(OT) What’s the Matter with Japan?
dump...@hotmail.com
Doug Jacobs
> See:
>
> http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/whats-going-wrong-in-japan/
And the media once again tries to demonize anime/manga...
Please, if anime/manga make people go all stabby-stabby, then why hasn't
this been problem earlier? Contrary to the media's cluelessness, manga
has been around for decades, and came from earlier artforms that date back
centuries.
--
It's not broken. It's...advanced.
Juan F. Lara
A blog with headlines like "Spain, the Once and Future Muslim Province"
and "World's Scariest Words: 'I'm an Environmentalist and I'm Here to Help'"
....is sorely lacking in credibility.
- Juan F. Lara
sanjian
*shrugs* The fact that you find it lacks credibility for those reasons
makes me question your credibility. Learn to live with it.
8-Bit Star
> Juan F. Lara wrote:
> > A blog with headlines like "Spain, the Once and Future Muslim
> > Province" and "World's Scariest Words: 'I'm an Environmentalist and
> > I'm Here to Help'" ....is sorely lacking in credibility.
>
> *shrugs* The fact that you find it lacks credibility for those reasons
> makes me question your credibility. Learn to live with it.
Say what you will, but I find Juan's reasoning a
little more justifiable than saying "Oh my the media
is demonizing anime!" because of one person's
blog.
Furthermore its clear just from a cursory examination
that this blog is owned by a scaremonger. So let's
put it this way: You don't believe Starcade but you
DO believe a blog that reads like something he'd say?
sanjian
You call him a scare monger, he would call you an ostrich. Why should I
believe you over him?
Furthermore, you dismiss his points, based not on the content of his
articles, but rather on the headlines and YOUR perception of them. Frankly,
I find that rather close to starcade reasoning. The rest of us dismissed
his views based on his (lack of) supporting evidence, not because of the
view itself.
And, in case you haven't figured it out, I'm a right-winger. I'm hardly
going to take those headlines as evidence that the blogger is cracked.
(Neocons? In my newsgroup? It happens more than you think.) I happen to
agree with those headlines you think are soooooo outrageous.
Blade
"sanjian" <mun...@vt.edu> wrote in message
news:NYidndzn46NGps3V...@posted.internetamerica...
Headlines like that mean an obvious tabloid mentality rather than rigorous
checking, regardless of one's political affiliations. I wouldn't trust a
paper with a headline like "The New Fascist America", either.
-
Blade
sanjian
Sorry, not buying it. The titles of the articles are meant to catch the
eye. However, that does not mean that the content is not rational. Nor can
one safely assume such. The fact is, there are a lot of us out here who
look at those headlines and say "yeah, that about sums it up." You guys may
not like the headlines, but that doesn't mean they're wrong.
It's very telling that, thoughout all of this, we've discussed the
headlines, but not the content. Says about all that needs to be said.
Blade
> Blade wrote:
>> "sanjian" <mun...@vt.edu> wrote in message
>> news:NYidndzn46NGps3V...@posted.internetamerica...
>>> Juan F. Lara wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> <11c0526d-f329-449d...@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> <dump...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> See:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/whats-going-wrong-in-japan/
>>>>
>>>> A blog with headlines like "Spain, the Once and Future Muslim
>>>> Province" and "World's Scariest Words: 'I'm an Environmentalist and
>>>> I'm Here to Help'" ....is sorely lacking in credibility.
>>>
>>> *shrugs* The fact that you find it lacks credibility for those
>>> reasons makes me question your credibility. Learn to live with it.
>>
>> Headlines like that mean an obvious tabloid mentality rather than
>> rigorous checking, regardless of one's political affiliations. I
>> wouldn't trust a paper with a headline like "The New Fascist
>> America", either.
>
> Sorry, not buying it. The titles of the articles are meant to catch the
> eye. However, that does not mean that the content is not rational. Nor
> can
They indicate an attitude. So does their header. So does basically
everything else I can see on that page. They are currently running trash
articles about Michelle Obama being racist, for instance. This doesn't mean
everything on the site is hopelessly biased trash; there's actually nothing
particularly offensive in the article linked here. That may be because the
article has no central thesis or point, however - it mentions anime and
manga, draws the comparison to some other killers who had them, and then
merrily skips off to another topic. It's hard to come off as hopelessly
biased when it's a chore to figure out what the point is supposed to be.
The lack of any focus or point in the article might be why few people are
discussing it.
> one safely assume such. The fact is, there are a lot of us out here who
> look at those headlines and say "yeah, that about sums it up." You guys
> may not like the headlines, but that doesn't mean they're wrong.
Yeah, okay, well you brought it up, so...
Anyone who seriously thinks Spain is going to be a "Muslim province" anytime
within the lifetime of anyone living today is, frankly, being silly.
A few demographic facts for you, courtesy of the CIA World Factbook.
94% of Spain's population is Roman Catholic. That 6% "other" includes all
the scary Muslims who are going to take them over, as well as several other
demographic groups.
Their net migration rate is 0.99 migrant(s)/1,000 population. So, slightly
less than one in a thousand. So so much for any conquering by
immigration/breeding within anyone's lifetime.
The notion of actual invasion, which the article suggests, is even more
laughable. The thought of Saudi Arabia or any other Sunni nation (Shiites
are unlikely to pine for al-Andalus, not that the site bothers to make the
distinction) attacking a Western European nation borders on self-parody. I
fail to see how isolated (and obviously rare, considering the lack of them
in recent years) acts of terrorism are going to force Spain to convert to
Islam either.
So, no offence, but the site is peddling shit that can be disproved by the
most casual glance at the most superficial statistics.
-
Blade
David Johnston
David Johnston
wrote:
The point of the article is that Japan is lacking in psychiatric
assistance for people in a state of suicidal depression.
8-Bit Star
> The point of the article is that Japan is lacking in psychiatric
> assistance for people in a state of suicidal depression.
Yeah but, it arrives at this conclusion based on
very shakey premises.
The article basically says: "A guy went on a
killing spree. Some other dude in the eighties
went on a similar spree. Both were into porno
manga, so they must've been lonely geeks.
Obviously, the problem must be Japan's
attitudes towards psychological problems.
See, let me quote my friend who was
insulted by a store clerk for buying pills.
Japan must fix this problem before more
people die."
It's not just what the article says either, but
how it words the arguement. Inbetween
the terror stories of violent killers the article
makes every attempt to polarize the issue.
I rolled my eyes when I got to the "people
are losing their morals" quote (because, you
know, two serial killers decades apart are
a reflection of ALL Japan. Sheesh).
I read some of this blog's other articles and
they weren't much better.
Blade
"David Johnston" <da...@block.net> wrote in message
news:mlg354dv2nc786jg4...@4ax.com...
>>The lack of any focus or point in the article might be why few people are
>>discussing it.
>
> The point of the article is that Japan is lacking in psychiatric
> assistance for people in a state of suicidal depression.
Fair enough, but he's halfway through the article before that ever comes up,
and the mention of pornographic manga and such is so completely superfluous
that even the author points it out.
-
Blade
8-Bit Star
> And, in case you haven't figured it out, I'm a right-winger.
See my response to David Johnston if you want to see
a post that attacks the content and not just the headline.
For right now, I just want to say: Your political leaning
means nothing to me. Actually, that would be a lie.
People with political leanings are invariably going to
put a biased slant on anything they read, or if they
can't they're going to poo-poo it.
I could care less about politics. I vote for Presidents
the same way I shop for goods: I just go for whoever
offers the best deal. Screw this Republican-vs-Democrat,
Left-wing-vs-Right-wing crap that people follow mindlessly
like a religion without a spiritual aspect.
When it comes to news, only two things matter:
1) Is it true?
2) Is it relevant?
Let's apply that to the linked article:
1) Is it true? Based on the observations I made in my
response to Dave, I'd say most likely not.
2) Is it relevant? Even if the article is telling the truth,
there is no way I could act on the information gained
therein to any effect that would be beneficial to
society. So, no, its not relevant.
And I'm going to stop here before *I* get off-track.
David Johnston
<nes...@gmail.com> wrote:
>know, two serial killers decades apart are
>a reflection of ALL Japan. Sheesh).
This is the third knifing spree this year.
bobbie sellers
we have more murders in San Francisco and
Oakland than in all of Japan. And most larger
cities have similar problems.
later
bliss -- C O C O A Powered... (at california dot com)
--
bobbie sellers - a retired nurse in San Francisco
Ningen banji Human beings do
Samazama no Every single kind
Baka a suru Of stupid thing
--- 117th edition of Haifu Yanagidaru published in 1832
Abraham Evangelista
wrote:
In a nation of mroe than 120 million people.
We get that many DAILY in Philadelphia.
--
Abraham Evangelista
Pumbaa
news:74q4541vo1ov63trg...@4ax.com...
Japan should have a low crime rate as it is a police state. I have read
multiple times that the police have a right to search a person's home at
random (so-called safety inspection), the police can hold a person up to 28
days on suspension without having to charge them and they use "strong arm"
techniques to get the suspect to confess.
American has a low crime rate except among certain minority groups (not to
be mentioned here) that are concentrated in certain areas (notably
Washington DC, etc.) where there are lots of illegal drugs and the citizens
are not allowed to have working firearms.
David Johnston
No, you don't. I doubt you get any knifing sprees in Philadelphia. I
certainly doubt you get three sprees a day, even with guns. That
being said, it is true that these high profile rampages give a
distorted impression of how dangerous things are becoming because of
the media play they get. The Columbine massacre and it's imitators
obscured the fact that the number of people getting shot in school was
actually going down for example.
afedakendragon
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:33:33 GMT, Abraham Evangelista
>
> <da...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 02:23:19 GMT, David Johnston <da...@block.net>
> >wrote:
>
> >>On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:21:34 -0700 (PDT), 8-Bit Star
> >><ness...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>know, two serial killers decades apart are
> >>>a reflection of ALL Japan. Sheesh).
>
> >>This is the third knifing spree this year.
>
> >In a nation of mroe than 120 million people.
>
> >We get that many DAILY in Philadelphia.
>
> No, you don't. I doubt you get any knifing sprees in Philadelphia. I
More guns than knives really.
> certainly doubt you get three sprees a day, even with guns. That
Not sprees. But armed assaults? Sure. At LEAST. Incidents with
multiple casualties? Those we seem to see every couple of months or
so, but...
> being said, it is true that these high profile rampages give a
> distorted impression of how dangerous things are becoming because of
> the media play they get. The Columbine massacre and it's imitators
> obscured the fact that the number of people getting shot in school was
> actually going down for example.
...the more question becomes the cause. Consensus seems to indicate
that Kato was motivated by depression and social pressure. Most
crimes 'round here seem to be economically motivated.
David Johnston
<afed...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 13, 2:34 pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:33:33 GMT, Abraham Evangelista
>>
>> <da...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 02:23:19 GMT, David Johnston <da...@block.net>
>> >wrote:
>>
>> >>On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:21:34 -0700 (PDT), 8-Bit Star
>> >><ness...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>know, two serial killers decades apart are
>> >>>a reflection of ALL Japan. Sheesh).
>>
>> >>This is the third knifing spree this year.
>>
>> >In a nation of mroe than 120 million people.
>>
>> >We get that many DAILY in Philadelphia.
>>
>> No, you don't. I doubt you get any knifing sprees in Philadelphia. I
>
>More guns than knives really.
>
>> certainly doubt you get three sprees a day, even with guns. That
>
>Not sprees. But armed assaults?
Armed assaults that have a motive beyond going out with a bang don't
rattle people nearly as much as random killing sprees culminating in
suicide or suicide by cop.
ashez2ashes
If you want to talk about crazy Japan how about THIS link...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/world/asia/13fat.html?no_interstitial
Oliver
> Anyone who seriously thinks Spain is going to be a "Muslim province" anytime
> within the lifetime of anyone living today is, frankly, being silly.
Same with Britain. NeoCons, my condolences.
Oliver
> The notion of actual invasion, which the article suggests, is even more
> laughable. The thought of Saudi Arabia or any other Sunni nation (Shiites
> are unlikely to pine for al-Andalus, not that the site bothers to make the
> distinction) attacking a Western European nation borders on self-parody.
Saudi Arabia is going to invade Spain?! Colin Powell had the right
idea about the NeoCons: "Fucking crazies."
(But hey, he's just an experienced and decorated war hero -- as
opposed to, say, multiple-times draft-dodgers and talk-radio
chickenhawks -- what does he know about fighting?)
S.t.A.n.L.e.E
> On Jun 13, 6:30 pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>
> If you want to talk about crazy Japan how about THIS link...
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/world/asia/13fat.html?no_interstitial
>
For those who don't bother to register or login
(but still requires cookies turned on):
http://tinyurl.com/6lu35j
or
<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/world/asia/13fat.html?partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all>
Laters. =)
STan
--
_______ ________ _______ ____ ___ ___ ______ ______
| __|__ __| _ | \ | | | | _____| _____|
|__ | | | | _ | |\ | |___| ____|| ____|
|_______| |__| |__| |__|___| \ ___|_______|______|______|
__| | ( )
/ _ | |/ LostRune+sig [at] UofR [dot] net
| ( _| | http://www.uofr.net/~lostrune/
\ ______| _______ ____ ___
/ \ / \ | _ | \ | |
/ \/ \| _ | |\ |
/___/\/\___|__| |__|___| \ ___|
Mark Jones
I've been waiting for days for someone to go for the cheap
laugh........dammit, I just couldn't take it any longer!
sanjian
>>> Headlines like that mean an obvious tabloid mentality rather than
>>> rigorous checking, regardless of one's political affiliations. I
>>> wouldn't trust a paper with a headline like "The New Fascist
>>> America", either.
>>
>> Sorry, not buying it. The titles of the articles are meant to catch
>> the eye. However, that does not mean that the content is not
>> rational. Nor can
>
> They indicate an attitude. So does their header. So does basically
And, were the attitude "Neocons are whack about islamism," would that also
be a problem?
> everything else I can see on that page. They are currently running
> trash articles about Michelle Obama being racist, for instance. This
> doesn't mean everything on the site is hopelessly biased trash;
> there's actually nothing particularly offensive in the article linked
> here. That may be because the article has no central thesis or point,
> however - it mentions anime and manga, draws the comparison to some
> other killers who had them, and then merrily skips off to another
> topic. It's hard to come off as hopelessly biased when it's a chore
> to figure out what the point is supposed to be.
> The lack of any focus or point in the article might be why few people
> are discussing it.
>
>> one safely assume such. The fact is, there are a lot of us out here
>> who look at those headlines and say "yeah, that about sums it up." You
>> guys may not like the headlines, but that doesn't mean they're
>> wrong.
>
> Yeah, okay, well you brought it up, so...
>
> Anyone who seriously thinks Spain is going to be a "Muslim province"
> anytime within the lifetime of anyone living today is, frankly, being
> silly.
Odd, we once thought the same about Lebanon (which was created to protect
the christian population). You say we're being silly. We say you're being
blind.
> A few demographic facts for you, courtesy of the CIA World Factbook.
>
> 94% of Spain's population is Roman Catholic. That 6% "other" includes
> all the scary Muslims who are going to take them over, as well as
> several other demographic groups.
Nice to know. However, things do change. BTW, should I take your snarky
inclusion of "scary" to mean that you are unwilling to discuss things
rationally?
> Their net migration rate is 0.99 migrant(s)/1,000 population. So,
> slightly less than one in a thousand. So so much for any conquering by
> immigration/breeding within anyone's lifetime.
Ten years, one percent change. It's slow, but it's there. HOWEVER, the
thing you are failing to consider is the issue of fertility rates. I notice
you tried to claim that you disproved both the immigration AND breeding
points with your net migration statistic. However, you spectaculary failed
to actually do so. Spain is barely at the replacement rate, and most of
that is from the muslim population.
> The notion of actual invasion, which the article suggests, is even
> more laughable. The thought of Saudi Arabia or any other Sunni nation
> (Shiites are unlikely to pine for al-Andalus, not that the site
> bothers to make the distinction) attacking a Western European nation
> borders on self-parody. I fail to see how isolated (and obviously
> rare, considering the lack of them in recent years) acts of terrorism
> are going to force Spain to convert to Islam either.
That's the case right now. When a third of Spain is muslim, will it
continue to be so?
> So, no offence, but the site is peddling shit that can be disproved
> by the most casual glance at the most superficial statistics.
That's fine if you only like casual glances and superficial statistics. Try
looking deeper, and you'll see that it holds far more merit than you want to
accept.
sanjian
> On Jun 12, 4:44 am, "sanjian" <mun...@vt.edu> wrote:
>
>> And, in case you haven't figured it out, I'm a right-winger.
>
> See my response to David Johnston if you want to see
> a post that attacks the content and not just the headline.
>
> For right now, I just want to say: Your political leaning
> means nothing to me. Actually, that would be a lie.
If you're going to try to use political leanings to discredit a source, then
you had best take the political leanings of the people you are talking to
into account. I figured even you could understand that.
> People with political leanings are invariably going to
> put a biased slant on anything they read, or if they
> can't they're going to poo-poo it.
Yes, yes you are. Your point?
> I could care less about politics. I vote for Presidents
> the same way I shop for goods: I just go for whoever
> offers the best deal. Screw this Republican-vs-Democrat,
> Left-wing-vs-Right-wing crap that people follow mindlessly
> like a religion without a spiritual aspect.
Riiiiiight. It's funny. People say they vote for the best man, regardless
of party or ideology. Yet, they define the "best man" as the one who agrees
with them. You try to keep your politics and look like you're above it, at
the same time. Fine for an ego boost, I guess. But hardly honest.
Galen
I have to say that the principle failing of the Japanese is their
inability to speak clearly to the object of their affections.
Therefore, in the hopes that it will be of aid, a confession form
letter:
http://www.bureauofcommunication.com/compose/romanticintent
Oliver
> continue to be so?
I wonder what Americans would think if Europeans, ideologically
extrapolating from birth rates in the 'Red' States vs the 'Blue' ones,
kept harping on with apocalyptic, 'Handmaid's Tale'-style warnings
about the future of Western civilisation?
(That said, make no mistake about this: the unholy alliance of far-
right fundamentalists and imperialist NeoCons that currently
constitute the American right has as much contempt for liberal
democracy -- freedom of expression, equal rights for women and gays,
separation of church and state, fettering of executive and corporate
power by the rule of law, prohibitions on torture and internment -- as
any Jihadist.)
Reminds me of how during the Cold War the right was continually
warning us that our societies were riddled with Soviet sympathisers
and spies, people you might've known for years but who secretly were
all just waiting for the signal from Moscow to plunge the West into
chaos -- funny, isn't it, how all those 'agents' just seemed to
disappear once the Berlin Wall came down?
> You say we're being silly. We say you're being blind.
"Silly"? I've never made the mistake of underestimating McCarthyite
crypto-fascism. "Blind"? You're the guys who let Bin Laden go in
favour of a guy who didn't have WMD and had nothing to do with 9/11!
Blade
> Blade wrote:
>
>>>> Headlines like that mean an obvious tabloid mentality rather than
>>>> rigorous checking, regardless of one's political affiliations. I
>>>> wouldn't trust a paper with a headline like "The New Fascist
>>>> America", either.
>>>
>>> Sorry, not buying it. The titles of the articles are meant to catch
>>> the eye. However, that does not mean that the content is not
>>> rational. Nor can
>>
>> They indicate an attitude. So does their header. So does basically
>
> And, were the attitude "Neocons are whack about islamism," would that also
> be a problem?
If the attitude was "Neocons are evil because!", then yes. I don't like
tunnel-visioned stupidity, and if anything I like it less on my side
because, quite frankly, I expect better.
For instance, the outpouring of hateful dire rage from the left on Hillary
Clinton portraying her as some sort of force of vagina-powered evil because
she refused to concede a race she hadn't lost yet, against an opponent whose
platform was broadly similar to hers, irritated the living crap out of me.
For people who ought to be used to losers, Democrats are very quick to
venemously turn on their own when they are perceived to have lost (for
instance, the widespread contempt towards John Kerry). Of course, they are
hardly the sum and total of leftists, but I can point to similar flaws in my
own country and other countries I'm passingly familiar with.
I don't go around calling conservative viewpoints blanketly evil, because
that's completely unproductive. That doesn't mean I'm obliged to take every
conservative viewpoint seriously, however - there's whackjobs on every side,
and in this case, the site appears to be populated (if not exclusively then
certainly heavily) by whackjobs, so far as I can tell.
>> everything else I can see on that page. They are currently running
>> trash articles about Michelle Obama being racist, for instance. This
>> doesn't mean everything on the site is hopelessly biased trash;
>> there's actually nothing particularly offensive in the article linked
>> here. That may be because the article has no central thesis or point,
>> however - it mentions anime and manga, draws the comparison to some
>> other killers who had them, and then merrily skips off to another
>> topic. It's hard to come off as hopelessly biased when it's a chore
>> to figure out what the point is supposed to be.
>> The lack of any focus or point in the article might be why few people
>> are discussing it.
>>
>>> one safely assume such. The fact is, there are a lot of us out here
>>> who look at those headlines and say "yeah, that about sums it up." You
>>> guys may not like the headlines, but that doesn't mean they're
>>> wrong.
>>
>> Yeah, okay, well you brought it up, so...
>>
>> Anyone who seriously thinks Spain is going to be a "Muslim province"
>> anytime within the lifetime of anyone living today is, frankly, being
>> silly.
>
> Odd, we once thought the same about Lebanon (which was created to protect
> the christian population). You say we're being silly. We say you're
> being blind.
Apples and oranges. Lebanon is surrounded by Muslim-majority countries, for
starters (other than Israel, obviously). Maronite Christians also were not
anywhere remotely close to 94% of the population when it was created. As
well, a huge percentage of the Maronites fled the country during the various
wars and Israeli occupation of Lebanon (many of whom ended up in Ottawa,
opening tasty eateries!); the generally poorer Muslim demographic didn't
have that opportunity and stayed, producing more babies than the remaining
Maronites because that's what lower-income demographics tend to do.
Absolutely none of that is similar to Spain's situation. I would also note
that Maronite rule in Lebanon wasn't exactly democratic or nice, and
continues to be even less so.
>> A few demographic facts for you, courtesy of the CIA World Factbook.
>>
>> 94% of Spain's population is Roman Catholic. That 6% "other" includes
>> all the scary Muslims who are going to take them over, as well as
>> several other demographic groups.
>
> Nice to know. However, things do change. BTW, should I take your snarky
> inclusion of "scary" to mean that you are unwilling to discuss things
> rationally?
Okay, I'll bite. The site rather unambiguously presents a Muslim-controlled
Spain as a bad thing. Why? Al-Andalus was pretty cool. Why is it a
"warning"?
>> Their net migration rate is 0.99 migrant(s)/1,000 population. So,
>> slightly less than one in a thousand. So so much for any conquering by
>> immigration/breeding within anyone's lifetime.
>
> Ten years, one percent change. It's slow, but it's there. HOWEVER, the
> thing you are failing to consider is the issue of fertility rates. I
> notice you tried to claim that you disproved both the immigration AND
> breeding points with your net migration statistic. However, you
> spectaculary failed to actually do so. Spain is barely at the replacement
> rate, and most of that is from the muslim population.
Once again, Sanjian, apples and oranges. To put things in perspective,
there's more Native Americans in the US, percentage-wise, than there are
Muslims in Spain. If they suddenly upped their breeding numbers (and maybe
stop dying so early) are they gonna shove y'all out and establish the new
Cree Federation? Of course not. It's silly. Within our lifetimes there may
be enough Muslims in Spain to form a significant voting bloc, but there is
absolutely no chance, barring some absolute catastrophe like the entire
Middle East sinking, for there to be more than that. And looking beyond that
demographically is just an exercise in hand-wringing; it is absolutely
certain that events will change migration and breeding patterns in the next
hundred years that nobody can accurately predict. Who could have predicated
a hundred years ago the current situation in Eastern Europe? Or anywhere
else, for that matter?
>> The notion of actual invasion, which the article suggests, is even
>> more laughable. The thought of Saudi Arabia or any other Sunni nation
>> (Shiites are unlikely to pine for al-Andalus, not that the site
>> bothers to make the distinction) attacking a Western European nation
>> borders on self-parody. I fail to see how isolated (and obviously
>> rare, considering the lack of them in recent years) acts of terrorism
>> are going to force Spain to convert to Islam either.
>
> That's the case right now. When a third of Spain is muslim, will it
> continue to be so?
Since we'll all have been dead for a hundred years by the time that has a
chance of happening, why care?
>> So, no offence, but the site is peddling shit that can be disproved
>> by the most casual glance at the most superficial statistics.
>
> That's fine if you only like casual glances and superficial statistics.
> Try looking deeper, and you'll see that it holds far more merit than you
> want to accept.
Not this one, sorry. It's simply preposterous. Either half the Middle East
would have to spontaneously decide to move to Spain or most of Spain's
population would have to emigrate for this to be a 'problem' (not that I
necessarily see it as one) in our lifetimes. Neither is going to happen in
any realistic scenario.
-
Blade
David Johnston
>
>Odd, we once thought the same about Lebanon (which was created to protect
>the christian population).
Oh that's such bullshit. Christians were always a minority in
Lebanon.
Juan F. Lara
David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>>Odd, we once thought the same about Lebanon (which was created to protect
>>the christian population).
>
>Oh that's such bullshit. Christians were always a minority in
>Lebanon.
He didn't say that Christians were the majority.
- Juan F. Lara
Juan F. Lara
sanjian <mun...@vt.edu> wrote:
>> Anyone who seriously thinks Spain is going to be a "Muslim province"
>> anytime within the lifetime of anyone living today is, frankly, being
>> silly.
>
>Odd, we once thought the same about Lebanon (which was created to protect
>the christian population). You say we're being silly. We say you're being
>blind.
A country with a population of about 4 million that always had a large
native Muslim population vs a nation of 45 million that had not had a sizeable
Muslim population for many centuries. You're comparing apples to oranges
there.
>Nice to know. However, things do change. BTW, should I take your snarky
>inclusion of "scary" to mean that you are unwilling to discuss things
>rationally?
Yeah, things do change. Tomorrow the Earth could suddenly split in
half and the Moon could be sent millions of miles away....You can use "things
could change" to construe the future into any scenario you want to suit your
agenda. That's a copout tactic, not rational at all.
>Ten years, one percent change. It's slow, but it's there. HOWEVER, the
>thing you are failing to consider is the issue of fertility rates. I notice
>you tried to claim that you disproved both the immigration AND breeding
>points with your net migration statistic.
Fertility rates, breeding. Listen to yourself, you're reducing other
human beings to the level of dog breeds.
>That's the case right now. When a third of Spain is muslim, will it
>continue to be so?
You can make "when" lead to any crackpot scenario you want to scare
people with.
- Juan F. Lara
Juan F. Lara
Oliver <oaco...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>I wonder what Americans would think if Europeans, ideologically
>extrapolating from birth rates in the 'Red' States vs the 'Blue' ones,
>kept harping on with apocalyptic, 'Handmaid's Tale'-style warnings
>about the future of Western civilisation?
I was under the impression that they already do....
Here in the U.S. we're inundated with anti Illegal immigration rhetoric
that goes far enough to demonize the certain group of people that have often
wound up in this unfortunate immigration status. It's disgusting; I resent
people putting negative connotation on just the act of speaking Spanish or
making a big deal of the 5th of May. Europeans keep pointing to this rhetoric
to blow up their own egos and try to take a sanctimonious attitude to U.S.
residents. Yet Europeans themselves indulge in equally bigoted demonization of
their own illegal immigrants, many of whom practice a certain religion. Just
because these people have their own set of religious practices, Europeans turn
them into monsters. The bigotry in Europe is every bit as repugnant as any
bigotry found in the U.S.
>(That said, make no mistake about this: the unholy alliance of far-
>right fundamentalists and imperialist NeoCons that currently
>constitute the American right has as much contempt for liberal
>democracy -- freedom of expression, equal rights for women and gays,
>separation of church and state, fettering of executive and corporate
>power by the rule of law, prohibitions on torture and internment -- as
>any Jihadist.)
The same would go for the European right. I don't see much of a better
option when compared to the likes of the BNP, Jean Marie LePen, Theo Van Gogh,
or Pim Fortuyn.
- Juan F. Lara
Inu-Yasha
"Galen" <ga...@nekomimicon.net> wrote in message
news:44td541qbp8p7vlhe...@4ax.com...
Galen,
That's great, (---enter favorite chuckle here---) where do you find
these things??
Inu-Yasha
Feh!! ^_^
NGY!
Galen
David Johnston
Then how was Lebanon expected to protect them?
sanjian
Research the history of Lebanon and the French Mandate.
8-Bit Star
> 8-Bit Star wrote:
> > I could care less about politics. I vote for Presidents
> > the same way I shop for goods: I just go for whoever
> > offers the best deal. Screw this Republican-vs-Democrat,
> > Left-wing-vs-Right-wing crap that people follow mindlessly
> > like a religion without a spiritual aspect.
>
> Riiiiiight. It's funny. People say they vote for the best man, regardless
> of party or ideology. Yet, they define the "best man" as the one who agrees
> with them. You try to keep your politics and look like you're above it, at
> the same time. Fine for an ego boost, I guess. But hardly honest.
Nice attempt to throw water on the issue, but you fail.
"The best man is whoever agrees with me" has nothing to
do with whether or not you subscribe to a political attitude.
There's no correlation. None.
You might as well try to claim my choice of breakfast
cereals reflect my "political ideology."
"Card-carrying whatevers" don't have any concept that
there are people who actually don't think in terms of
political ideology, so they try to pretend everyone does
and try to prove it with strawmen. Fine for an ego boost,
Blade
"8-Bit Star" <nes...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8e80acc2-42ec-4814...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 16, 6:04 pm, "sanjian" <mun...@vt.edu> wrote:
>> 8-Bit Star wrote:
>
>> > I could care less about politics. I vote for Presidents
>> > the same way I shop for goods: I just go for whoever
>> > offers the best deal. Screw this Republican-vs-Democrat,
>> > Left-wing-vs-Right-wing crap that people follow mindlessly
>> > like a religion without a spiritual aspect.
>>
>> Riiiiiight. It's funny. People say they vote for the best man,
>> regardless
>> of party or ideology. Yet, they define the "best man" as the one who
>> agrees
>> with them. You try to keep your politics and look like you're above it,
>> at
>> the same time. Fine for an ego boost, I guess. But hardly honest.
>
> Nice attempt to throw water on the issue, but you fail.
>
> "The best man is whoever agrees with me" has nothing to
> do with whether or not you subscribe to a political attitude.
> There's no correlation. None.
In that case, what exactly does being "left wing" or "right-wing" or
"centrist" or any other political descriptor mean other than "there is a
group of people who are broadly similar to my personal ideology, whose broad
subset of beliefs are labelled this way"?
I mean, what is making you different? You say you go for whoever offers the
best deal; in what way is that different from myself or Sanjian, who vote
for the candidate/party whom we feel are most likely to support and advance
the issues we deem most important? Sanjian has a few beliefs that would be
considered "left-wing" and I have a few that would be considered
"right-wing"; so does virtually everyone else on any side of the political
spectrum (Hitler was vegetarian!).
I honestly don't quite understand what you think differentiates you. If you
have a mix of what's considered "left" and "right"-wing beliefs, that makes
you "centrist", which is just another political label.
Do you seriously think most people mindlessly accept positions just because
they're "Left" or "Right"? Why? Why would they identify that way in the
first place? Why do you think that anyone who describes themselves as
politically left or right is like that?
-
Blade
sanjian
>> "The best man is whoever agrees with me" has nothing to
>> do with whether or not you subscribe to a political attitude.
>> There's no correlation. None.
>
> In that case, what exactly does being "left wing" or "right-wing" or
> "centrist" or any other political descriptor mean other than "there
> is a group of people who are broadly similar to my personal ideology,
> whose broad subset of beliefs are labelled this way"?
>
> I mean, what is making you different? You say you go for whoever
> offers the best deal; in what way is that different from myself or
> Sanjian, who vote for the candidate/party whom we feel are most
> likely to support and advance the issues we deem most important?
> Sanjian has a few beliefs that would be considered "left-wing" and I
Oddly enough, most of those are due to talking with you and HR.
I know a lot of people say that arguing on the internets never solves
anything. I think it's a shame. You get to deal with people that you would
have never met before and hear their perspectives. People who don't take
advantage of that are missing a lot.
sanjian
> On Jun 16, 6:04 pm, "sanjian" <mun...@vt.edu> wrote:
>> 8-Bit Star wrote:
>
>>> I could care less about politics. I vote for Presidents
>>> the same way I shop for goods: I just go for whoever
>>> offers the best deal. Screw this Republican-vs-Democrat,
>>> Left-wing-vs-Right-wing crap that people follow mindlessly
>>> like a religion without a spiritual aspect.
>>
>> Riiiiiight. It's funny. People say they vote for the best man,
>> regardless of party or ideology. Yet, they define the "best man" as
>> the one who agrees with them. You try to keep your politics and
>> look like you're above it, at the same time. Fine for an ego boost,
>> I guess. But hardly honest.
>
> Nice attempt to throw water on the issue, but you fail.
>
> "The best man is whoever agrees with me" has nothing to
> do with whether or not you subscribe to a political attitude.
> There's no correlation. None.
Acutally, I honestly think you believe that. So I'll take it step by step.
Either you'll see why you're wrong, or you'll say something that shows me
why I'm wrong.
First of all, how do you decide who you vote for? (you personally, not you
generally)
Blade
> Blade wrote:
>
>>> "The best man is whoever agrees with me" has nothing to
>>> do with whether or not you subscribe to a political attitude.
>>> There's no correlation. None.
>>
>> In that case, what exactly does being "left wing" or "right-wing" or
>> "centrist" or any other political descriptor mean other than "there
>> is a group of people who are broadly similar to my personal ideology,
>> whose broad subset of beliefs are labelled this way"?
>>
>> I mean, what is making you different? You say you go for whoever
>> offers the best deal; in what way is that different from myself or
>> Sanjian, who vote for the candidate/party whom we feel are most
>> likely to support and advance the issues we deem most important?
>> Sanjian has a few beliefs that would be considered "left-wing" and I
>
> Oddly enough, most of those are due to talking with you and HR.
And I freely admit you're a major reason I don't believe right-wing = evil.
^^;
> I know a lot of people say that arguing on the internets never solves
> anything. I think it's a shame. You get to deal with people that you
> would have never met before and hear their perspectives. People who don't
> take advantage of that are missing a lot.
Yep. I know I've learned a lot from discussions and arguments online. If
nothing else, it often clarifies my own thoughts and beliefs.
-
Blade
David Johnston
>Riiiiiight. It's funny. People say they vote for the best man, regardless
>of party or ideology. Yet, they define the "best man" as the one who agrees
>with them.
About a third of the population are swing voters.
Captain Nerd
wrote:
> "sanjian" <mun...@vt.edu> wrote in message
> news:GIKdnaYn_pGb6MTV...@posted.internetamerica...
> > Blade wrote:
> >
> >>> "The best man is whoever agrees with me" has nothing to
> >>> do with whether or not you subscribe to a political attitude.
> >>> There's no correlation. None.
> >>
> >> In that case, what exactly does being "left wing" or "right-wing" or
> >> "centrist" or any other political descriptor mean other than "there
> >> is a group of people who are broadly similar to my personal ideology,
> >> whose broad subset of beliefs are labelled this way"?
> >>
> >> I mean, what is making you different? You say you go for whoever
> >> offers the best deal; in what way is that different from myself or
> >> Sanjian, who vote for the candidate/party whom we feel are most
> >> likely to support and advance the issues we deem most important?
> >> Sanjian has a few beliefs that would be considered "left-wing" and I
> >
> > Oddly enough, most of those are due to talking with you and HR.
>
> And I freely admit you're a major reason I don't believe right-wing = evil.
> ^^;
Ah, but you don't know about the secret midnight sacrifices and bingo
games...
^====^
> > I know a lot of people say that arguing on the internets never solves
> > anything. I think it's a shame. You get to deal with people that you
> > would have never met before and hear their perspectives. People who don't
> > take advantage of that are missing a lot.
>
> Yep. I know I've learned a lot from discussions and arguments online. If
> nothing else, it often clarifies my own thoughts and beliefs.
Exactly. If you can't hold your own defending your ideas/beliefs,
how strong can they really be?
Cap.
--
Since 1989, recycling old jokes, cliches, and bad puns, one Usenet
post at a time!
Operation: Nerdwatch http://www.nerdwatch.com
Only email with "TO_CAP" somewhere in the subject has a chance of being read
Antonio E. Gonzalez
wrote:
As a decendant of Lebanese Christians who ended up in Peru, I can
at least confirm the diaspora. I actually have a picture of my
grandfather as a kid wearing a traditional Arab robe, holding an
old-school rifle; quite a few of my cousins look like they were
plucked out of downtown Beirut, or any other Middle Eastern city . . .
--
- ReFlex76
- "Let's beat the terrorists with our most powerful weapon . . . hot girl-on-girl action!"
- "The difference between young and old is the difference between looking forward to your next birthday, and dreading it!"
- Jesus Christ - The original hippie!
<http://reflex76.blogspot.com/>
<http://www.blogger.com/profile/07245047157197572936>
Katana > Chain Saw > Baseball Bat > Hammer
8-Bit Star
> "8-Bit Star" <ness...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8e80acc2-42ec-4814...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jun 16, 6:04 pm, "sanjian" <mun...@vt.edu> wrote:
> >> 8-Bit Star wrote:
>
> >> > I could care less about politics. I vote for Presidents
> >> > the same way I shop for goods: I just go for whoever
> >> > offers the best deal. Screw this Republican-vs-Democrat,
> >> > Left-wing-vs-Right-wing crap that people follow mindlessly
> >> > like a religion without a spiritual aspect.
>
> >> Riiiiiight. It's funny. People say they vote for the best man,
> >> regardless
> >> of party or ideology. Yet, they define the "best man" as the one who
> >> agrees
> >> with them. You try to keep your politics and look like you're above it,
> >> at
> >> the same time. Fine for an ego boost, I guess. But hardly honest.
>
> > Nice attempt to throw water on the issue, but you fail.
>
> > "The best man is whoever agrees with me" has nothing to
> > do with whether or not you subscribe to a political attitude.
> > There's no correlation. None.
>
> In that case, what exactly does being "left wing" or "right-wing" or
> "centrist" or any other political descriptor mean other than "there is a
> group of people who are broadly similar to my personal ideology, whose broad
> subset of beliefs are labelled this way"?
The way I've always seen it, when people say "I'm a card
carrying X" I take that to mean that they support X view
even if it doesn't always jive with their beliefs. card-carryers
will always vote for X just because he's X, whereas I'll
listen to either or both, decide who I like better, and vote
for that.
> Do you seriously think most people mindlessly accept positions just because
> they're "Left" or "Right"? Why? Why would they identify that way in the
> first place? Why do you think that anyone who describes themselves as
> politically left or right is like that?
Sorry if I sound a little Starcadetastic, but in my experience
most people would rather conform to an ideology--even one
they know to be wrong--rather than think for themselves.
It only takes a cursory thought to come to this conclusion:
problems like lynch mobs, gangs, and drugs all support it.
Besides that, I've been on both sides of conformist mentalities--
both having been a victim of it, and having used it to my
advantage--and only a fool would look one's own life
experiences and say they're wrong.
The minute people assign a label to themselves, they've as
much as said they have given up their individuality--and if
they're describing themselves using political or ideological
labels, they probably didn't have much individuality to begin
with.
8-Bit Star
> Acutally, I honestly think you believe that. So I'll take it step by step.
> Either you'll see why you're wrong, or you'll say something that shows me
> why I'm wrong.
>
> First of all, how do you decide who you vote for? (you personally, not you
> generally)
Lemme illustrate it this way:
I didn't vote in the 2000 election. I didn't care who won then.
In 2004 I voted for Kerry, because I had tried Bush and I
didn't really care for how he was running the country.
This year I again don't really care who wins, because so
far there seems to be nothing especially bad about any of
the candidates.
Abraham Evangelista
wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:04:06 -0400, "sanjian" <mun...@vt.edu> wrote:
Cite?
--
Abraham Evangelista
sanjian
Why didn't you like how Bush was running the country?
8-Bit Star
> Exactly. If you can't hold your own defending your ideas/beliefs,
> how strong can they really be?
>
> Cap.
I once heard it the exact opposite: If you feel compelled to defend
them, then you must not be secure in your beliefs.
Personally I've had the exact opposite of Blade's experience.
Most of my early net arguements left with my beliefs having
become the Theme Park version (like that time I attempted
to explain to Blade why Chrono Trigger was a good game,
and I ended up doing a piss-poor job of it).
The only enlightenment I ever got was realizing that most of
the things I thought I HAD to believe were complete, total
bunk, and I didn't have to follow any standard I didn't want to.
And also not to argue about whether or not Game X (or Movie X
or Book X or Comic X or Planet X or Dimension X) sucks or
not, because all such arguements are predicated on superimposing
intellectual straightjackets on what is primarily an emotional
experience. Why anyone would want to do that when the net
result is that it detracts from the experience is beyond me.
Anyway, now that I've totally derailed the topic, I think I shall
shut the feck up and go play my video games or somethin'.
See ya later.
sanjian
Far less than that, actually.
Many (I won't go as far as most, even though I believe that to be the case)
moderates are just less-partisian partisans. They're still left of center
or right of center. They just don't want to be grouped in with us
crusaders.
And, even then, there are different varieties of moderates. Some are
moderate because they have about as many well-considered, hard-won ideals on
either side of the political spectrum. Others are moderates because, while
they're partisan, they feel neither of the major parties fit very well (they
usually go third-party). Then there are the fluffy, floppy moderates who
are moderate because they can't be bothered, or lack the intellectual
capacity to take a stand.
sanjian
> On Jun 18, 9:55 am, "Blade" <kumonr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "8-Bit Star" <ness...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> Nice attempt to throw water on the issue, but you fail.
>>
>>> "The best man is whoever agrees with me" has nothing to
>>> do with whether or not you subscribe to a political attitude.
>>> There's no correlation. None.
>>
>> In that case, what exactly does being "left wing" or "right-wing" or
>> "centrist" or any other political descriptor mean other than "there
>> is a group of people who are broadly similar to my personal
>> ideology, whose broad subset of beliefs are labelled this way"?
>
> The way I've always seen it, when people say "I'm a card
> carrying X" I take that to mean that they support X view
> even if it doesn't always jive with their beliefs. card-carryers
> will always vote for X just because he's X, whereas I'll
> listen to either or both, decide who I like better, and vote
> for that.
To be sure, those are around. And, in fact, it's a big debate within the
republican party right now. Many of us who are conservatives first, and
only republicans because it's the current home of the conservative movement,
are starting to look for alternatives. Much like the democrat party has
been relying on the black vote without giving them any reason to vote for
them, the republican party has been taking the conservatives for granted.
That's the inherent flaw in block voting, no matter who's voting, and who
you're voting for.
None the less, as disappointed as we are with our own party, the other one
is much farther away from what we consider the best ideals for America.
None the less, I still say the dems were stupid in not offering Mark Warner
anything he wanted to run. A Virginia democrat is very different from a New
England democrat (or a Chicago one). And while republicans wouldn't have
likely voted for him, we would have felt safe not voting at all. They had
the perfect storm, but they decided to pander, instead. Well, good for
McCain I guess. Not that it makes me any happier.
Galen
wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:04:06 -0400, "sanjian" <mun...@vt.edu> wrote:
... and the other 2/3rds are non-voters?
Captain Nerd
<de053114-e3ed-4a0a...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
8-Bit Star <nes...@gmail.com> wrote:
Have I got a t-shirt for you! http://www.cafepress.com/cptnerdstuff
^====^
paranormalized
McCain is the best the Republicans have in terms of electability in a
post-Bush world, you have to reconcile yourself to that. The Dems
have no such restriction to force them closer to the center, so
they're running on charisma in the hopes that star power overcomes all
else, including what vestiges of bigotry remain in this country.
Me? I voted for McCain in primaries, (going for experience over other
stuffs, and it was an open primary- he lost my state anyways...) but
ever since the Guantanamo ruling, I'm vacillating. I want some clean
break with the Bush *treatment* policies, a return to "America, the
good guys", but now I'm wondering how much McCain can deliver. Might
come down to who he chooses as running mate...
Jonathan Fisher
still wondering how much a primary vote binds one honor to a
candidate...
Galen
wrote:
>
>> I know a lot of people say that arguing on the internets never solves
>> anything. I think it's a shame. You get to deal with people that you
>> would have never met before and hear their perspectives. People who don't
>> take advantage of that are missing a lot.
>
>Yep. I know I've learned a lot from discussions and arguments online. If
>nothing else, it often clarifies my own thoughts and beliefs.
I don't know if I'm left or right; tell me:
A. I would support a constitutional amendment to create a bill
of human rights, that the US government would be obliged to
respect for all persons, even those who are not Americans:
1. prohibition on the use of torture, even in time of war,
even to enemy combatants.
2. Workers bill of rights. Including Chinese slave labor in American
Samoa, and undocumented Mexicans within the US itself. Also
includes protections for sex industry workers.
B. US energy policy - presently, the US consumes 4 terawatts -
60% coal, 30% oil, 5% nuclear, 5% hydro. By 2050, I predict
a US energy demand of 10 terawatts, with coal supplying 95%
of that, and half the energy budget being used by the energy
industry itself to make the coal usable and sequester the emissions.
C. Global Warming - global warming is the hypothesis that average
planetary temperatures have some relevance to anything; it is wrong.
However, Earth's climate has never been stable, and the current global
climate is obviously collapsing. The new climate will be substantially
warmer than the present one in the higher northern latitudes, and
there is nothing anyone can do that will change that - once triggered,
a climate change is self-sustaining. The properties of the new
meta-stable equilibrium will depend on atmospheric chemistry,
which is poorly understood. However, it seems clear to me that
restricting the use of carbon burning energy sources to India
and China can only worsen emissions by causing an additional
transportation burden, as coal ships must then move rock from
Kentucky to the Far East.
D. Labor Policy - The US does not presently have the labor force
needed to sustain our economy. The options are:
1. downsize the economy
2. severely limit retirement and welfare
3. foster immigration
I believe that all of these methods will be needed.
E. Drugs and Firearms - prohibition is not and has never been
an effective method of control. An effective method of control
is needed, but suppression isn't ever going to be it.
F. Religion - I am opposed to any government subsidies of
religion beyond those of other non-profit organizations.
G. Water - the Department of the Interior needs to come up
with a workable waterway management plan.
H. Biofuels - kill the subsidies. The biofuel process burns more
fossil diesel in production than is yielded by the process,
rendering the technology not ready for industry. And the loss
of food production is adversely impacting the global economy.
I. Food - I personally buy my food from the Mennonite
store, because MSG gives me migraines. I find it preposterous
that the US buys wheat from China, and I am offended that
we are apparently unable to feed our own people despite
vast expanses of good land and a low population density.
We need a better farm policy.
J. Marriage and Murder - these are issues for the States,
not the Feds.
K. Health - the majority of US health issues are self-inflicted
conditions such as obesity, drug addiction, and STDS. I support
curing these afflictions, but I am opposed to health care
subsidies for maintaining them.
Law. the US tort system is totally messed up, and is taking the
insurance industry down with it; there needs to be massive
reform in both.
Are there any other issues I need to take a stand on
before I can be statted?
-Galen
Blade
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:23:10 -0400, "Blade" <kumo...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>> I know a lot of people say that arguing on the internets never solves
>>> anything. I think it's a shame. You get to deal with people that you
>>> would have never met before and hear their perspectives. People who
>>> don't
>>> take advantage of that are missing a lot.
>>
>>Yep. I know I've learned a lot from discussions and arguments online. If
>>nothing else, it often clarifies my own thoughts and beliefs.
>
> I don't know if I'm left or right; tell me:
From that, you're mostly left-leaning.
(snip)
> C. Global Warming - global warming is the hypothesis that average
> planetary temperatures have some relevance to anything; it is wrong.
> However, Earth's climate has never been stable, and the current global
> climate is obviously collapsing. The new climate will be substantially
> warmer than the present one in the higher northern latitudes, and
> there is nothing anyone can do that will change that - once triggered,
> a climate change is self-sustaining.
I suggest you find some accredited scientific papers that support your
beliefs if you're going to be as firm on them as you sound. If you can find
very few, then I suggest you ask yourself why you are so certain.
-
Blade
afedakendragon
> I don't know if I'm left or right; tell me:
<snip>
> Are there any other issues I need to take a stand on
> before I can be statted?
> -Galen
You might address Genetics in general, more specifically Stem Cell
Reserach, and to truly tackle the hotbutton issue, Embryonic Stem Cell
research. I mean really, we're not getting any close to building a
proper cat-brained school girl android, and I DEMAND to know WHY!
Also, whether by intent or accident, you sidestepped abortion, which
is usually a metric used in this calculation.
--
Abraham Evangelista
sanjian
> On Jun 18, 9:59 pm, Captain Nerd <cptn...@nerdwatch.com> wrote:
>
>> Exactly. If you can't hold your own defending your ideas/beliefs,
>> how strong can they really be?
>>
>> Cap.
>
> I once heard it the exact opposite: If you feel compelled to defend
> them, then you must not be secure in your beliefs.
I believe the word that best fits that is sophistry. Though "utter
bullshit" also works if you allow more than one word. If one TRUELY
believes in what they say, then they will want to spread the word. Whoever
gave you that line you quoted was probably trying to conceal the fact that
he had no legs to stand on, but didn't want to be forced to think about it.
sanjian
Something to add to that. Not only find accredited scientfic papers, but
think about them. Study them. Cut them open and see if they're hollow
inside. Never rely on experts (and that includes people who I respect the
hell out of, like Frederick Hayek, Thomas Sowell, and Milton Freedman) just
because they're experts. I can assure you, for every expert you find,
there's another expert saying something different (or, in this case,
thirty-thousand scientists who signed a petition signifying that it was NOT
settled science). Use your brain, not your "I believe" button.
Of course, a lot of people says that makes me an arrogant bastard.
sanjian
I think David's referring to the fact that about a third of the voters are
independant or moderate, depending on the poll. However, I don't think
that's the same thing as saying they're swing voters.
sanjian
> On Jun 19, 4:26 am, "sanjian" <mun...@vt.edu> wrote:
>> None the less, as disappointed as we are with our own party, the
>> other one is much farther away from what we consider the best ideals
>> for America.
>>
>> None the less, I still say the dems were stupid in not offering Mark
>> Warner anything he wanted to run. A Virginia democrat is very
>> different from a New England democrat (or a Chicago one). And while
>> republicans wouldn't have likely voted for him, we would have felt
>> safe not voting at all. They had the perfect storm, but they
>> decided to pander, instead. Well, good for McCain I guess. Not
>> that it makes me any happier.
>
> McCain is the best the Republicans have in terms of electability in a
> post-Bush world, you have to reconcile yourself to that. The Dems
Hardly. Bush was a waffly moderate. McCain is a waffly moderate. McCain
isn't a break from Bush, he IS Bush, but without the tax cuts.
Rememeber, at this point, Reagan was trailing Mondale by twenty points.
Things change. And Obama will likely keep sticking his foot in his mouth.
Any politician as young as him would do the same. It's just that most do it
safely out of the spotlight.
> have no such restriction to force them closer to the center, so
> they're running on charisma in the hopes that star power overcomes all
> else, including what vestiges of bigotry remain in this country.
Indeed. We'll see if the North can overcome theirs.
> Me? I voted for McCain in primaries, (going for experience over other
> stuffs, and it was an open primary- he lost my state anyways...) but
> ever since the Guantanamo ruling, I'm vacillating. I want some clean
> break with the Bush *treatment* policies, a return to "America, the
> good guys", but now I'm wondering how much McCain can deliver. Might
> come down to who he chooses as running mate...
I know. It's awful that we treat these guys like princes down in GITMO,
while they spit on our troops, throw urine and feces on them, and assault
them. Alas, I don't see McCain cracking down.
Bush should treat them like the Geneva Conventions permit. Bullets are
cheaper than cells.
sanjian
Or, in Chicago, a third of the population is ten percent of the voters.
Galen
Abortion and euthansia, if they are crimes at all,
are crimes of murder, and therefore a matter for
the States.
The other side of your question would seem to be
the issue of where federal money for medical research
should go; I propose that the question can only be
answered as part of a comprehensive health policy,
which does not yet exist.
-Galen
sanjian
And make sure you're burried in Chicago so you can continue to take part in
the electoral process.
David Johnston
wrote:
>Yet ignores that less than 50% of the population eligible to vote do.
That's because I don't care. People who consistently don't vote,
don't matter.
sanjian
Be glad they don't vote. The electoral process is not helped by uninformed
people flipping a coin or voting for the guy with the best hair (in which
case, we really should have gone with Mitt).
Captain Nerd
"sanjian" <mun...@vt.edu> wrote:
Don't want to disenfranchise Postmetabolic-Americans...
paranormalized
> paranormalized wrote:
> > On Jun 19, 4:26 am, "sanjian" <mun...@vt.edu> wrote:
> >> None the less, as disappointed as we are with our own party, the
> >> other one is much farther away from what we consider the best ideals
> >> for America.
>
> >> None the less, I still say the dems were stupid in not offering Mark
> >> Warner anything he wanted to run. A Virginia democrat is very
> >> different from a New England democrat (or a Chicago one). And while
> >> republicans wouldn't have likely voted for him, we would have felt
> >> safe not voting at all. They had the perfect storm, but they
> >> decided to pander, instead. Well, good for McCain I guess. Not
> >> that it makes me any happier.
>
> > McCain is the best the Republicans have in terms of electability in a
> > post-Bush world, you have to reconcile yourself to that. The Dems
>
> Hardly. Bush was a waffly moderate. McCain is a waffly moderate. McCain
> isn't a break from Bush, he IS Bush, but without the tax cuts.
>
McCain, and probably is similarly affecting 2/3 of voters. ~_~
The Republicans might overcome the brand problem of Bush, they might
not. But how would you recommend they start?
> Rememeber, at this point, Reagan was trailing Mondale by twenty points.
> Things change. And Obama will likely keep sticking his foot in his mouth.
> Any politician as young as him would do the same. It's just that most do it
> safely out of the spotlight.
>
*shrug* I don't follow polling too closely, I'm more concerned with
who *I* should vote for in clean conscience.
And I'm not sure who to go for this year.
> > have no such restriction to force them closer to the center, so
> > they're running on charisma in the hopes that star power overcomes all
> > else, including what vestiges of bigotry remain in this country.
>
> Indeed. We'll see if the North can overcome theirs.
>
Actually, I only started pondering this issue after running across
this poll
So, people are still unsure about how much racism is around in this
country... but the breakdown the report gives is not primarily
geographic, but education/income levels. That's at least one
vindication for progress.
Ah well. So long as one's personal conscience is clean, the rest is
spectator sport.
> > Me? I voted for McCain in primaries, (going for experience over other
> > stuffs, and it was an open primary- he lost my state anyways...) but
> > ever since the Guantanamo ruling, I'm vacillating. I want some clean
> > break with the Bush *treatment* policies, a return to "America, the
> > good guys", but now I'm wondering how much McCain can deliver. Might
> > come down to who he chooses as running mate...
>
> I know. It's awful that we treat these guys like princes down in GITMO,
> while they spit on our troops, throw urine and feces on them, and assault
> them. Alas, I don't see McCain cracking down.
>
Cops/Prison Guards deal with shit all the time. Army personnel who
get placed in the same job should expect the same. Do I expect
angels? No, there will be shit flung on both sides, and prison guards
must retain control... But the *System* must *try* to stand above the
fray, nor ignore basic Rules of Law.
> Bush should treat them like the Geneva Conventions permit. Bullets are
> cheaper than cells.
Umm, we do have innocents in GITMO, remember. The prisoners taken on
the battlefield don't bother me 1/100 as much as the ones acquired by
bounties.
The strawman I could ask is "does the average Afghani deserve habeus
corpus, or do we execute the ones who look at troops funny, so long as
he pisses neighbors off?" but as I acknowledge, that *is* a strawman.
I assume you are not executing the bountied detainees, but what rights
do you give them?
And lastly, how do you view the case of George John Dasch as regarding
the fairness of military tribunals? The guy who defected and turned
over the whole Nazi operation still gets sentenced to 30 yrs...
freaky. Also in danger for his life in prison, apparently, with
prisoners rioting to kill the 'Nazi'... Released by Truman, but never
fully exonerated.
Wikipedia link- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_John_Dasch
pdf from a legal journal- Ctrl-F on Dasch to find the relevant
parts...
http://www.abcny.org/Publications/record/17.%20Vol.%2057,%20Nos.%201-2,%20Winter-Spring%202002.pdf
http://tiny.cc/CT34Y
remember, pdf, so only go there if you got bandwidth... the latter is
where I found out about the riot, though
Jonathan Fisher
depressed over "truth is the first casualty of war..."
sanjian
>> Hardly. Bush was a waffly moderate. McCain is a waffly moderate.
>> McCain
>> isn't a break from Bush, he IS Bush, but without the tax cuts.
>>
> Err, this isn't helping to convince me that I *should* vote for
> McCain, and probably is similarly affecting 2/3 of voters. ~_~
I'm having a hard time convincing MYSELF that I should vote for McCain. Why
should you think I'm trying to convince YOU? I just want you to see him
(and Bush) for what they really are. Hate them for the right reasons.
> The Republicans might overcome the brand problem of Bush, they might
> not. But how would you recommend they start?
Bobby Jindal. The only problem is that he's a brand-new governor. Thus
making him the only politician in the western hemisphere with less
experience than Obama. ^o^
Frankly, re-branding can wait. I'd like them all to read the constitution
first. Ron Paul will administer a final exam (I'm not a Paulite, but I do
recognize that he's got a pretty good grip on it, save for his irrational
problem with the Vice President carrying out the business of the executive
branch, at the request of the President).
>> Rememeber, at this point, Reagan was trailing Mondale by twenty
>> points.
>> Things change. And Obama will likely keep sticking his foot in his
>> mouth.
>> Any politician as young as him would do the same. It's just that
>> most do it
>> safely out of the spotlight.
>>
> *shrug* I don't follow polling too closely, I'm more concerned with
> who *I* should vote for in clean conscience.
It depends on your priorities. Some people claim that voting for the lesser
of evils is still voting for evil. While that's nice, it's also not
practical. Not voting for the lesser of evil is to be complicit in
accepting the greater evil. I say take the lesser evil and work to promote
good down the road. That way you'll have less damage to fix later on.
It's time we start considering a new system. I'm not for proportional
representation, but some sort of run-off system would be nice.
> And I'm not sure who to go for this year.
Vote for me as Emperor of the World (however, following basketball rules,
that pretty much only includes the U.S.)
>>> have no such restriction to force them closer to the center, so
>>> they're running on charisma in the hopes that star power overcomes
>>> all
>>> else, including what vestiges of bigotry remain in this country.
>>
>> Indeed. We'll see if the North can overcome theirs.
>>
> Actually, I only started pondering this issue after running across
> this poll
>
> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/78_would_vote_for_black_candidate_less_sure_of_friends
>
> http://tiny.cc/V9SPw
>
> So, people are still unsure about how much racism is around in this
> country... but the breakdown the report gives is not primarily
> geographic, but education/income levels. That's at least one
> vindication for progress.
I find polls that measure how people think other people think to be flawed
at their very concept, and just about meaningless.
As for geography, though it's mostly anecodotal evidence, I've found
northerners to be far more racist, especially those from NYC and Jersey. I
think it's probably because, while they didn't have the same problems with
slavery and OVERT racism that we had, they still had a certain attitude that
put blacks in a different category. Also, northern society is more
stratified. While there may be plenty of blacks, they didn't really
interact with them like we were forced to in the south (and, for the record,
I think it's good that we were forced to. I shouldn't have to say it, but
you never know). Basically, the south came to terms with our racism, while
the north has had the luxory of maintaining their class and cultural sytems,
using blacks only as decoration.
> Ah well. So long as one's personal conscience is clean, the rest is
> spectator sport.
>
>>> Me? I voted for McCain in primaries, (going for experience over
>>> other
>>> stuffs, and it was an open primary- he lost my state anyways...) but
>>> ever since the Guantanamo ruling, I'm vacillating. I want some
>>> clean
>>> break with the Bush *treatment* policies, a return to "America, the
>>> good guys", but now I'm wondering how much McCain can deliver.
>>> Might
>>> come down to who he chooses as running mate...
>>
>> I know. It's awful that we treat these guys like princes down in
>> GITMO,
>> while they spit on our troops, throw urine and feces on them, and
>> assault
>> them. Alas, I don't see McCain cracking down.
>>
> Cops/Prison Guards deal with shit all the time. Army personnel who
> get placed in the same job should expect the same. Do I expect
> angels? No, there will be shit flung on both sides, and prison guards
> must retain control... But the *System* must *try* to stand above the
> fray, nor ignore basic Rules of Law.
Which rules of law? Which law? You may find that we aren't in violation,
like you seem to believe. Are things perfect? Of course not. But GITMO is
not Abu Grabe.
>> Bush should treat them like the Geneva Conventions permit. Bullets
>> are
>> cheaper than cells.
>
> Umm, we do have innocents in GITMO, remember. The prisoners taken on
> the battlefield don't bother me 1/100 as much as the ones acquired by
> bounties.
It's a war. Our choices are to take prisoners, or kill everyone who is
suspect. Make your choice. However, until our troops unlock the
omniscience license, they have to make the judgement call.
If you create as system where we can't be sure the jihaddists we capture
will remain out of the conflict, the only choice open to our troops is to
take them out of commission in the field.
> The strawman I could ask is "does the average Afghani deserve habeus
> corpus, or do we execute the ones who look at troops funny, so long as
> he pisses neighbors off?" but as I acknowledge, that *is* a strawman.
> I assume you are not executing the bountied detainees, but what rights
> do you give them?
One of my biggest beefs with Bush in this war (other than his "small
footprint" strategy, which turned out to be as flawed as Clintion's
police-and-courts solution - both reasonable ideas that didnt work like we
had hoped) is his failure to declare detainees to be Prisoners of War, once
we determine that they don't have information. While most of them aren't
entitled to the protections, and we shouldn't give them, it does afford a
certain protection for those who may be innocent.
> And lastly, how do you view the case of George John Dasch as regarding
> the fairness of military tribunals? The guy who defected and turned
> over the whole Nazi operation still gets sentenced to 30 yrs...
> freaky. Also in danger for his life in prison, apparently, with
> prisoners rioting to kill the 'Nazi'... Released by Truman, but never
> fully exonerated.
Morally acceptable. Strategically flawed.
Captain Nerd
"sanjian" <mun...@vt.edu> wrote:
> paranormalized wrote:
> > On Jun 19, 3:17 pm, "sanjian" <mun...@vt.edu> wrote:
> >> paranormalized wrote:
>
> >> Hardly. Bush was a waffly moderate. McCain is a waffly moderate.
> >> McCain
> >> isn't a break from Bush, he IS Bush, but without the tax cuts.
> >>
> > Err, this isn't helping to convince me that I *should* vote for
> > McCain, and probably is similarly affecting 2/3 of voters. ~_~
>
> I'm having a hard time convincing MYSELF that I should vote for McCain. Why
> should you think I'm trying to convince YOU? I just want you to see him
> (and Bush) for what they really are. Hate them for the right reasons.
>
> > The Republicans might overcome the brand problem of Bush, they might
> > not. But how would you recommend they start?
>
> Bobby Jindal. The only problem is that he's a brand-new governor. Thus
> making him the only politician in the western hemisphere with less
> experience than Obama. ^o^
>
> Frankly, re-branding can wait. I'd like them all to read the constitution
> first. Ron Paul will administer a final exam (I'm not a Paulite, but I do
> recognize that he's got a pretty good grip on it, save for his irrational
> problem with the Vice President carrying out the business of the executive
> branch, at the request of the President).
My candidate was Fred Thompson, but apparently the US isn't ready
for a "type B" President who actually has ideas and stands for
them, and defends them consistently. I'd vote for Mike Steele
too, he's done a lot with the crappy job of Lt. Governor in Maryland,
and got elected as a Republican without pandering to the left wing
or "moderates".
Jindal would be good, from what I've read, but unfortunately I
don't think anyone of my generation is ready to be President (not
sure they'd ever be, either. I have high hopes for the Gen-Y'ers
I've known, though).
sanjian
> In article <fcSdnb-xSa7SvcHV...@posted.internetamerica>,
>> Frankly, re-branding can wait. I'd like them all to read the
>> constitution first. Ron Paul will administer a final exam (I'm not
>> a Paulite, but I do recognize that he's got a pretty good grip on
>> it, save for his irrational problem with the Vice President carrying
>> out the business of the executive branch, at the request of the
>> President).
>
> My candidate was Fred Thompson, but apparently the US isn't ready
> for a "type B" President who actually has ideas and stands for
> them, and defends them consistently. I'd vote for Mike Steele
Had he done so, he might be the nominee right now. What we weren't ready
for is another "Oops, I forgot I was supposed to be involved in some sort of
campaign," lackluster, Bob-Dole candidate.
> too, he's done a lot with the crappy job of Lt. Governor in
> Maryland, and got elected as a Republican without pandering to the
> left wing or "moderates".
Maryland wasn't ready for the concept of a black conservative.
Captain Nerd
"sanjian" <mun...@vt.edu> wrote:
> Captain Nerd wrote:
> > In article <fcSdnb-xSa7SvcHV...@posted.internetamerica>,
>
>
> >> Frankly, re-branding can wait. I'd like them all to read the
> >> constitution first. Ron Paul will administer a final exam (I'm not
> >> a Paulite, but I do recognize that he's got a pretty good grip on
> >> it, save for his irrational problem with the Vice President carrying
> >> out the business of the executive branch, at the request of the
> >> President).
> >
> > My candidate was Fred Thompson, but apparently the US isn't ready
> > for a "type B" President who actually has ideas and stands for
> > them, and defends them consistently. I'd vote for Mike Steele
>
> Had he done so, he might be the nominee right now. What we weren't ready
> for is another "Oops, I forgot I was supposed to be involved in some sort of
> campaign," lackluster, Bob-Dole candidate.
Actually, for that I fault the "experts" he started listening to
and depending on. I think if he'd been left to his own devices
(and his wife's), he probably would have run a better campaign.
Mary Matelin as a campaign advisor? Sorry, I wouldn't. Her
husband the Snake King, maybe, if I wanted to lose the ability
to look myself in the mirror ever again.
> > too, he's done a lot with the crappy job of Lt. Governor in
> > Maryland, and got elected as a Republican without pandering to the
> > left wing or "moderates".
>
> Maryland wasn't ready for the concept of a black conservative.
But he stirred up a lot of trouble in the process and got at least
some black leaders to re-think their dependence on the Democrat
Party. He's not gone, yet.
sanjian
> In article <IMqdncwC5Mhf-MHV...@posted.internetamerica>,
> "sanjian" <mun...@vt.edu> wrote:
>> Had he done so, he might be the nominee right now. What we weren't
>> ready for is another "Oops, I forgot I was supposed to be involved
>> in some sort of campaign," lackluster, Bob-Dole candidate.
>
> Actually, for that I fault the "experts" he started listening to
> and depending on. I think if he'd been left to his own devices
> (and his wife's), he probably would have run a better campaign.
> Mary Matelin as a campaign advisor? Sorry, I wouldn't. Her
> husband the Snake King, maybe, if I wanted to lose the ability
> to look myself in the mirror ever again.
I like ol' cueball.
I like Mary, as well. She's a very solid analyst. However, that does not
imply the ability to run a campaign. It's like the difference between an
architect and a superintendant.
Speaking of architects, you think Rove's going to get involved?
>>> too, he's done a lot with the crappy job of Lt. Governor in
>>> Maryland, and got elected as a Republican without pandering to the
>>> left wing or "moderates".
>>
>> Maryland wasn't ready for the concept of a black conservative.
>
> But he stirred up a lot of trouble in the process and got at least
> some black leaders to re-think their dependence on the Democrat
> Party. He's not gone, yet.
Let's hope so.
It's always frustrated me that northerners (sorry, I consider Maryland to be
north) called Tennessee racist, because Harold Ford jr. lost a hard-fought,
close race. It's proof that the south, or at least the republican party is
racist. However, they think nothing of the losses of Steel, Lynn Swann, and
Ken Blackwell. I guess some candidates are blacker than others.
Not that I blame the democrats. Their job is to get their party elected.
Period. While I don't agree with the dirty tricks, I've no real right to
bitch about it.
Speaking of race, by last count, I've got two clear examples of Obama
playing the race card (and not in a way that can be "clarified" away), and
two of him using derogatory terms for white people. Fortunately for him, he
didn't say macacca.
Captain Nerd
"sanjian" <mun...@vt.edu> wrote:
> Captain Nerd wrote:
> > In article <IMqdncwC5Mhf-MHV...@posted.internetamerica>,
> > "sanjian" <mun...@vt.edu> wrote:
>
> >> Had he done so, he might be the nominee right now. What we weren't
> >> ready for is another "Oops, I forgot I was supposed to be involved
> >> in some sort of campaign," lackluster, Bob-Dole candidate.
> >
> > Actually, for that I fault the "experts" he started listening to
> > and depending on. I think if he'd been left to his own devices
> > (and his wife's), he probably would have run a better campaign.
> > Mary Matelin as a campaign advisor? Sorry, I wouldn't. Her
> > husband the Snake King, maybe, if I wanted to lose the ability
> > to look myself in the mirror ever again.
>
> I like ol' cueball.
Mr. "Drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park"? Yeah,
there's a lot to like about a man who described Paula Jones and
the other Clinton accusers that way.
>
> I like Mary, as well. She's a very solid analyst. However, that does not
> imply the ability to run a campaign. It's like the difference between an
> architect and a superintendant.
>
> Speaking of architects, you think Rove's going to get involved?
Not if McCain wants to win. Rove is a good strategist, but if
he gets involved the Democrats will be able to scream "See? It's
the third Bush term after all!" Not that they haven't, but it
would just give them more ammunition.
>
> >>> too, he's done a lot with the crappy job of Lt. Governor in
> >>> Maryland, and got elected as a Republican without pandering to the
> >>> left wing or "moderates".
> >>
> >> Maryland wasn't ready for the concept of a black conservative.
> >
> > But he stirred up a lot of trouble in the process and got at least
> > some black leaders to re-think their dependence on the Democrat
> > Party. He's not gone, yet.
>
> Let's hope so.
>
> It's always frustrated me that northerners (sorry, I consider Maryland to be
> north) called Tennessee racist, because Harold Ford jr. lost a hard-fought,
> close race. It's proof that the south, or at least the republican party is
> racist. However, they think nothing of the losses of Steel, Lynn Swann, and
> Ken Blackwell. I guess some candidates are blacker than others.
>
> Not that I blame the democrats. Their job is to get their party elected.
> Period. While I don't agree with the dirty tricks, I've no real right to
> bitch about it.
I think what pissed some of them off (and I can't blame them for it)
was the MD Democrat party candidates not even bothering to campaign
in Prince George's County, a majority black, very upscale county,
because they publicly admitted "well, they're going to vote for
our candidate anyway". No one likes being taken for granted and
ignored like that.
> Speaking of race, by last count, I've got two clear examples of Obama
> playing the race card (and not in a way that can be "clarified" away), and
> two of him using derogatory terms for white people. Fortunately for him, he
> didn't say macacca.
And even if he came out and called someone a "cracker" like Bob
Buell did the other day, it still wouldn't matter. At this stage
Obama would have to be caught on tape sacrificing babies wearing
a Nazi uniform to make a dent in his approval. He might lose, even.
Maybe.
sanjian
> In article <x92dndY464UoScHV...@posted.internetamerica>,
> "sanjian" <mun...@vt.edu> wrote:
>> I like ol' cueball.
>
> Mr. "Drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park"? Yeah,
> there's a lot to like about a man who described Paula Jones and
> the other Clinton accusers that way.
I don't have to agree with him to like him. Hell, you know people like me
have been the targets of his polemics many times. But that's politics.
>> I like Mary, as well. She's a very solid analyst. However, that
>> does not imply the ability to run a campaign. It's like the
>> difference between an architect and a superintendant.
>>
>> Speaking of architects, you think Rove's going to get involved?
>
> Not if McCain wants to win. Rove is a good strategist, but if
> he gets involved the Democrats will be able to scream "See? It's
> the third Bush term after all!" Not that they haven't, but it
> would just give them more ammunition.
He doesn't have to be visible to be involved.
>>>>> too, he's done a lot with the crappy job of Lt. Governor in
>>>>> Maryland, and got elected as a Republican without pandering to
>>>>> the left wing or "moderates".
>>>>
>>>> Maryland wasn't ready for the concept of a black conservative.
>>>
>>> But he stirred up a lot of trouble in the process and got at least
>>> some black leaders to re-think their dependence on the Democrat
>>> Party. He's not gone, yet.
>>
>> Let's hope so.
>>
>> It's always frustrated me that northerners (sorry, I consider
>> Maryland to be north) called Tennessee racist, because Harold Ford
>> jr. lost a hard-fought, close race. It's proof that the south, or
>> at least the republican party is racist. However, they think
>> nothing of the losses of Steel, Lynn Swann, and Ken Blackwell. I
>> guess some candidates are blacker than others.
>>
>> Not that I blame the democrats. Their job is to get their party
>> elected. Period. While I don't agree with the dirty tricks, I've no
>> real right to bitch about it.
>
> I think what pissed some of them off (and I can't blame them for it)
> was the MD Democrat party candidates not even bothering to campaign
> in Prince George's County, a majority black, very upscale county,
> because they publicly admitted "well, they're going to vote for
> our candidate anyway". No one likes being taken for granted and
> ignored like that.
Hence my warnings against block voting. I mean, how much work would you
get from an employee who knew you wouldn't fire him?
>> Speaking of race, by last count, I've got two clear examples of Obama
>> playing the race card (and not in a way that can be "clarified"
>> away), and two of him using derogatory terms for white people.
>> Fortunately for him, he didn't say macacca.
>
> And even if he came out and called someone a "cracker" like Bob
> Buell did the other day, it still wouldn't matter. At this stage
> Obama would have to be caught on tape sacrificing babies wearing
> a Nazi uniform to make a dent in his approval. He might lose, even.
> Maybe.
At this point, the democrats ALWAYS poll high. November's a long ways off,
and gas prices are high. While McCain ain't much better on that front, at
least he's started moving, while Obama's pretty much said high prices are a
good thing. If americans ever find out about it, they'll remember THAT.
Captain Nerd
"sanjian" <mun...@vt.edu> wrote:
> Captain Nerd wrote:
> > In article <x92dndY464UoScHV...@posted.internetamerica>,
> > "sanjian" <mun...@vt.edu> wrote:
>
> >> I like ol' cueball.
> >
> > Mr. "Drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park"? Yeah,
> > there's a lot to like about a man who described Paula Jones and
> > the other Clinton accusers that way.
>
> I don't have to agree with him to like him. Hell, you know people like me
> have been the targets of his polemics many times. But that's politics.
Politics is one thing, but this was a matter of law. Slandering
an opponent in a political race is one thing, slandering the
plaintiff in a lawsuit is another.
> >> Speaking of architects, you think Rove's going to get involved?
> >
> > Not if McCain wants to win. Rove is a good strategist, but if
> > he gets involved the Democrats will be able to scream "See? It's
> > the third Bush term after all!" Not that they haven't, but it
> > would just give them more ammunition.
>
> He doesn't have to be visible to be involved.
I don't believe McCain will want him, for the reason I gave.
> >> Not that I blame the democrats. Their job is to get their party
> >> elected. Period. While I don't agree with the dirty tricks, I've no
> >> real right to bitch about it.
> >
> > I think what pissed some of them off (and I can't blame them for it)
> > was the MD Democrat party candidates not even bothering to campaign
> > in Prince George's County, a majority black, very upscale county,
> > because they publicly admitted "well, they're going to vote for
> > our candidate anyway". No one likes being taken for granted and
> > ignored like that.
>
> Hence my warnings against block voting. I mean, how much work would you
> get from an employee who knew you wouldn't fire him?
Considering the majority of people vote the way they do because
that's how they've always voted, it's not surprising that parties
and/or candidates can get complacent. Look at McCain and
conservatives for example. Or don't, if you want to hold down
your lunch...
> >> Speaking of race, by last count, I've got two clear examples of Obama
> >> playing the race card (and not in a way that can be "clarified"
> >> away), and two of him using derogatory terms for white people.
> >> Fortunately for him, he didn't say macacca.
> >
> > And even if he came out and called someone a "cracker" like Bob
> > Buell did the other day, it still wouldn't matter. At this stage
> > Obama would have to be caught on tape sacrificing babies wearing
> > a Nazi uniform to make a dent in his approval. He might lose, even.
> > Maybe.
>
> At this point, the democrats ALWAYS poll high. November's a long ways off,
> and gas prices are high. While McCain ain't much better on that front, at
> least he's started moving, while Obama's pretty much said high prices are a
> good thing. If americans ever find out about it, they'll remember THAT.
To quote a movie, "I have a bad feeling" about this election. I'm
getting that '76, '92 vibe all over again. We'll see.
8-Bit Star
called "What's the Matter with Japan?" can
turn into a debate about who the next U.S.
President should be.
I'd rather talk about Japan, but if we must
talk U.S. Politics, I vote for H.P. Lovecraft.
Chika
I'd quickly add to this that you should also check any vested interests.
Too many reports have been put out which, if you look closely at them, are
not as objective or unbiased as they attempt to make themselves, normally
because somebody has something to lose if they ever said otherwise. I'd
also avoid accepting the word of media reports which are targetted at
gaining readers or viewers rather than presenting facts.
> Of course, a lot of people says that makes me an arrogant bastard.
Nah, not for this! ;)
--
//\ // Chika <miyuki><at><crashnet><org><uk>
// \// Mitsuo... Menda... naha naha...
... Evil Grin #13 <<<<<GRIN>>>>>
Aje RavenStar
"8-Bit Star" <nes...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3954a2b0-b35f-4243...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Well, then, I guess I'll have to cancel yours out with a vote for Gallagher.
How do you know I didn't mean Fred?
Alas, Morisato is too young, which means no Belldandy for first lady (and
who wouldn't rather have Megumi, Urd and Skuld instead of brother Billy and
sister Ruth?)
Farix
> The REAL problem with Japan is how a topic
> called "What's the Matter with Japan?" can
> turn into a debate about who the next U.S.
> President should be.
If certain elements have attempted to hijack the thread so as to attack
conservatives in the United States, then it wouldn't have been dragged
so far off topic.
Farix
Captain Nerd
"Aje RavenStar" <whine...@comcast.net> wrote:
But furriners ain't allowed to be Pres'dent, no how no way.
Now, if we get to vote for personal goddess, I'd definitely
pick Urd, oh my yes.
Captain Nerd
Farix <dhstr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Thread drift is like continental drift, much much faster, but
just as inexorable and inevitable...
sanjian
> In article <g3jbat$kmh$1...@news.parasun.com>,
> Farix <dhstr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 8-Bit Star wrote:
>>> The REAL problem with Japan is how a topic
>>> called "What's the Matter with Japan?" can
>>> turn into a debate about who the next U.S.
>>> President should be.
>>
>> If certain elements have attempted to hijack the thread so as to
>> attack conservatives in the United States, then it wouldn't have
>> been dragged so far off topic.
>>
>> Farix
>
> Thread drift is like continental drift, much much faster, but
> just as inexorable and inevitable...
Have you signed the petition to stop continental drift?
sanjian
Vested interests are unavoidable. It's best just to know where the
interests lie and use your brain about what's being said.
Captain Nerd
"sanjian" <mun...@vt.edu> wrote:
I haven't even gotten around to signing the petition to stop
procrastination.
Mark Jones
".......if we must talk U.S. politics, I vote for H.P.
Lovecraft. "
A shoggoth in every pot! Gonna have to be BIG pots.............
Come to think of it, Dick Cheney always has kind of reminded me of
Nyarlathotep........I think they were frat brothers.
Oliver
> If certain elements have attempted to hijack the thread so as to attack
> conservatives in the United States, then it wouldn't have been dragged
> so far off topic.
If certain conservatives in the United States (most of whom have
probably never been abroad) didn't insist on peddling their paranoid,
crypto-fascist claims that Europe is going to convert to
fundamentalist Islam, I wouldn't have to drag the thread back to
reality.
Captain Nerd
<83694c9a-d6ad-4f18...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Oliver <oaco...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
あのう、その単語は、あなたは知っていません、と思います。
Aber, Ich bin ein "Paranoid Conservative", so Ich lesse nicht, Ich
denke nicht, Ich verstehe nicht.
Don't worry, though, that prominent "American" conservative Mark
Steyn is on trial for thoughtcrime, er, I mean "hate crime", and if
he loses then any mention of the idea of Islamic triumphalism anywhere
will be illegal in Canada, and you can have these threads censored
there.
Blade
"Captain Nerd" <cpt...@nerdwatch.com> wrote in message
news:cptnerd-EFBFAA...@news.giganews.com...
> In article
> <83694c9a-d6ad-4f18...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> Oliver <oaco...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 21, 5:43ハpm, Farix <dhstran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > If certain elements have attempted to hijack the thread so as to attack
>> > conservatives in the United States, then it wouldn't have been dragged
>> > so far off topic.
>>
>> If certain conservatives in the United States (most of whom have
>> probably never been abroad) didn't insist on peddling their paranoid,
>> crypto-fascist claims that Europe is going to convert to
>> fundamentalist Islam, I wouldn't have to drag the thread back to
>> reality.
>
> あのう、その単語は、あなたは知っていません、と思います。
> Aber, Ich bin ein "Paranoid Conservative", so Ich lesse nicht, Ich
> denke nicht, Ich verstehe nicht.
>
> Don't worry, though, that prominent "American" conservative Mark
> Steyn is on trial for thoughtcrime, er, I mean "hate crime", and if
> he loses then any mention of the idea of Islamic triumphalism anywhere
> will be illegal in Canada, and you can have these threads censored
> there.
One wonders why you're so hostile towards Oliver. You might as well be his
mirror image.
-
Blade
Captain Nerd
wrote:
> "Captain Nerd" <cpt...@nerdwatch.com> wrote in message
> news:cptnerd-EFBFAA...@news.giganews.com...
> > In article
> > <83694c9a-d6ad-4f18...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> > Oliver <oaco...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> On Jun 21, 5:43 $B%O (Bpm, Farix <dhstran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > If certain elements have attempted to hijack the thread so as to attack
> >> > conservatives in the United States, then it wouldn't have been dragged
> >> > so far off topic.
> >>
> >> If certain conservatives in the United States (most of whom have
> >> probably never been abroad) didn't insist on peddling their paranoid,
> >> crypto-fascist claims that Europe is going to convert to
> >> fundamentalist Islam, I wouldn't have to drag the thread back to
> >> reality.
> >
> > $B$"$N$&!"$=$NC18l$O!"$"$J$?$OCN$C$F$$$^$;$s!"$H;W$$$^$9!# (B
> > Aber, Ich bin ein "Paranoid Conservative", so Ich lesse nicht, Ich
> > denke nicht, Ich verstehe nicht.
> >
> > Don't worry, though, that prominent "American" conservative Mark
> > Steyn is on trial for thoughtcrime, er, I mean "hate crime", and if
> > he loses then any mention of the idea of Islamic triumphalism anywhere
> > will be illegal in Canada, and you can have these threads censored
> > there.
>
> One wonders why you're so hostile towards Oliver. You might as well be his
> mirror image.
Funny, I don't recall ever calling him or anyone on the left side of
the aisle names like "paranoid", "crypto-fascist" or the like. Maybe
I did but if so I can't seem to find a record of it.
Maybe you mean by "mirror image" I'm nicer and believe in insulting
myself? And I used to have a goatee...
sanjian
> On Jun 21, 5:43 pm, Farix <dhstran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If certain elements have attempted to hijack the thread so as to
>> attack conservatives in the United States, then it wouldn't have
>> been dragged so far off topic.
>
> If certain conservatives in the United States (most of whom have
> probably never been abroad) didn't insist on peddling their paranoid,
Prejudiced much? I'm not sure which one of us evil neocons you are talking
about, but you may want to watch your assumptions. Umption is going to be
right pissed if you make an ass out of him.
> crypto-fascist claims that Europe is going to convert to
> fundamentalist Islam, I wouldn't have to drag the thread back to
> reality.
Your reality is questionable, at best. Take your head out of the sand, then
we can talk about reality.