Political Thread of Fury

Hoew about freedom of information vs. homeland security?

From the Baltimore Sun -

"WASHINGTON // The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee called yesterday for criminal prosecution of The New York Times, saying that its report Friday on U.S. government surveillance of confidential banking records "compromised America's anti-terrorist policies."
Interviewed on Fox News Sunday, Rep. Peter T. King, a New York Republican, accused the newspaper of compromising national security when it exposed a Treasury Department program that attempts to track terrorist financing by secretly monitoring worldwide money transfers. The program, instituted after the Sept. 11 attacks, bypasses safeguards put in place to ensure against government abuse.
Similar reports were published the same day by the Los Angeles Times and other news outlets.

"By disclosing this in time of war, they have compromised America's anti-terrorist policies," said King. "Nobody elected The New York Times to do anything. And The New York Times is putting its own arrogant, elitist, left-wing agenda before the interests of the American people."

Calling the report "absolutely disgraceful," King said he would call on Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to begin a criminal investigation of the newspaper.

The Bush administration pressed The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times to refrain from publishing their reports, but editors at each newspaper concluded that it was in the public interest to go forward.

"One of the most hotly debated issues in the country right now is the conduct of the war on terror," Dean Baquet, editor of the Los Angeles Times, said yesterday. "It is our job to publish what we know about the government's role, to offer the public what it needs to know to participate in that debate."

Officials at The New York Times had no immediate comment.

Senators from both parties declined to join the Long Island congressman's call for an investigation and defended the role of newspapers as guardians against government abuses.

"We have seen the newspapers in this country act as effective watchdogs," Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said on Fox News Sunday. "I don't think that the newspapers can have a totally free hand. But ... I think it's premature to call for a prosecution of The New York Times, just like I think it's premature to say that the administration is entirely correct."

On CNN's Late Edition, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., a Delaware Democrat, said that while he would have preferred that The New York Times not publish the information, "the truth of the matter is, they've uncovered an awful lot of things that the government has been doing that [don't] make sense as well."

Both senators noted Thomas Jefferson's maxim: "Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."

According to the reports in both newspapers, the program was part of an effort to gain intelligence data by tapping into bank transfers from the world's largest financial communications network. The network - run by the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or SWIFT - carries up to 12.7 million messages a day. Those messages typically include names and account numbers of bank customers - private citizens and huge corporations alike - that are sending or receiving funds.

To gain access to the information, the Bush administration used an obscure power known as "administrative subpoenas," which are not subject to independent governmental reviews.

The program is part of the administration's broad expansion of intelligence-gathering methods, which includes warrantless surveillance in suspected terrorism cases of international phone calls and e-mail of U.S. residents. The New York Times first reported on that program, run by the National Security Agency, late last year.

Yesterday, Specter indicated that Congress and the White House were nearing agreement on a proposal to submit all such eavesdropping to a secretive federal court that considers intelligence matters. "We're getting close with the discussions ... to having the wiretapping issue submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court," he said. "That would be a big step forward for the protection of constitutional rights and civil liberties."

The White House had initially argued that the president could approve warrantless surveillance in terrorism cases under his powers as commander in chief, but critics contended that the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act, passed in 1978, requires that requests to monitor communications in the United States be considered by the intelligence court."

Posted by: pepto_bismol

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 07/05/06 06:54 PM

Quote:

Because you can't?

Remove the word conspiracy from your vocabulary. If you have no evidence to support your claims that it was not an inside job then say nothing at all.

If you do have evidence post it, and I can easily rebut it

EDIT: this can turn out to be a really great discussion, and can accomplish a lot of good. In the end we must decide if it was an inside job or a terrorist atack. Insulting each other, and calling evidence garbage accomplishes nothing.

Pepto. If Bin Laden didnt have anything to do with 9/11, then it was the most ridiculous move in history to shout 'IT WAS ME!!! ' to the world, and bring down the wrath of the free world on his sorry a$$. That is beyond 'Doh! '

The thing is that conspiracy theories just dont withstand human nature. To set up 9/11 would take hundreds of government officials, from the Pres. down to the form stamping civil servants, not just of America, but of the allied nations as well.
that many links in the chain, one of them will squeek.
Government is a slow labourious beauracracy, not 3 guys in sharp suits and dark glasses deciding our fates over filterless cigarettes in some top secret bunker.

It now looks more than likely that WMD's did not exist. do i care? No.
Was Saddam responsible for the abuse and oppression of his people? yes.
Had he always harboured malicious intent to the west? Yes (remember him trying to build a 'super gun'?)
Do we benefit from controll of extra natural resources? Yes.
When oil and natural gas run near zero, will there be war over fuel with no other reason? Yes
Will those who win that war control the world? Yes
Do i want to be on the winning side? Yes
is that a cold way of looking at things? Ask a lion if its fair he doesnt give the wildebest to the hyena's. Its survival.

I think George W is beligerant enough that he would have started this game without feeling the need to destroy thousands of his own people as an appetiser.

Enjoy your box set of the xfiles however- its a more comforting view of life than the real thing.

Sorry i have added this as an edit, I thought I had clicked 'reply' but its such a long post, I hope you dont mind it living here- I havent the energy to type it all again. Cheers

Cord, I was saying that the Osama in the confession tape looked and acted nothing like osama. Since he himself said he didn't do it, it is very likely the tape is fake.

EDIT: and cord... did you know that these computers have an amazing copy and past feature? That means you can copy everything you type and paste it on a new post

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 07/05/06 06:57 PM

Who said they were vaporized? More likely they were simply smashes to bits on impact, and then burned (fuel in the wings) beyond any usable or recognizable way.

I have seen car fires that have turned cars into totally unrecognizable lumps. It is not beyond the realm of reason to think that would happen in a high impact plane crash, either.

Pentagon reinforcement makes it MORE likely that the PLANE not the building took the most damage. Also, due to the high securoty og the pentagon, do you really think that they would let just anybody go pickin' through the remains?

Posted by: pepto_bismol

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 07/05/06 07:13 PM

Quote:

Who said they were vaporized? More likely they were simply smashes to bits on impact, and then burned (fuel in the wings) beyond any usable or recognizable way.

I have seen car fires that have turned cars into totally unrecognizable lumps. It is not beyond the realm of reason to think that would happen in a high impact plane crash, either.

Pentagon reinforcement makes it MORE likely that the PLANE not the building took the most damage. Also, due to the high securoty og the pentagon, do you really think that they would let just anybody go pickin' through the remains?

no but the cameras themselves saw no evidence of a plane ever being there. The fact that the wings didn't even dent the pentagon seems sort of... odd

The engines would of damaged the pentagon, the engines are the hardest things on the plane.

instaid they said they found the auxilary power unit (APU).

Chris Bowlen contacted honeywell in arizona the manufacturer
of a 757's APU, an expert said that there is no way that is an apu wheel.
Bowlen then contacted Prat & Whitney who referred him to rolls royce. A rolls Royce spokesman said that it is not a piece they are familiar with.

Carol Schwartz President and chief exec of nano tech, llc, and i-net security said that he believed that the piece is an engine in a missile.

so the only solid evidence is the APU that they found, which happens to look nothing like an APU in a commercial plane.

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 07/05/06 08:09 PM

*sigh*

Pepto, you are like a broken record. You still have not addressed the main point:

WHY would the government use a missile on the Pentagon when there were definitely planes that hit the WTC? So, you're saying they had the foresight to use planes to simulate SOME of the attacks but not all? Give me a break.

And what is your point about Flight 93? Are you disputing the existence of the plane at all? How do you explain the FAA flight records, passenger manifests, and most of all - the WITNESSES?

Do you see how inane your argument is yet? You are looking for connections that do not exist. This was a terrorist hit, plain and simple. BTW - you still haven't answered about the original WTC attack in 1993.

Posted by: pepto_bismol

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 07/05/06 08:44 PM

Quote:

*sigh*

Pepto, you are like a broken record. You still have not addressed the main point:

WHY would the government use a missile on the Pentagon when there were definitely planes that hit the WTC? So, you're saying they had the foresight to use planes to simulate SOME of the attacks but not all? Give me a break.

And what is your point about Flight 93? Are you disputing the existence of the plane at all? How do you explain the FAA flight records, passenger manifests, and most of all - the WITNESSES?

Do you see how inane your argument is yet? You are looking for connections that do not exist. This was a terrorist hit, plain and simple. BTW - you still haven't answered about the original WTC attack in 1993.

That's because I have not studied enough about the atack in 1993, If I have not researched something I will not debate about it.

Yes I am saying there was no flight 93. If there was a flight 93, it did not crash in any field. I am saying that in september 11 2001 at an elevation of 30,000 feet there is a .0001% chance of making a phone call.

The people on the telephone did not sound like they were in distress and the phone calls could have been EASILY faked.

Remember, if you can record a persons voice for only a few minutes it is very easy to create a fake message using their voice.

Now with flight 93 lets look at the evidence

1. As I said chances of phones working in plane is .0001%

2. People on the scene found no bodies, they stopped being coroner after 20 minutes.

3. No wings, no engine, no black box. Everything was destroyed. It was as though somebody dug a huge hole and threw scrap metal in it.

4. Flight Records= easily faked,

Your big answer: Why not? The government had a lot to gain. (patriot act, war on terror etc.) Silverstein was able to collect a ton of $$$. If it were a plane the field there would of been one big fire, not a hole full of metal.

And I would like to point out that every plane crash in history had some or all of these things.

Bodies
Wings
Engines
Fire
Tail Wings
box recording cockpit convo. and technical details

flight 93 had none of this.

As I said the official medical report only listed the names of the passengers in the plane. Not the terrorists that supposedly hi-jacked it.

There are records saying that flight 93 is still being used, but geez I feel like I am giving a history lesson right now. If you would just watch the video I linked to it would answer all of your questions.

I am posting all of this from my memory and from having to go back to my notes/movies/web, it would be really easy if you would spend an hour to watch loose change second edition.

If you were really interested in hearing the... not so mainstream discoveries just sit down, grab some popcorn and watch the video.

It would be easy if you could watch the video, then continue the debate, because the video can explain it in ways that me as a humble 14 year old student never can.

It's like listening to a karate teacher and listening to a green belt...

who would you prefer to learn from?

But if you want I can keep discussing this, but both of us are sounding like broken records, and you have only adressed about 30% of the points I have made anyways.

I think it would be nice if you could watch the video, you can even fast forward to the point about the pentagon. All my posts are trying to tell you the same thing, I am thinking maybe I am not presenting the information to you the right way.

The video presents itself beutiffuly and has some nice music in the background, it also would save a LOT of time for both of us.

Matt you have seen the mainstream version, why not look at my point of view, a differant way? If you have the time the url is

http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/watch_loose_change_2_on_line.html

Posted by: ShikataGaNai

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 07/05/06 09:17 PM

ARGH!
OK - Matt: You're absolutely right about the physics behind the plane strikes. The pentagon is a strong structure - that's why the plane only smashed through PART of it. And there were tons of eyewitnesses - I know one myself!!!
There is dirty work behind 9/11. Yes, the men who hit the towers were terrorists to be certain, but Atta was indeed a CIA informant via the Muslim Brotherhood, for a while. This is very accessible information so I'm not going to go into detail. The CIA and the Pakistani ISI have worked together for a very long time as well, and many western journalists have found some really suspicious connections.
Pepto: I appreciate your sentiment, but you are WAY overboard. I'm a strong advocate of the 9/11 truth movement but what you're talking about DISCREDITS the movement and is an embarassment to those of us who seek the real truth. I have heard and cross referenced a lot of your "facts" and they are as ridiculous as they are theoretic. They come from the worst kind of left wing attention starvation and have no root in any kind of journalism or research. 9/11 should not be publicized like a "who shot kennedy" fiasco - it's too important.

Guys - any way you shake it, 9/11 was a tragedy that led to an even more tragic war that blatantly defies the better interests of the rest of the world and everyone in america who does not enjoy upper class privelege. You are both intelligent people and there is no reason to debate astrophysics to prove whether these conspiracy theories are sci fi or not. Sorry to preach, I just hate to see a subject that so many have put vigilant work into get sliced into a p1$$1ng match. It has nothing to do with bringing the real criminals, whoever they may be, to justice finally.

Posted by: pepto_bismol

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 07/05/06 09:31 PM

Quote:

ARGH!
OK - Matt: You're absolutely right about the physics behind the plane strikes. The pentagon is a strong structure - that's why the plane only smashed through PART of it. And there were tons of eyewitnesses - I know one myself!!!
There is dirty work behind 9/11. Yes, the men who hit the towers were terrorists to be certain, but Atta was indeed a CIA informant via the Muslim Brotherhood, for a while. This is very accessible information so I'm not going to go into detail. The CIA and the Pakistani ISI have worked together for a very long time as well, and many western journalists have found some really suspicious connections.
Pepto: I appreciate your sentiment, but you are WAY overboard. I'm a strong advocate of the 9/11 truth movement but what you're talking about DISCREDITS the movement and is an embarassment to those of us who seek the real truth. I have heard and cross referenced a lot of your "facts" and they are as ridiculous as they are theoretic. They come from the worst kind of left wing attention starvation and have no root in any kind of journalism or research. 9/11 should not be publicized like a "who shot kennedy" fiasco - it's too important.

Guys - any way you shake it, 9/11 was a tragedy that led to an even more tragic war that blatantly defies the better interests of the rest of the world and everyone in america who does not enjoy upper class privelege. You are both intelligent people and there is no reason to debate astrophysics to prove whether these conspiracy theories are sci fi or not. Sorry to preach, I just hate to see a subject that so many have put vigilant work into get sliced into a p1$$1ng match. It has nothing to do with bringing the real criminals, whoever they may be, to justice finally.

Your right, I did post some contradicting evidence, good eye!

The unfortunate part is, I don't think that the "real criminals" will ever be caught for this. If silverstein, wolfowetz, and donald are the "real criminals"

what are the chances of them being arrested?

If the criminals control the media and the government then how exactly are they going to be arrested?

I am just trying to show that the possibilities are out there, many people have never even heard of building 7, and many people are offended at the mere thought of 9-11 being an inside job.

I just don't like it when people are so closed minded, my grandpa cusses me out, my grandma says good always prevails, my mother calls me a nazi jew hater (which I am not) and my friends think I worry about politics to much.

All of these mixed emotions... all because I am presenting a new side of the argument.

An embarrasment? At least I am trying to spread the word, I was really hoping one of you guys would watch the video before you started posting/trying to disprove me.

Maybe some time in the future you will watch loose change second edition, you can watch it online at

http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/watch_loose_change_2_on_line.html

Hopefully you will learn something from it. It can teach you things that would make my little articles look like childs play.

MattJ

Thank you for discussing this with me. I am going to keep studying about the possibility of the planes wings being destroyed on impact.

I will keep studying mainstream evidence, and evidence that is not so mainstream...

anyway guys I will be leaving to my grandmas soon, over there I will not be able to use the computer that much.

I am satisfied with our discussion and I hope that all parties learned something, or at least have something to think about.

Peace guys

Posted by: ShikataGaNai

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 07/05/06 10:07 PM

Don't let any big bad wolves eat ya on the way!

Posted by: Cord

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 07/06/06 04:02 AM

the only way our brave soldiers will 'die for nothing' is if what they are fighting for is belittled in history. Imagine if when Hitler invaded Poland, the world said 'meh, so what?' (oh sorry, the states kind of did for a while didnt ya

). War is always about protecting your own interests. Did Churchill care about the Poles? probably not much.
did he see that if Germany gained momentum they would pose a real threat to Britain? You bet your sweet a$$ he did.

Havent you guys learned yet that these pseudo left wing 'right on' sentiments that seem to bubble up anytime your country flexes its muscles do nothing but weaken you, and remove any significance from the sacrifice's made by your brave soldiers.

i say again, if oil control was the root cause of this war, then that is as good a reason as any. if you think thats terrible, then go out tomorrow and burn any domestic vehicle with an engine over 1300cc. oh hang on, your culture is built on monster gas guzzling engines. Criticizing a war based on fuel from the seat of a V8 chevy is like taunting a fat kid while eating a cream cake.

Unify. Support. win. Let the dust settle. Let history decide if it was the right move or not.

listening to all the media critics is not being free of propoganda,or knowing the truth- its just buying in to propaganda of a different standpoint.

I would hang you all for sedition, but then, i would run the world properly MWAHAHAHA!!!

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 07/06/06 11:16 AM

So, North Korea is threatening MORE missile tests, with even "stronger action" possible. What type of action would be appropriate response to this? Sanctions? Embargos? Invasions?

Posted by: BrianS

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 07/06/06 12:24 PM

Quote:

So, North Korea is threatening MORE missile tests, with even "stronger action" possible. What type of action would be appropriate response to this? Sanctions? Embargos? Invasions?

Doesn't matter. Apparently they can't hit sh1t anyway.

Posted by: ShikataGaNai

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 07/06/06 02:13 PM

Quote:

Havent you guys learned yet that these pseudo left wing 'right on' sentiments that seem to bubble up anytime your country flexes its muscles do nothing but weaken you, and remove any significance from the sacrifice's made by your brave soldiers.

No. Your rebuttal sounds just as much like the ice cream/fat kid scenario. Anyone saying "meh" is useless IMO, and that's what MOST people are doing. It takes alot more guts to speak up then just wave a flag out of fear if you ask me. But when I was a child most of my parent's friends were people who came back from viet nam and were considerably scarred for life. They were proud to be soldiers but ashamed of the people they fought for. Patriotism can be the last refuge of cowards and you can't tell me a bunch of self interested old white guys with too much money sending hordes of young men off to die isn't cowardly. I don't care if you call that an ahistorical viewpoint - war is most destructive to the people who are involuntarily involved in it. I am not a hippy. I believe in fighting tooth and nail when the cause arises. But I fight in no man's army and I don't let anyone tell me what's important.
It doesn't matter anyway. I believe that eventually, we'll all be face to face with that entropic wall of disaster and the whole human race will have to question everything it's done throughout history to survive. Spend some time in a VA hospital as a volunteer. I did. I don't mean anything personal, because this is the "political thread of fury" but you can't discount right or left based on your one view, no matter how popular it is right now. If people didn't strive for peace, there would be no civil rights and women would continue to only work as teachers or nurses at best. If people didn't fight wars, gas companies, oil tycoons and weapons developers couldn't stay rich. Guess which one is more important?
I respect your opinion my friend, but I think it's short sighted. That's it.

Oh, and I wouldn't drive a VW to save my life - my jewish mom would disown me! And besides, I ride a bicycle

Posted by: RazorFoot

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 07/06/06 02:20 PM

I wonder what the missle launches have done for the unification talks that were recently being held between North and South Korea? South Korea's President was recently (within the last two months) hosting a party of advisors to join him in unification talks with North Korea. I would have to say that this latest turn of events has hindered those developing relations.

Scottie

Posted by: ShikataGaNai

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 07/06/06 02:39 PM

From TIME.com:

To say that the Bush Administration is exasperated by North Korea's provocations is an understatement. After all, the only thing worse than watching a charter member of President Bush's "Axis of Evil" thumb its nose at the international community is not having an effective means to respond. And despite all the tough talk emanating out of Washington, the U.S. has few good options for responding to the latest bit of saber-rattling from the hermit Stalinist regime in Pyongyang, this time involving an all-too-real saber: A Taepodong 2 long-range missile, which some analysts believe may be capable of hitting Alaska, while others suggest its range may be far more limited. The U.S. has warned North Korea against test-firing the missile, and has hinted that it may even consider trying to use its own missile-defense interception system to bring it down — although both technical and geopolitical considerations militate against such an action.

North Korea's latest missile posturing has been widely interpreted as an effort to reclaim the international spotlight from the standoff over Iran's nuclear program — by warning the international community that if the six-party talks over its own nuclear program remain stalled, it can cause plenty of trouble. That perception was reinforced Wednesday by reports that North Korean officials had responded to concerns over its planned launch by calling for direct talks with the U.S. over the issue. Pyongyang has long sought such talks, but Washington insists that the six-party process remains the forum for addressing international concerns over North Korea's nuclear ambitions.

If the North Koreans are engaged in political theater with missiles, the U.S. may have decided to respond in kind. U.S. officials reportedly acknowledged Tuesday that Washington's multibillion-dollar missile defense system has been made operational in the past two weeks, despite the fact that the system — whose success rate even in tests rigged in its favor stands at about 50 percent — has yet to prove capable of actually doing its job. Moreover, if the North Koreans do go ahead with a test, it's not clear that their missile would have the range to put it within striking distance of the land-based interceptor missiles the U.S. has stationed in California and Alaska. The U.S. could try using a sea-launched missile to strike the Korean rocket in its boost phase, shortly after launching, when it presents an easier target. But technical risks aside, the political risks involved in such an action against a regime as unpredictable as Pyongyang may make it prohibitive if the object is simply stopping a potentially harmless test.

Just as the U.S. missile-defense system has yet to prove itself effective, so too have Washington's policies for dealing with a reclusive regime to which the threat of international isolation appears to mean little. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stressed that a missile test would be a provocation. "I can assure everyone that it would be taken with utmost seriousness," she warned, although she did not specify what consequence might result. The U.S. would consult with its allies on the next step, she said. Those other parties to the talks certainly share the U.S. alarm at the prospect of a North Korea test — Japan warned that if the missile fell on its territory, it would be regarded as an attack (although it later softened that position), while South Korea urged its neighbor not to "put a friend in danger" by firing a missile, and China called for calm. But it's not clear that any possible consequences would substantially alter North Korea's cost-benefit analysis — if, indeed, its purpose is to actually test a missile rather than simply extort new diplomatic concessions.

Western economic sanctions mean comparatively little to an economy already largely isolated; and the two countries on which Pyongyang substantially depends, China and South Korea, have long made clear that they have no intention of putting a serious economic squeeze on Pyongyang, for fear that it would topple the regime and spread chaos across the Korean peninsula. Still, China values its ties with the U.S., even as that relationship becomes strained by geopolitical conflicts of interest, and it is therefore reportedly furious at North Korea's tactics. Quiet pressure from Beijing may be the best bet for restraining the North Koreans, but even that is far from a sure thing.

If Pyongyang's game is diplomatic brinkmanship — and the pattern of previous North Korean tactics suggests that the missile threat may indeed be a negotiating ploy — North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il may also be aware that actually going ahead with a missile test (rather than simply dangling the threat of doing so) could weaken rather than strengthen his bargaining position. That's because North Korea has profited diplomatically from the view in Beijing and Seoul that the impasse in the six-party process is as much a result of the Bush Administration's hard line as of Pyongyang's recalcitrance.

A missile test could destroy South Korea's strategy of engagement with the North, and force China to distance itself from Pyongyang. Even if its simply freezes the current status quo, that dashes any hope of a breakthrough that would improve the regime's prospects of reviving its sclerotic economy. Kim Jong-Il may, however, believe that a missile test — or simply the threat of it — will create a crisis that will, as it has repeatedly since 1994, force the great powers to deal with North Korea in ways that ultimately reward his brinkmanship.

Posted by: Cord

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 07/06/06 05:51 PM

in war, if military decisions were made based on 'we cant do that, it will leave them needing counselling for years after', then any offence or defence would be doomed.
soldiers sign up to fight who they are told to. If they dont agree with that simple truth, they shouldnt be soldiers.
You do not have the mentality, nor inclination to serve in the military, thats fine, neither did I at a time when I was of an age to sign up. its a big regeret of mine that I was such an undisciplined kid. If i had my time over, and could have my mentality in my 30's I would sign up like a shot, especially in todays climate. i wave no flags out of fear or ignorance. I just happen to genuinely believe that intervention in the middle east is the right thing to do. You dont. Such polar opposites can only hope to agree to disagree.
The energy crisis is a genuine threat to our society. Electricity is the cornerstone of the modern world- everything we do is in some way reliant or enhanced by it. What do you think the impact is going to be when natural resources run out? You talk about the rich/poor devide now- wait till you cant heat your home for less that 50 grand a year, and see how we all feel in the hindsight of bowing to liberal pressure and pulling out of what is essentialy a tactical stronghold for modern society.
People have been hailed as heroes for fighting for less than the continuation of our very way of life.

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 07/06/06 06:32 PM

Quote by Cord -

Quote:

I just happen to genuinely believe that intervention in the middle east is the right thing to do.

You and I agree there. I also agree with the concept of protecting access to resources needed by our countries - that's what we have been doing in the Middle East for a while with Saudi Arabia, anyway.

My issue with the current war is the timing. Remember after the first Iraqi war when we left Saddam in power? Very often he flouted many of the rules imposed on him in defeat of the war. He flew fighter planes, shot missiles at UN and US military patrols, etc. Why did we not go in there and pound him (justifiably) then? I do understand the political pressures exterted by the other Mid East states to keep him in there as a check on other more radical elements in that society - but it seems we are dealing with that now anyway.

If the US and it's allies needed no justification to go ahead with the current war, why would they have held back then? I can't see where the costs (human, economic or otherwise) would have been any higher.

And this really begs the question of the current N. Korea situation.

Posted by: ShikataGaNai

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 07/06/06 08:01 PM

My views have nothing to do with a lack of discipline. In fact, while all my peers were discovering booze and sex, I was discovering Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky. I have great respect for you conviction to your views, as I would expect you would have toward mine. I only wish the US administration had that same kind of respect for the rest of the world, and would stop making Hitlers out of people they bankrolled to begin with. It's not a liberal viewpoint. I don't align myself with liberals or conservatives. Our society's preoccupation with labels does nothing to put ideas on the table. I read journalists like Seymour Hersch - people who are on the inside and hunt the real information. I find the rhetoric of most people absolutely useless on both sides of the fence. What can I say? IMO there's more honor in being a soldier for truth than someone else's insistant view of justice. I'm also not a christian, so having Bush as resident is just as scary to me as if it were Ahmadenijad. Yeah, they don't execute people left and right for speaking here, but there are plenty who wish they could.
BTW - if I were you I wouldn't disrespect veterans against war. Many, hell most of them don't really know what they're getting themselves into. I recommend reading the books Stan Goff wrote. He was in nam, task force ranger, black ops, airborne - you name it. He's probably killed more people than you or I know and his criticisms of war and the military are highly intelectual. Check out "Full Spectrum Disorder: The Military in the New American Century".
Soldiers have the hands on experience to back their opinion and there really isn't crap you can say about that unless you do a tour yourself. They are getting pretty desperate out there - I'm sure they'd welcome your help.

BTW - not trying to get personal with this, just enjoying a good heated political discussion.

Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 07/06/06 11:13 PM

Quote:

Moreover, if the North Koreans do go ahead with a test, it's not clear that their missile would have the range to put it within striking distance of the land-based interceptor missiles the U.S. has stationed in California and Alaska.

They have apparently addressed that issue:

Quote:

U.S. Anti-Missile Missiles for Okinawa
July 6, 2006: The United States is sending four Patriot batteries, armed with the PAC-3 anti-missile missiles, to Okinawa. These batteries will defend U.S. bases there against North Korean attack. PAC-3 missiles cost $3.2 million each and are the result of two decades of development. First used during the 1991 Gulf War, the current (PAC-3) version shot down two Iraqi missiles in 2003. During the 2003 operation, 22 Patriot missiles were fired. Two of these took down two coalition aircraft. Electronic and software problems caused the IFF (Identify Friend or Foe) systems to fail. This is less of a problem with incoming missiles, as they are rarely friendly. Chinese war plans are believed to include ballistic missile attacks as well, and one of the targets is said to be Okinawa.

It's uncertain if the Patriot electronics and software have been tweaked to the point where they can shoot down longer range missiles like the ones North Korea, or China, might fire at Okinawa. As a general rule, the longer the range of a ballistic missile, the faster it goes when moving downward towards its target. Longer range missiles approach the ground at over two kilometers per second. The Patriot missiles can reach up about 20 kilometers. This means the Patriot missile has to be fired quickly, and accurately, because it has only seconds to knock down the target. When defending against missiles, the Patriot system is put on automatic. If something resembling a ballistic missile comes within range, a PAC-3 is automatically fired on an intercept course. Often two are launched, to ensure a hit. Development of the Patriot continues, mainly in the area of decreasing response time, and rigging the Patriot system to work with other radar systems (like space based early warning networks that can spot longer range missiles long before the Patriot radar can.)

The U.S. already has PAC-3 equipped Patriot batteries in South Korea and Japan. Taiwan is buying the PAC-3. Japan participates in Patriot missile research, and has a license to build PAC-3 missiles.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htada/articles/20060706.aspx

wonder what else was negotiated at Graceland recently....

Posted by: Cord

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 07/07/06 04:06 AM

Matt- they should have just kept going back in the first gulf war, but the UN put pressure on the US and UK not to do so, removing UN authorisation and backing for any offensive against Iraq. as major players in, and supporters of, the UN, both our nations-against their better judgement, decided to respect the UN opinions on the situation.

ShikataGaNai,

like I said, we will have to disagree on this one. both my father and Grandfather served in WW2- My dad in the navy, and my Grandfather in Monty's Desert Rats. My views are the one's I was raised with. I dont need to read a veterans opinions, I was raised by them. I understand that opinions vary, but what I say is true- If you sign up for the military, you sign your life over to the control of your government, for better or worse. So many see the military as a provider of good education, vocational training, good pension, extended family support systems and other things. Like another form of college, but with morning runs.
these benefits only exist in peace time so as to acknowledge the sacrifices many will be made to make should times change. Dont sign up for the perks, if you are not prepared to pay for them when asked.

Vietnam was a different kettle of fish- there were drafts of civilians who, like the vast majority of the public, didnt want to fight in any war, and paid taxes to run a military service to avoid such a situation. I can well believe that many such civilians found the situation impossible to cope with.

I have friends in the UK military who have served tours in Iraq (one has just returned), she feels they are doing a worthwhile job, and reports the same of the soldiers she serves with and meets. I am not going to call her a liar.

as for me signing up, i am too old, but should Britain enforce conscription in the future for any cause she sees fit we fight I will not seek to avoid it.

Seems a pertinent point at which to offer rememberance for those killed in the London Bombings, the anniversary of which is today. My cousin was injured, many were not as fortunate to survive.

Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 07/07/06 08:10 AM

even if things 'are going well' (they aren't since the goal for the past 3 years has been: resore infrustructure by using Iraq labor, which Halliburton hasn't. and replace security with Iraqis, which obviously hasn't happened since we are still there.), our reason for going was illegitimate and not supported by the world.
before that, if you remember, the goal was to eliminate terrorist groups in afganistan...instead they took the eye off the ball and attacked in the wrong direction. (perhaps A.D.D. ?)
Solid evidence for justifying the Iraq attack never materialized and we learned that this whole clusterF (like Vietnam) was apparently based on a perception/motivation of the very few people who stood to gain from it.

Protecting vital resources? If the US threw half as much money towards alternative fuel research as it does war, we'd all be filling our tanks with sea water.
The rich, powerful, stupid and warmongering have proven themselves to be obsolete in the way the world runs. selfish interest has no place in the future since the world is one community of cooperative diversity. There is simply no place to do all out war without it affecting everyone else.
If a nation acts alone without support of world concensus, then they alone are responsible of the action's outcome...as we are finding out. If Iraq was 'going well' how come other countries relief/rebuilding efforts are not allowed in place? answer: it's too dangerous outside the green zones...and the green protected zones are not increasing in area, while the hot zones are expanding. It's out of control, other coutries know this which is why we get places like N Korea throwing missles around.

Posted by: Cord

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 07/07/06 05:54 PM

Quote:

The rich, powerful, stupid and warmongering have proven themselves to be obsolete in the way the world runs.

Not really, they have been in power for hundreds (thousands?) of years

Quote:

selfish interest has no place in the future since the world is one community of cooperative diversity.

Yeah, in Star Trek. We are far from this utopia. human nature is not conducive to it, and never will be.

Quote:

There is simply no place to do all out war without it affecting everyone else.

There never has been.

Just because things may not be 'going well' does not mean they should be given up on.

In WW1 the allied forces lost more men in 1 hour than we have lost this entire campaign. The media, having seen the technology we have with camera pictures from missiles, and long range weaponry at our disposal, have put unrealistic expectations on the nature of modern war. They seem almost shocked when even one soldier dies.

Every death is a tragedy, but before using the memory of a sadly missed soldier for anti war propaganda, they should at least consider the fact that they were there proudly doing a job they wanted to do and believed in, and mourn them as heroes, not anti Bush martyrs.

The thought that most often crosses my mind about these times, is how the former USSR must be laughing their a$$es off, watching as all the weaponry and training the free world gave to the Afghan's promptly got turned on us. How's that for thanks?

Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 07/07/06 06:17 PM

true, but I can hope can't I?

same thing happened to the Russians vs. Afgans a few decades ago. rocket launching from donkey mount.

yes, war is part of human DNA. but the things that have changed post WWI, is the realization that global concensus is the way to go. now, more than ever with inevitable nuclear renegades. Instead of being leaders of a global community, the current US & UK administrations are saying to hell with it and acting on their own interests...which don't match the interests of the majority. They pick and choose their battles based on gain not security.

I'd love to hear your solution to the N Korea ahole waving missles. just a hunch of Iraq having WMD and we fully commit to a long-term war - yet another country flaunts them and we do nothing? you don't see selective reasoning there?

Posted by: Cord

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 07/07/06 06:50 PM

oh no, I do see selective reasoning- what I have been saying is that I dont necessarily see that as wrong.

Gain and security are inexorably linked. Security costs.

as for popular consensus, well, a lot of the world did not get itself too tightly wrapped over the invasion of Poland, and bless your American hearts, you provided essential supplies and resources, but didnt really roll your sleeves up till quite late in the game. (thank god you did- we would have been screwed without you).
The masses are not always right. We are poorly informed, and put conspiracy theories and reactionary propaganda in the gaps to try and piece together a cohesive picture of why things happen. Again, its technological arrogance- we could not possibly in this global age of communication, have less of an idea of what is really going on than our intelligence agencies, and those who WE have elected to steer our course through the world for the next 4 years.
Its punditry of the highest order. Like criticising the manager of your favourite sporting team, saying they should have played 'so and so', in such and such formation, and that you could do a better job given the chance. The truth is you couldnt- your just another voice in the bar.

As for Korea, well, to take decisive action now, would spread military resources too thin. Its basic SD- start with verbal de-escalation/negotiation and take it from there. I dont see Korea as any more of a threat than India and Pakistan who are currently involved in a nuclear arms race of their own. they would not hesitate to use such weapons against one another, and we would all suffer the (literal) fallout from that.

If we were going to do one purely selfless act, I would like Mugabe taken out. He is a monster who gets treated as a dignitary. There is one regime we should do 'for free'.

Posted by: ShikataGaNai

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 07/07/06 07:34 PM

I didn't elect any of these madmen. In fact, they lost the first time around. As far as I was concerned, they were just old money racist skull and bones brats who couldn't make a reasonable political decision to save their life. Look back at Bush's pre-2000 political life. What did he defend? A bunch of rednecks who dragged James Byrd behind a truck. He turned down a measure to increase punishment for hate crime. He praised the Daughters of the Confederacy for their high standards, despite the fact that they work with and support Michael Grissom - an outspoken white supremacist scholar. Ashcroft went on record praising the Southern Patriot for setting the record straight - a magazine that celebrates the shooting of Lincoln and reveres KKK founder Nathan Bedford Forrest as a hero.
You're right Cord, people don't know squat. If they did, it would NOT have been a controversial election at all. So don't sit over there in England giving me what equates to american apathy towards our illicitly elected officials. We didn't want these guys. They just took the power. I am a RED PATRIOT. I believe in the constitution. These men are usurpers of everything this country stands for and most of us are becoming pretty keen to that. I love this country enough to speak against the corruption within it, which in my mind puts me in a better place than a flag waving Archie Bunker slob (quote).

With you 100% on Mugabe though - but that bolsters the point. This administration only chases after what will lead to business gains. They don't CARE about their people or anyone else's.

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 07/07/06 08:37 PM

Quote:

This administration only chases after what will lead to business gains. They don't CARE about their people or anyone else's.

And the ironic thing is that in their implied aims of Mid East stability and greater resource access, neither has been acheived. Quite the opposite.

Now, taking the "resource" part out of the equation, what do you think causes the general apathy or paralysis in the face of gigantic human disasters (the Jewish extermination of WW2, Bosnia, Sudan, etc)?

Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 07/07/06 10:10 PM

I paid some dues,taxes, and service to complain as an armchair quarterback.

first, I didn't vote for these people - that is the loudest political voice your average joe has until immediate responsibilities to his family are threatened. the lesson from the last two campaigns: our vote is mute. no wonder viagra's stock skyrocketed after those erections, I mean elections. lol

illegitimate admin, bogus reasons to invade a country, national decisions based on personal business relationships, no admissions of responsibility, no compassion, etc etc the list grows. I am very much a patriot, but I'm not a leader. I'm just a citizen and ex-veteran who tries to pay attention....and what I'm seeing is the worst and most slimeball managing of this country since I started voting in '84. reading back on the Nixon admin, I find less extreme of wrongdoing than whats been going on during this admin. Nixon got caught for lying and obstruction of justice...the things I'm seeing demonstrated now borders on treason. and I consider myself a fairly conservative democrat. (except I don't base my conservative side on self-interest parading as hypocritical religious values...my conservative side deals with things like reducing deficit, keeping social security intact, and taking care of our veterans properly - and not just based on race or demographic).

keep telling everyone that everything is fine, nothing you can do about it, happens all the time, been going on for decades, yada yada...the lazy, status quo explainations.

I think the current US and UK administrations have done more disservice than good in the world. we can vote better.

Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 07/07/06 10:19 PM

Quote:

Now, taking the "resource" part out of the equation, what do you think causes the general apathy or paralysis in the face of gigantic human disasters (the Jewish extermination of WW2, Bosnia, Sudan, etc)?

good question.
what causes the apathy? the subconscience thought that EVERYONE has of "glad it's not me." and "if I keep mt head down, it'll pass by."

Posted by: Cord

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 07/08/06 02:40 AM

'Well I didnt vote for these losers' is the double edged sword of democracy- the vote can go against your views and wishes.

As for the personal buisness 'sleaze', the self interest, the lack of care for the people- that is no different to any other government in any culture at any time; they just havent managed to hide their true natures well this time.

The salary for being Priminister is less than 100 grand a year, yet all ex priministers manage to retire to full luxury lifestyles- mansions, sailboats, big cars, the works.
Yet all expenses recouped against the taxpayer have to be declared, so how do they manage to acquire such wealth?

Corruption is endemic to politics- you have to want power enough to get it, and by definition, this makes you a fairly ruthless and amoral character, able to use leverage, coercion, bluff, subterfuge, and BS to get to the top of the tree.
On paper, communism looks like a nice caring idea 'share the wealth, no such thing as property' all that stuff sounds like a nice fluffy world to live in. Same with organised religion- 'love thy neighbour', 'thou shalt not this and that'- lovely sentiments.
Now think about what human nature twists and warps good ideas into. The attrocities commited in the name of philosophies intended to improve the world.

Does power corrupt, or does corruption further power? Its just chicken and the egg.
Put Michael Moore (spit) in charge and he will f*ck up just as bad- if not worse.

Posted by: ShikataGaNai

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 07/08/06 03:12 AM

Matt -

I think the reason for US involvement in places like Sudan are acknowledged only as far as what we are there to do with the UN, who despite what resident bush acts like, we want to stay in good standing with. As a matter of fact, if anyone needs to "flex their muscle" out there it is the UN - prove to yahoos like bush and blair that they can come to resolutions as well and in a much more time sensitive fashion.
As for WWII, the US got involved for two major reasons. The first was that Germany was sinking supply ships that the US was shipping to the allies. At first, we only planned to help the effort, but stay out of it as it was a european thing. The second reason was, of course, pearl harbor - but the funny thing is we were in communication with the japanese only days before and they seemed to have no interest in what our ships or troops were doing.
There is also a lot of study as of late that has been tying the nazi party to the middle east back then (again the muslim brotherhood), but my best friend is IMing me right now, so gotta go.
Good question btw.

Posted by: Cord

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 07/08/06 04:51 AM

Quote:

As for WWII, the US got involved for two major reasons. The first was that Germany was sinking supply ships that the US was shipping to the allies. At first, we only planned to help the effort, but stay out of it as it was a european thing.

So basically, an example of not caring about 'the world at large', merely reacting and escalating in response to direct attack.
Exactly the mindset that is drawing criticism today.

Quote:

The second reason was, of course, pearl harbor - but the funny thing is we were in communication with the japanese only days before and they seemed to have no interest in what our ships or troops were doing.

For goodness sake, dont say that- Pepto will be saying it was the allied forces who really attacked Pearl Harbour

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 07/08/06 09:00 AM

Cord -

LMAO!!!

THEY'RE EVERYWHEEEEEEEEEEEEEERE!!!!

Shikata -

Quote:

if anyone needs to "flex their muscle" out there it is the UN

Nice idea, but everyone in the UN is so worried about having the finger pointed at them, that they are reluctant to say anything against anyone else. "Well, if I don't join the resolution against country XYZ, they won't join in one against my country for what we are doing" etc.

This is part of the justification that Bush uses for his "go it alone" approach.

Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 07/08/06 10:03 AM

Quote:

So basically, an example of not caring about 'the world at large', merely reacting and escalating in response to direct attack.
Exactly the mindset that is drawing criticism today.

not exactly. If you remember, there were first subliminal connections being made with Iraq and 9/11...which turned out to be not true (and exposing a CIA NOC who is the wife of another CIA agent reporting as such, is treason.) Then the fabricated connection to WMD. Then the justification that 'Hussain is a madman' giving examples of crimes against his own people which happened at a time we were selling weapons to Iraq.

this policy is neither 'caring of the world at large' nor 'reaction to direct threat'. attacking Iraq was a wish of the administration. Corruption crosses the line when it serves to cover up that fact. Nixon went down for far less. are we saying corruption in a democratic government which protects it's own personal interest groups is ok now? let corporations decide whos best to run the country, while people's vote becomes a farce? we've developed a thick enough skin for it? ...but yet a bj under the desk in the oval office and lying about it is still an impeachable high crime in our 'moral' society.

no doubt you have to play shady politics to get things done. but the things that are 'getting done' are in no way to better the world.

name one thing that has become better in the world (or even in our respective countries) as a result of the past 5 year administrations. name even a trend that is better. funding anything other than war-supported research? reduced. funding for desease/disaster control? reduced. funding for environment protection? lol pitiful. new peace treaties signed? zero. education funding? has been retarded. deficit spending control? none. long-term investment programs/plans? nothing. even the focus of securing oil hasn't paid off to anyone other than the sellers of it.

basically, what they have done in the past 5 years is put the US on a trend of bankrupcy in order to line the pockets of the top 1%. It becomes someone elses problem to fix it after 2008. They came in [censored] off about the progressive Clinton policies and reversed them without reguard to principal or the wisdom of doing so. I'd be willing to bet this admin will be going down in the history books as THE worst example in US history. The admin was made up of bitter has-beens from the previous Bush team....and I don't know what your priminister's problem is, he seems to blow with the westerly winds.

no wonder both admins don't really want to see the end of the Iraq war, because then they are no longer Wartime administrators and would have to start answering to their actions. Bush's only way to ride out his presidency is as a war president and the implied protections of his actions thereof. he can help his corporate pirates with legal spying in on competition and call it 'homeland security', while at the same time not spending a dime on border patrol until the criticism started gaining momentum in the news.

think about that logic for a sec: pass laws for goverment to allow listening to communication chatter of potentially bad people within the US....yet leave the borders unsecured.

doesn't make sense. unless you look at it from a corporate POV: cheap labor pool that can be detered with threat of deportation if they complain about anything. high level connections to government personalities thru direct and indirect 'donations' in order to buy for the priviledge to listen in on what your competition and critics are doing.

did you know that reporters are told not to relay stories or critical info via cell phone or electronic means now? thats not conspircy theory or paranoia, they ARE being listened to without their concent or knowledge. ask the NY times or NPR.

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 07/08/06 10:24 AM

Quote:

this policy is neither 'caring of the world at large' nor 'reaction to direct threat'. attacking Iraq was a wish of the administration. Corruption crosses the line when it serves to cover up that fact. Nixon went down for far less. are we saying corruption in a democratic government which protects it's own personal interest groups is ok now? let corporations decide whos best to run the country, while people's vote becomes a farce? we've developed a thick enough skin for it? ...but yet a bj under the desk in the oval office and lying about it is still an impeachable high crime in our 'moral' society.

That does seem quite hyopcritical of the so-called liberal press. How did Clinton end up in so much trouble over next to nothing, when the current administration has crossd the line in serious ways, with little or no action about it.

Let's not forget the GWB has a personal agenda with Hussein as well, re: the assassination attempt on his (Bush's) father's life.

Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 07/08/06 10:38 AM

plus remember Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al except Powell were all for attacking Iraq after they pushed the Iraqi army back from Kuwait. They were furious that Bush Sr. didn't 'finish the job' (subliminal: secure the oil).

Posted by: Cord

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 07/08/06 11:50 AM

Well, I am not going to even try and comment with authority on another countries internal politics.
The British links with the US are easy to explain however.
Britain has no allies other than the states. The members of the european union put far more pressure on the UK to join fully and take up a unified currency back when the German economy was at its strongest, and would have dictated financial control. The wall came down, the German economy collapsed, and lo and behold, no one seemed too keen on persuading the UK to sign up when they would have had a controlling say in things. France have never been comfortable allies, politicaly and historicaly we have sooo many axes grinding between us its just not true.

Britain maintains its position in the world almost out of deference to past times. We are a tiny island, we have no industry to speak of, dwindling natural resources, soaring overpopulation, and an economy that is based on property value and borrowing power, not productivity.

The Title 'Great Britain' became obsolete in global scale a fair while ago. Our military is excellent, but under equipped (average expenditure of personal money on equipment to get a soldier's kit up to the task of war- £1400. They dont even all get flack jackets as standard).

What we do have is excellent social and political links with the most powerful country in the world. This bond has seen us fight common enemies on the fields of war- both physical and cold, and helped lift the iron curtain.

america know they can rely on us for support in any way we can offer it, and we get the same in return- along with an association that keeps the european wolves from our door.

Its as close to a friendship as has ever been in global terms, and something we should be thankfull for on both sides.

Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 07/08/06 06:24 PM

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to the point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group or any controlling private power."

- President Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Posted by: Cord

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 07/08/06 07:03 PM

Well, next election, make sure some people bother to vote with the same enthusiasm they show for American idol, and remove the president elect from power. If he then refuses to go, and puts the military in an encampment around the whitehouse, roll that quote out again

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 07/08/06 07:22 PM

LOL @ Cord's American Idol reference. Touche! I think I read somewhere that more people voted in the last AI contest than had ever voted for a president. Pathetic.

Posted by: Cord

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 07/09/06 05:58 AM

I think thats part of the problem. So many people who feel so strongly about this regime are transferring anger to Bush from where it should be aimed- the society that couldnt be bothered to vote. But being involved and not being apathetic does not mean having to disagree or be reactionary by default. The minority is always the most vocal as it feels it has to shout to be heard. Now you have to find out if the majority agree, disagree, or just dont care. You will get your answer next election. Until then I would suggest getting behind your troops, supporting the governement your society decided upon, and making the best of it till your democratic chance to make a change presents itself. People are dying in the name of this war- thats terrible; but for the families they leave behind, hearing that they died for nothing in the opinion of the very people they died for is just as cruel.

Posted by: ShikataGaNai

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 07/09/06 12:30 PM

It's funny you mention that because the only group that seems to get their sh1t together and organize right now is the latino community. Half a million people from one end of town to the other here in chicago. Bush's appearance at the Drake hotel on Friday yielded about 50 middle agers bickering amongst themselves about who's agenda is more important and about 5 teenagers burning a pile of flags. It's focus and dedication that will always win out, not that kind of crap. This is why I hate being labelled a liberal - I actually like to see the positive changes that are talked about come to fruition whereas anyone who fervently aligns themselves with one political orientation or the other just talks in circles until the group splinters off into more and more special interest bs.

Posted by: harlan

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 07/12/06 03:18 PM

I don't know why anybody ever thought the current administration *coughRepublicanscough* could foray into the Middle East, a region where we have notoriously made bad calls in judgement...when they can't even build bridges in THIS country. Waste, fraud, and probably big time mob have been leaching the funds from the rest of Massachusetts for the 'Big Dig' (more like, 'Bottomless Pit'). Don't drive in Massachusetts:

http://www.townonline.com/blogs/yourTownTonight/

Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 07/12/06 04:11 PM

re: "big dig" ->

it's funny how morals suddenly change based on how much someting personally affects us. the big dig is a live example. I lived in Boston during most of the 90's and could care less why people in western massachusetts were crying over having to pay their share in tax for this massive project. (for those that don't know, Boston took ALL of it's above ground highway system and put it underground - took 3x times as long and 10x the price as estimated when taxpayers signed off on it).

but now I'm living in western mass. lol...whoops. whos side am I on now? you betcha I flipped my veiw like a pancake when I realized I will probably never need to use logan airport or pass thru boston using those 'improved' highways, since Hartford's airport is much closer to this part of the state.

see how political opinion/philosophy so easily changes?

Posted by: harlan

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 07/13/06 11:24 AM

http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=148114

The terrible thing is...we all know that nothing is going to change. Unlike the Mexicans...who still know how to deal with election fraud (pull out that machete and old rifle)...there will invariably be a scape goat; a guy who has been in office for only 4 years will take the blame...instead of a decade and more of corrupt government.

Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 07/14/06 07:23 AM

bad day for republicans:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060713/ap_on_re_us/phone_jamming
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060714/ap_on_re_eu/bush_29
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060714/ap_o...mhuBHNlYwNtdHM-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060714/ap_on_go_co/republicans_ap_poll
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060714/ap_o...DMzBHNlYwM3MDM-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060714/ap_o...DMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

when it rains, it pours.

Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 07/19/06 12:06 PM

one more big dig: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50793

Posted by: harlan

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 07/21/06 10:02 AM

The Real 'Big Dig' would be to examine the decades of murky government politics.

http://news.bostonherald.com/localPolitics/view.bg?articleid=149273

Posted by: Cord

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 07/21/06 12:39 PM

Quote:

The Real 'Big Dig' would be to examine the decades of murky government politics.

You, my american cousins, have it easy-decades! thats not a dig, thats wiping dust off a shelf. Now hundreds of years of dodgy dealings, including governement, monarchy and church leading up to the labyrinthine structure of government we have ready for corruption in the UK, now that is a dig for which they have yet to make a big enough shovel

Posted by: harlan

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 07/21/06 12:42 PM

That...is called History. I'm interested in Current Politics.

Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 09/02/06 12:17 AM

* post deleted by Ed *

no need for a poll Harlan, you are correct.

Posted by: harlan

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 09/02/06 09:19 AM

I'm kind of tired of the ranting and raving, and the political threads that devolve into mud slinging. After closing the last one, for a cool down, I don't like to see it 'moving' to this thread. It may be more appropriate, but I still think that stuff drags the forum down.

How about a vote/poll: political threads..yes or no?

Posted by: wristtwister

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 09/02/06 02:27 PM

Harlan,
I won't take part in your poll since it's obviously troubling to some of the moderators that only want martial arts discussed and obviously have a liberal slant toward politics. I have no problem either way, but I didn't appreciate being called out by name and blasted and then having the posts taken off without an opportunity to reply.

That's pretty typical of what is known as the "drive-by media"... It just makes a lot of the points I had already stated...

Posted by: harlan

Re: Political Thread of Fury - 09/02/06 03:22 PM

WT: I think that the new General section is getting a try out...and that every thread kinda helps define what the forum can take. Unfortunately, with the entire spectrum of political, and religious views represented here (and moderators are members as well)...contributors have to be moderate or those threads can deteriorate quickly.

As for not having the opportunity to reply, you could have PM'ed me to reopen the thread...but when I saw that you had already put out a response elsewhere assumed you were satisfied.

Is there something else that you require?

Political Thread of Fury