't affect me, however, I do believe that a woman should have the choice whether to have a child or not. No, she shouldn't have been fooling around if she didn't want children, but accidents happen sometimes, even when you're careful. I do not, however, condone abortion as a contraceptive (and most women who have an abortion say its no picnic).

Originally Posted by MordeKyle

-anti/pro gun control (im agains the fact that the government can tell private citizens that they can not own guns when the constitution gives citizens the right to. i also see no practical use for fully automatic guns. full auto can still be purchased, owned, and used legally with the correct permits.)

+1. Opponents of this opinion say that the constitution does not say individuals can own guns for private use, but for militia use or something along those lines. That's one negative to an open-ended constitution; VERY loose interpretation (and that's saying something coming from a loose structuralist like myself)

Originally Posted by MordeKyle

-Smaller government(the citizens of the US have made it a habbit to involve the government into every aspect of our lives and that results in large government, which apears to be more and more like dictatorship to me.)

Agreed. Never going to happen though. As the U.S. continues to expand, government is going to be an ever more presence in all of our lives, like it or not. Personally, I have a bitter taste in my mouth, because the government allows for laws dictating that sex between two consenting adults is illegal (sodomy, for example), but they authorized a war that is a sinkhole of money. Think of how many starving people we could house and feed with the money spent on a war that, in my eyes, hasn't really accomplished much aside from overthrowing Saddam.

Originally Posted by MordeKyle

-Pro President Bush (regardless of what anyone says, i love him)

I admire what he's doing, because he thinks its the right thing, but the man can hardly utter a sentence in English without sounding like an asshat, and anyone who attempts to take a state right issue (marriage) and write discrimination (whether you believe it or not) into the constitution, let alone doing that on an election year and steering the focus away from his failing war, sickens me to the point where I have absolutely no respect for him.

Originally Posted by MordeKyle

-i believe the iraqi war is just(simple, overthrow a dictator that is responsible for hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, maybe millions. and we cant leave as soon as he is overthrown, we made stay arround and make sure the government will stand or we will be doing this every ten years.)

I don't believe it is just anymore. I never really did to begin with. We jumped in with no clear idea what the outcome could possibly be. Where's Osama again? Oh yeah...

Yes, it's wonderful we saved these people, but what about the people who need saving in America? Why do we have to be the defenders of world peace? Maybe if we didn't stick our nose in every other country's business, we wouldn't be hated as much as we aer.

Originally Posted by MordeKyle

-also this last one may be a touchy issue, but by no means am i racist or anything like that... i belive there should be no term such as minority. i dont beleive that the society we live in today that racism is previlent enough to grant belifits to everyone but white males. as an caucasian/asian i have been entitled to minority benefits but i have never accepted them. not because im rich(actually im poor) but because i belive that we should not be taking handouts. work hard for what you want. the money i make busting my butt, i enjoy more, even though i dont have a lot

I agree on some levels here. I wish we could live in an ideal world where we didn't need stereotypes or racism or minority status, but humans label EVERYTHING, and that will never, ever change. I am not a racist, though. I'd like to be an idealist, but unfortunately, the cold hard facts of human habit and reality have made me become a realist.

I do believe people should work hard for what they get, but at an even more basic level, some people are denied jobs over race or sexual orientation, as well as housing. Until there is no discrimination or bias left in the world, rights that are afforded to every white christian male are going to be provided to those who may not be able to get it...unfortunately, we've got a very long way to go before we even think about that happening, as hate crime laws don't include sexual orientation, for example, in many states, and if we can't even realize that an unprovoked attack on a person just because he LOOKS *** doesn't deserve protection under the law, then we're in trouble...we are in trouble.


Those are my .02.

[Special Ringpop]

Originally Posted by BLU BY U

how many terrorist attacks have there been on US soil since 9/11?

lets see here......uhhh.....yea....and then......oh yea.....0.

The New York City subway system was going to be attacked. The only reason they didn't attack was because some head boss guy pulled the plug.

The US had no idea it was going to happen until word got out that the plan was cancelled.

We are not any safer than we were 4 years ago, and anyone who thinks we are isn't paying attention.

We may be more alert, but are in very few ways safer.

Planes? I remember reading a few weeks ago an article that a child snuck on a plane and never even had a ticket. You're telling me he got through customs, sercurity, and boarding without a ticket? Yeah, we're safer allright.

[Special Ringpop]

Originally Posted by MordeKyle

OK!!!
-*** marriage- yes, all for it. what you do in your life is fine with me as long as it dosnt effect my life or anyone elses life. im not so sure about the *** couple adoption or sperm donor babies, im in the middle of that one... cant say yes or no

I respect that, but many reputable organizations have printed a great many studies that show that *** and lesbian parents are not lesser parents.

The whole concept of needing a mother and father is bogus. Ideal it may be, however, what are we going to do? Take away all the children from single parent or divorced homes? Are we going to prevent women who aren't married to inseminate themselves?

Yes, there are reports that say gays don't raise children as well, but I don't consider Focus on the Family to be above the American Pediatrics Association or the like. I think James Dobson has done a great job of making himself look like a fool so far to the right he can't even see the line between left and right.

"But the children will get teased..."

Whose problem is that? Should *** and lesbian parents be punished because the intolerance and ignorence (and plain out stupidity, I'm sorry) of others? It's not a childs fault they have *** and lesbian parents. Interviews have shown that many kids growing up in *** families love their parents dearly. A friend of mine was raised by two women, and he said that he preferred it, because it really opened his eyes to how terrible people truly can be.

And what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

[striker_1818]

See the thing about tax breaks for the rich practically meant one thing:
retire earlier. That's why you see on the news(if you do your research), that after Bush gave big tax breaks and it went on for some time, CEO's retired. Money really isn't flowing and with its new plan he's forgetting about the baby boomers. Social Security and the fact that we're practically puppets of China since we OWE them trillions of dollars.
BTW, do you actually know who wrote the energy bills in 2000? Oil Companies did.

Oh yeah and MordeKyle when you stated that we went in Iraq regarless of our main objective and against all the rest of the world to save millions of people...as the fact I stated before 800,000 ,with a 5% error, civilians including women and children have died since the 2003 occupation. Close to the million you stated we would save, correct?

[MordeKyle]

Originally Posted by striker_1818

Oh yeah and MordeKyle when you stated that we went in Iraq regarless of our main objective and against all the rest of the world to save millions of people...as the fact I stated before 800,000 ,with a 5% error, civilians including women and children have died since the 2003 occupation. Close to the million you stated we would save, correct?

may i ask where you got those numbers?

[aki]

I'm moderate-conservative, I think.

1) Gun control. No automatic weapons, semi-autos ok. Don't see why you'd need an AK47 to defend your home. Proguns--but with a stringent background check process. The thing about guns is that in many criminal cases they're illegally obtained. Putting stricter controls won't do anything to stem the blackmarket, except maybe increase prices.

2) No same-sex marriage. Notions of "tolerance" only take a cursory look at the issue. If it were simply a matter of two consenting adults that'd be fine. But legalization has much farther implications. It impacts adoption, where and how your tax dollars get spent. It inevitably impacts religious freedoms. If a pastor doesn't want to wed two same-sex couples due to his/her convictions, there would arise lawsuits. Same-sex marriage isn't just about "what two people do behind closed doors." Hence I am against it.

3) Pro-choice, but against partial birth abortion. I think abortion is a sad product in a fallen world. The fact that people can take sexual intimacy and trivialize it into a no-strings-attached physical act is tragic. That said, I don't think it's a clear line of when/where a baby is a fully-developed baby, except in the case when a woman is about to deliver at full term. Hence opposed to partial birth abortion. Aside from that it should be up to the woman to decide.

I'm mostly opposed to pro-choice groups, however. Pro-choice counseling *always* advises against carrying the baby to term, saying the person would be happier. I think in pregnancy counseling the woman should hear both sides of the story. Pro-choice groups (NARAL, Planned Parenthood) typically shun this.

4) George Bush: the only reason why I would've voted for Bush (didn't vote at all heh) last election was for the appointment of supreme court justices--which is a lifetime appointment, impacting far beyond a president's two terms. Ideologically, I agree on a lot of his viewpoints. But his execution of policy is so ill-thought out that I want him out.

5) Iraq war. This issue has been greatly simplified. It's a bit difficult to discuss it in a short paragraph, but in short I'll say I opposed going into Iraq--and I'm opposed to pulling out. Why am I opposed to pulling out? Because our troops are the only thing basically preventing the Shiites from murdering Sunnis and the Kurds. Sadr's Madhi army deathsquads will roam freely once US troops pull out, leading to a bloody full-scale civil war. Terrorist groups will be emboldened from the events at Iraq, Rwanda and Ethiopia, seeing that Western European troops will quickly pull out once they inflict enough casualties. If US pulls out now, ultimately what could happen is Iraq simply swapping one militant faction--Shiites--over the nationalist Sunni regime of Saddam Hussein.

[striker_1818]

Originally Posted by MordeKyle

may i ask where you got those numbers?

Hopkins University Study Group Survey in Iraq. Survey dated from June 2003 through June 2006.

[MordeKyle]

Originally Posted by The IBC

The Iraq Body Count (IBC) project's figure of 54,432 to 60,098 civilian deaths reported in English-language media (including Arabic media translated into English) up to 24 January 2007 includes civilian deaths due to coalition and insurgent military action, sectarian violence and increased criminal violence.

[aki]

Originally Posted by striker_1818

Oh yeah and MordeKyle when you stated that we went in Iraq regarless of our main objective and against all the rest of the world to save millions of people...as the fact I stated before 800,000 ,with a 5% error, civilians including women and children have died since the 2003 occupation. Close to the million you stated we would save, correct?

During the Clinton administration, at least 500,000 children have died due to the stiff economic sanctions on Iraq. Notions of democrats being less cruel to the Iraqi people are misinformed. Of course, you never hear about this kind of stuff aside from the endless tirades against Bush.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/418625.stm

The 1991 UK medical journal The Lancet (Online, 29 October 2004; print version vol. 364(9448) 1857-1864, 2004) reported that the under-5 infant mortality and excess mortality (avoidable mortality) have been 1.2 million and 1.5 million for Iraq. It'd be naive to think that the US was warm and fuzzy towards Iraq prior to the Bush administration.

[striker_1818]

^ Yeah samething as when that same group impose a toll of 4000 troops killed in Iraq. Funny they don't state the thousands injured unable to walk, etc.

[striker_1818]

Originally Posted by aki

During the Clinton administration, at least 500,000 children have died due to the stiff economic sanctions on Iraq. Notions of democrats being less cruel to the Iraqi people are misinformed. Of course, you never hear about this kind of stuff aside from the endless tirades against Bush.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/418625.stm

The 1991 UK medical journal The Lancet (Online, 29 October 2004; print version vol. 364(9448) 1857-1864, 2004) reported that the under-5 infant mortality and excess mortality (avoidable mortality) have been 1.2 million and 1.5 million for Iraq.

Buddy I'm not an american lol
Peruvian guy who was born in Brazil and then moved to the US. Only been living in the US for 5 yrs

[striker_1818]

oh yeah another comment:
Funny How the US media tells a totally different story than what other countries tell. Heck even Venezuela has more freedom than we do over here. And I have a headache now. Ouch

[Special Ringpop]

*** marriage has nothing to do with *** adoption, for one, as I don't believe MA offers *** adoption just because they offer *** marriage. They do not go hand in hand, necessarily. For example, MA *** marriages are not valid outside of MA unless the other state recognizes it. So called "normal" marriages are valid everywhere.

Pastors would not be forced to marry same-sex couples, and I support that entirely. I do not support taking away anyone's rights, and that would clearly do so.

However, this civil union bullshit offers a fraction of benefits afforded to marriage.

And as for finances, *** marriages in MA have increased state profit substantially since it started, as there are more weddings for wedding planners, venues, invitations, gowns, etc. It brings a lot of money in.

And no offense, but I don't like that my tax dollars are used to oust *** and lesbian soldiers from the army, but I have to live with it everyday.

*** marriage does not affect you, does not make your marriage less meaningful, and as far as I'm concerned, as marital benefits are supposed to be separated from church doctrine, not imposing ANYTHING on any religion. The only exception to that, as far as I see it, would be forcing pastors to marry *** couples, which I do not support.

Just because *** marriage creates "further implications" doesn't mean we should ban it. Straight marriages create just as many further implications, so barring it based on the fact that gays never had it to begin with is pure garbage.

[aki]

Originally Posted by striker_1818

oh yeah another comment:
Funny How the US media tells a totally different story than what other countries tell. Heck even Venezuela has more freedom than we do over here. And I have a headache now. Ouch

Each country has a different story to tell based on the audience/news bias.

And Venezuela is moving toward totalitarian socialism under Hugo Chavez. Removal of autonomy of the Central Bank, and his voted-in "maximum revolution" are a signs of heavy nationalization.