George W. Bush

doesnt make a difrence you know that. but hey your 17 so your time will come :) cheer up you need to discover a lot. what mine religion has to do with anything i dont know and i know you wont enlight me. simple because you cant. HE is christian said nuf? tells more about you then about me.

I don’t really know what the hell you just said.

atleast i TRY to speak more foreign languages, kiddo :)

Why am I arguing with a Christian right wing nut? There really is no point.

omggggg stop arguing using an internet website.

what a mistake you make now. first: im not right winged. and seceondly our right wing is more socialistic then your republican party. dumb american kiddo

arguments in favor of bush: -christianity, on balance, is a positive force. -america, on balance, is a positive force. if you believe either of these premises, then you will probably also believe bush is a positive force

So, out of all the countries in the world who have issues, we decided to establish a Democracy in Iraq, simply for the sake of it?< -I would argue that bush decided to establish a Democracy in Iraq in order to defend the US. -secondarily, what defends and is good for the US is also good for the world.

Bush used 9/11 to propell us into Iraq, for what? Another colony< the US is not imperialist. those who think it is are not getting accurate info and/or they are not thinking clearly due to over-emotionalism.

Oil< if the US wanted oil, we could have purchased it from saddam for much less than it has cost us to depose him.

Maybe you should do something other that take in all that bullshit < using profanity doesn’t help your argument.

your parents feed you< this ad hominem attack doesn’t help the discussion.

thanks for someone finally saying: THERE IS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN IRAQ AND 9 /11< there most certainly is a connection. to say there is no connection is to see an issue as black and white when there are shades of gray.

the two sides of this issue disagree one what issues are black and white and which are not.

The whole WMDs thing was just thrown out there when people started questioning why we’re there< you can read bush’s speeches to know that’s not true.

Oh, and for the people who are saying that Americas bashing Bush is “unpatriotic”< some of it IS unpatriotic. this also is not a black and white issue. some speech is un-patriotic; some is not. one criteria we could use is: constructive criticism is not un-patriotic.

or we could use the analogy of criticizing one’s parent: sometimes we have a disagreement civilly expressed. sometimes (being the child) we have a disagreement un-civilly expressed. sometimes we say things out of anger that is meant primarily to hurt and that does not contribute anything. and, in extreme cases, we sadly end up actually and truly hating our parent. in this situation we sometimes do and say things to hurt them as much as we possibly can.

each of these situations has an analogy to criticizing one’s country.

why we are hated around the globe< a vastly underestimated reason we’re hated is because of jealousy.

If not for my friends and family, I would gladly move to Europe or Canada or The Netherlands or etc< I think people who make statements like this should “put their money where their mouth is” and make the move. I’m sincere about this; I think it would be a win-win situation all around.

I just want peace, and I’m a firm believer that it can’t be achieved by force. Oh, and “Boomstam”, I meant right wing in U.S. terms, which I would say you fit into pretty well, but sorry for being an ass anyways. All I have to say is that there’s a reason that a large portion of the Republican party is also now turning against Bush. Approval ratings don’t lie. This whole thing is a mess.

I compliment your good intentions.

most everyone wants peace.

we disagree on how to achieve peace.

I think we’ll never have peace because people are fallible and imperfect. (to put it in christian terms, people are sinful by nature.)

that’s not to say we shouldn’t always strive for peace. it’s just that I don’t think it’s possible to achieve it.

unless we’re talking about heaven (or shangri la, neverland, etc), the ONLY way to achieve peace is thru force or threat of force.

police maintain the peace domestically thru force or threat of force.

to support this claim, I would like to mention schoolyard experiences that most of us have had:

we’ve been the victims of bullies. sometimes our parents or other adults intervene. but sometimes there are no adults around. in the minority of cases are we resourceful enough to talk our way into his leaving us alone (or even better: into becoming our ally).

sometimes one must stand up to the bully; by this I mean hit back. this strategy has a better success rate. you pop the bully.

most bullies are put off by someone hitting back.

the american military maintains the peace internationally.

to support this claim, I would like to mention japan and germany.

the japanese made a mistake in attacking the US at pearl harbor. it was an evil thing to do and the US was correct in retaliating.

the japanese, fierce fighters, only surrendered after being nuked.

they have since become a rich nation, a democracy, an ally of the US, and a positive force in the world.

something similar can be said of germany.

I could go on, but I’ll stop here for now.

“don’t like being party of a country that bullies other countries to get what it wants”

Of all the countries in the world (and in world history), the US is the least like a bully.

On the contrary, the US is like Superman: very powerful, but also very ethical and moral. A “good guy.” A boy scout. The world is blessed and lucky that the one “superpower” on earth is the US.

“everyone in America knows their history. We’ve had it crammed down our throats” That’s the trouble. Intelligent, well-meaning youngsters like yourself have been brain-washed and indoctrinated by the schools, from pre-school all the way through grad school. Also by the media.

No offense intended.

“Bush’s defenders had no valid arguments” I’m a big supporter of bush. What do you think of my arguments? I’m no genius, but I’m plenty intelligent. I’m middle-aged. When I was young I was a liberal democrat. I’ve thought long and hard about the issues. Now I’m a conservative republican.

your turn.

Fair enough. I’ve said all I have to say. Except: As far as the being brainwashed part, yes we’ve been brainwashed. America is the greatest nation, the military is the most honorable tradition, and Christianity is the only religion that makes sense. You’re right on that one, we have been brainwashed.

“yes we’ve been brainwashed. America is the greatest nation”

You’re using sarcasm, right?

So are you saying america is not the greatest nation? If so, what would you say is the greatest nation?

“the military is the most honorable tradition” Are you saying the american military is a negative force?

“Christianity is the only religion that makes sense”

It’s evident that you don’t agree with christianity’s theology. That’s fine. But aside from theology, don’t you agree that christianity has been a tremendous force for social good, for promoting science and education and alleviating suffering?

If you want to list the evil that has been done in the name of christianity, please do so. But to be even-handed and fair, you should also list all the good that has been done in the name of christianity. then you can compare the two lists. Take your time. The effort is well worth it.

Let me be more specific about brainwashing: Schools in america brainwash children to believe that america is evil and imperialistic, that the american military is a negative force in the world, and that christianity is evil at worst and old-fashioned and obsolete at best.

Chances are these are the views of most of your teachers from pre-school through graduate school.

And, because they are your (and our) teachers, these are also the views of most students, which includes most children, most teens, and most young adults.

It would take a genius to be able to resist all that brainwashing. I said earlier I was intelligent, but not a genius. So long story short, I succumbed to the brainwashing. I believed what my teachers said, as well as what they implied.

If I had stayed in academia my whole life (i.e. become a professor) I might never have overcome the brainwashing. That’s a scary thought.

Instead I entered the real world.

I look back on my college days with nostalgia; I miss some of it. but I also repudiate some of it – the liberal brainwashing part.

Roughly a third of Americans are liberal like you. Roughly a third are conservative like me. And roughly a third don’t have an opinion.

If Americans were logical vulcans like mr. spock, about 100% of all Americans would be conservative because it’s the most logical ideology.

When I was your age, I had the same opinions as you did.

Salle, your posts are arrogant and superficial. How about some references to back things up, instead of banal statements.

I would argue that bush decided to establish a Democracy in Iraq in order to defend the US. -secondarily, what defends and is good for the US is also good for the world.

I don’t think Bush is as virtuous as you make out. Why is it important to you to establish democracy in Iraq? If it’s the right thing to do, why not Burma – they need democracy many times more than Iraq. If it’s WMD , well we know what happened to that. If it’s the Al Qaida link, show proof, a reference, something. My proposal that Bush went to war (And I can accept a better theory) is to affect oil prices. His cohorts and family have an oil background. I think this is the strongest possibility due to his governments policy benefiting US oil companies.

It’s arrogant and anti-democratic to assume that what is good for the US is good for the world. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0228-04.htm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4755770.stm Most people around the world disagree and disagreed with the US attacks. I don’t think going against the people of the world is pro-democracy act.

if the US wanted oil, we could have purchased it from saddam for much less than it has cost us to depose him.

Agreed, but see above. But it could also be laying the groundwork for Peak Oil. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil Another theory was Saddam was selling oil for Euros http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html which was to cause a lot of problems for the US dollar.

there most certainly is a connection. to say there is no connection is to see an issue as black and white when there are shades of gray

URLS , references?

you can read bush’s speeches to know that’s not true

Bush has his own agendas, and I strongly doubt he will show his hand in his speeches. Failures of the Bush administration http://www.thousandreasons.org/reasons.php Not exactly the guy to quote.

Oh, and for the people who are saying that Americas bashing Bush is “unpatriotic”< some of it IS unpatriotic. this also is not a black and white issue. some speech is un-patriotic; some is not. one criteria we could use is: constructive criticism is not un-patriotic.

“Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” Samuel Johnson (1709–84)

Others: http://thinkexist.com/quotations/patriotism/

why we are hated around the globe< a vastly underestimated reason we’re hated is because of jealousy.

No, as a citizen of US allied country, the reason is US arrogance and self-righteousnous.

If not for my friends and family, I would gladly move to Europe or Canada or The Netherlands or etc< I think people who make statements like this should “put their money where their mouth is” and make the move. I’m sincere about this; I think it would be a win-win situation all around.

Pointless statement. It’s like saying to a Christian, “If you don’t like science or scientific methodology, stop using technology” (I always wanted to say that though)

I think we’ll never have peace because people are fallible and imperfect. (to put it in christian terms, people are sinful by nature.)

And that fallibility is gullibility:

“Of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.” —Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

the ONLY way to achieve peace is thru force or threat of force.

Painfully Orwellian. An idealist would say, hey let’s set up a United Nations and use crazy ideas such as Diplomacy. Hey and we wont subvert and make the UN impotent. But I guess thats what compassionate adults do.

sometimes one must stand up to the bully; by this I mean hit back. this strategy has a better success rate. you pop the bully.

Great for kids, but the bully usually doesn’t get killed. (And the innocent school friends around them)

the japanese made a mistake in attacking the US at pearl harbor. it was an evil thing to do and the US was correct in retaliating.

I wouldn’t say it was evil, they just felt a bit miffed about that whole embargo thing: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25637 Evil is such a “black and white” term.

they have since become a rich nation, a democracy, an ally of the US, and a positive force in the world.

And funnily enough a very atheist nation – http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html

Of all the countries in the world (and in world history), the US is the least like a bully.

It’s pretty much at the top of the list or near the top. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_history_events Quite a few of those are questionable US involvement.

On the contrary, the US is like Superman: very powerful, but also very ethical and moral. A “good guy.” A boy scout. The world is blessed and lucky that the one “superpower” on earth is the US.

There you go again, with that Yank arrogance. See above. (Funny I was having a conversation the other day that superman was so boring and 1 dimensional.)

everyone in America knows their history. We’ve had it crammed down our throats” That’s the trouble. Intelligent, well-meaning youngsters like yourself have been brain-washed and indoctrinated by the schools, from pre-school all the way through grad school. Also by the media.

I’m so-so on this. But I would say anything is dogmatic and indoctrinating if it doesn’t breath and change with time. The world keeps changing, and a scientific not religious world view is more healthier, see below.

“Bush’s defenders had no valid arguments” I’m a big supporter of bush. What do you think of my arguments? I’m no genius, but I’m plenty intelligent. I’m middle-aged. When I was young I was a liberal democrat. I’ve thought long and hard about the issues. Now I’m a conservative republican.

I don’t think your intelligent. I don’t say that to be offensive. I don’t think I’m that intelligent either. A lot of intelligent people can make the best arguments, it doesn’t mean that they are right. (Oh and you arguments are so-so, maybe poor, not the best)

Def of Conservative: holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.

When you say conservative I see the strict definition above. Does this define you?

The world keeps changing, having a conservative world view is a liability, it always has. Read the bible – here are some quotes – owl233/biblequotes.htm”>http://home.earthlink.net/owl233/biblequotes.htm Obviously we don’t keep slaves anymore and stone people for indiscretions.

“the military is the most honorable tradition” Are you saying the american military is a negative force?

See above.

don’t you agree that christianity has been a tremendous force for social good, for promoting science and education and alleviating suffering?

I would say yes and no for a force of social good. Currently no. The Christian agenda seems to be in rolling back or maintaining the status quo of gay rights. I think the environment and poverty is more important – that’s what Christian should be addressing. Progressive Liberalism has been a positive force – womens rights, minority black rights, gay rights, environmentalism, universal health care (in other countries) and welfare with caveats. But I imagine you have your list against. And I would probably agree with you on some of them.

Most scientists are atheist. (Ref: The God Delusion Richard Dawkins). Current Fundamental Christianity is trying to force Intelligent Design and Creationism into the science class room. These are the antithesis to science (again see God Delusion). Evolution is science – and the Fundamentalist is definitely not promoting that.

Alleviating suffering – yes. Causing suffering. Yes. There are also many NGO /non-christian that also alleviate suffering – Christianity doesn’t have a monopoly on this.

list all the good that has been done in the name of christianity. then you can compare the two lists. Take your time. The effort is well worth it.

What you said is good. The bad – the usual suspects – crusades, dark ages, inquisition, witch hunts, gay rights. Very important: Disregard for the environment – not making it a central issue. Irrational fear and irrationality. Disregard of scientific methodology and science. Ignorance. A huge waste of energy and time (Again read the God Delusion)

Let me be more specific about brainwashing: Schools in america brainwash children to believe that america is evil and imperialistic, that the american military is a negative force in the world, and that christianity is evil at worst and old-fashioned and obsolete at best.

The US is psuedo-imperialistic – US currency and bases all over the world. It’s the “I can’t believe it’s not imperialism” kind.

Do US schools really say that? Probably not brainwashing, maybe a little exaggerated. Christianity was made redundant by Darwin and Freud. That was hundred years ago – you guys didn’t get the memo, obviously. Dawkins is doing the mopping up.

Snip the bit in between, yes that’s your world view, good for you. Other people would say the opposite. Who cares.

If Americans were logical vulcans like mr. spock, about 100% of all Americans would be conservative because it’s the most logical ideology.

Please back that up with logic! Not the labored christian kind of logic/rationality, something with a bit of empiricism at the very minimum. You could say its logical that the dictionary definition of conservatism != universally agreed upon quip “The only constant is change”

When I was your age, I had the same opinions as you did.

Funny when I was his age, I had your opinions, christian and all – I kid you not. The change came when I at least tried to stop being full of myself, begin reading anything and everything I could with an open mind. Strongest life changers – De Bono, Pirsig, Chomsky and Dawkins. Heaped on with Psychology, History, Philosophy and Science. Maybe you could start – but your probably too old. (Don’t mean any disrespect – just thinking of the cliche ‘an old dog can’t learn new tricks’)

Bible quotes that got mangled

lol what a screw up postings. davo, you make a fool of yourself, i posted earlier in US political terms hang to the left. in mine country thats central. just because im cristian doesnt mean im right winged. i thought G.W. Bush would be a bad president before he even got elected.

And jojo, the first line in your link, Leviticus 20:9. made me so laugh…..its a bad translation. the original translation out of hebrews is: If anyone curses his father or mother, he will die for sure. and die is the second die as in not going to heaven. after that i stopped reading that respectless site.

Whoever Bush is calling best criminal, Liar, facist, violator of human rights etc etc. isnt worth leaving in the western world. The cruel that some african, mideastern and asian countrys do are much above bush his so called cruelty. Mine grandmother tells me sometimes stories about wo2, in that stories i imagine how real facism would be. And even comparing bush with that is disrespectfull for every humanbeeing that lived under the german suppression.

SO please dont disrespect mine dad and grandparents?

“Salle, your posts are arrogant” I’m sorry you think so. I’m sorry you have interpreted them in that way. I can assure you they are not arrogant.

“Why is it important to you to establish democracy in Iraq?” Democracies don’t make war on the US; in fact, democracies tend not to provoke war at all.

The more democracy, the more safe we all are.

So my answer is that it makes the US and the world safer.

We disagree on bush’s war policy. That’s fine. You want a more limited war. I agree with bush on a war with a larger scope.

You, I take it, would confine military action to Afghanistan. You would not have taken out saddam, right?

On the other hand, I support bush in taking out saddam.

Saddam was a declared and de facto opponent of the US. The US tolerated him. In hindsight (in my and bush’s opinion) we should not have tolerated him.

After 9/11, bush looked at saddam in a new light. At that point, bush decided not to tolerate saddam anymore. I agree.

As I understand your opinion, you believe that we should have kept on tolerating saddam, right?

“If it’s the right thing to do, why not Burma” Iraq was and is a more direct threat to the US.

If the US were a do-gooder without regard to its own welfare, then perhaps the US would look first at who needs democracy most, regardless of other factors.

But the US policy, like the policy of every nation, is “protect ourselves first; defend our citizens first.” This is as it should be.

Most nations go no further than the “protect us first” policy. The US, because it is willing and able, goes beyond just protecting itself and goes about helping and saving other peoples and other countries.

in this case salle is right, his arguments are oke. altho maybe not totally comforming the reality.

To make a country totally democratic between those islamitic states could be fruitfull. And it was, see Libya last year. totally transformed most likely to bush war in iraq. not that im saying the iraq war is a usefull war, but it has done good things too. what the real reasons are of bush i dont know. But only the future will tell of that war was a “good” war.

It wasnt to predict how the rebuilding of iraq went. but redrawing suddenly all forces out of iraq will cause to much chaos. Same about afghanistan, which i support fully(just like mine goverment does) So only together. iraqi and US and allies we have to make it peacefull for the people there.

complaining about wheter the war was good or bad doesnt bring peace

“My proposal that Bush went to war (And I can accept a better theory) is to affect oil prices. His cohorts and family have an oil background. I think this is the strongest possibility due to his governments policy benefiting US oil companies.”

I think I have a better theory, a stronger possibility (as you put it). Let me take it sentence by sentence.

“My proposal that Bush went to war (And I can accept a better theory) is to affect oil prices.”

If the US wanted oil, the US could have purchased it from saddam for much less than it has cost the US to depose him.

“[Bush’s] cohorts and family have an oil background.” Much more than an oil background, Bush’s cohorts and family have a christian background.

Christians tend to be conservative (and conservatives tend to be christian).

like many christians, bush’s family and friends tend to be conservative.

And, most importantly for this discussion, bush is conservative.

Now about conservatives: they will resort to the police and military sooner liberals will. (Another way to put it: liberals will resort to the police and military later than conservatives will.)

We can disagree on which position is better. But what we can agree on, I think, is that conservatives are more pro-military than liberals. (Another way to put it: liberals are more anti-military than conservatives.)

“I think this is the strongest possibility due to his governments policy benefiting US oil companies.” That’s an interesting theory, though not a correct one. The simplest theory that explains the facts is usually the correct one. And that’s the case here: 1. Bush is sincere. He is doing what he thinks is right. 2. And Bush is conservative.

With regard to sincerity, I think you, jojo, are sincere. And I hope that you regard me as sincere.

I think bush is sincere as well. Why? Well, I can personally vouch for the fact that one can have the same opinions as bush and also be sincere!

And I personally don’t have an oil background.

When I was a liberal democrat I was sincere. Now that I’m a conservative republican I’m sincere. Both sides can be sincere.

Even if you don’t believe someone is sincere, in conversing with them, it is useful and practical to assume (if only temporarily) that they are sincere.

when I was 11 years old, I spoke in class about a certain famous discredited politician in a very disrespectful way. my elementary school teacher admonished me, saying that I could disagree with someone, but that I should try to do it in a more civil manner. for one thing, she said, it is not good manners. for another thing, she said, as a practical matter, you are less likely to persuade others to your point of view.

I don’t think it’s good manners nor useful to post unflattering and doctored photos of the subject of a category (in this case, bush). nor do I think it’s a good idea to use profanity in the comments or category names.

this is website is not “worst stuff in the world.”

there are a lot of people who like and support bush. how would you like it if people trashed the subjects and categories of your favorite things?

civil discourse is one thing. profanity and un-classy behavior another.

“Most people around the world disagree and disagreed with the US attacks.”

Yes. And most people are wrong.

Sometimes most people are right; sometimes they are wrong. In this case they are wrong.

“I don’t think going against the people of the world is pro-democracy act”

If a politician went against the wishes of the majority of his constituents, you could make a case that he’s not acting democratically.

But your statement, “I don’t think going against the people of the world is pro-democracy act” is in this case a non-sequitur.

The policy of every nation is to act in its own self-interest. This is as it should be.

Bush acted in what he thought (and what I agree) is america’s best interest.

It makes it easier when doing what one thinks is right is a popular decision.

but it’s not always a popular decision.

Forgive me for resorting to a television analogy but here goes:

The original “star trek” tv show (with kirk and spock) tended liberal.

Star Trek’s “Federation” was what we all hoped the United Nations would one day become.

If we apply star trek to today’s world, is the UN the “Federation”?

The answer is no.

The UN is not powerful, like the Federation. It’s a debating society with non-binding resolutions.

The UN is not diverse. (True, it’s diverse in terms of languages. But it’s not diverse in terms of ideology – the most significant kind of diversity.)

The fact is that the USA is the Federation.

The US is diverse in every respect, including ideology (some of its most vocal critics reside here)

The US is the most powerful entity.

The US “boldly goes” where no one has gone before.

by the way, I’m having some font issues; I don’t mean to be creating “pull quotes.” i.e. I am accidently capitalizing some sentences.

“The US “boldly goes” where no one has gone before.” Sorry, I just think that’s pretty damn funny.

Yes, if you’re liberal it’s “funny bad.”

The main reason why the US is the Federation is that the US is the good guy.

So for liberals like yourself that’s the main place where the analogy breaks down.

‘“Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” Samuel Johnson’

Well, I certainly don’t care for that quote. :P

“reason we’re hated is because of jealousy.”

“No, as a citizen of US allied country, the reason is US arrogance and self-righteousnous”

People tend to succumb to the temptation of ascribing bad intentions to others and good intentions to themselves. Therefore, all nations think all other nations are arrogant, self-righteous, etc.

So we disagree.

“If not for my friends and family, I would gladly move to Europe or Canada or The Netherlands or etc”

‘I think people who make statements like this should “put their money where their mouth is” and make the move. I’m sincere about this; I think it would be a win-win situation all around’

“Pointless statement”

What’s pointless about “putting your money where your mouth is”? Isn’t it better for someone to move to a place where he agrees with the government? Wouldn’t he be happier?

‘It’s like saying to a Christian, “If you don’t like science or scientific methodology, stop using technology” (I always wanted to say that’

I bet you did! :P

Actually, christianity (and its predecessor judaism) is responsible for science and technology for two reasons:

1. it introduced the idea that time is linear and not cyclical

2. it introduced the motivation to learn about and appreciate God’s creation

those two factors have lead to science and technology as we know it today.

Also, during the Dark Ages, christianity (through the Catholic Church) preserved science and technology.

“the ONLY way to achieve peace is thru force or threat of force.”

“Painfully Orwellian”

What do you make of my references to the US defeating germany and japan in world word two?

What historical references can you cite where a provocative dictator was talked out of making war?

“An idealist would say, hey let’s set up a United Nations and use crazy ideas such as Diplomacy”

A conservative would say, “let’s try what has worked in the past.”

It is naïve to say that the US considers diplomacy “crazy.” More to the point, it’s naïve to think that diplomacy always works. Or that diplomacy works without force to back it up.

Idealism is fine, but when it becomes unrealistic, it’s referred to as utopianism.

“we wont subvert and make the UN impotent”

The UN subverted itself. The US didn’t need to help it in this regard. The UN is impotent on its own.

“thats what compassionate adults do”

Compassion is for individuals, private enterprises, churches, and charities.

Justice is in the realm of government.

“the japanese made a mistake in attacking the US at pearl harbor. it was an evil thing to do and the US was correct in retaliating”

“I wouldn’t say it was evil, they just felt a bit miffed about that whole embargo thing”

Another point of disagreement: I say evil; you say “miffed”

salle: “sometimes one must stand up to the bully; by this I mean hit back. this strategy has a better success rate. you pop the bully”

jojo: “Great for kids, but the bully usually doesn’t get killed. (And the innocent school friends around them)”

So this is our disagreement: I say the paradigm holds on both the micro and macro levels. You say the paradigm should be changed on the macro level. Fine. why should the paradigm be changed?

salle: “the ONLY way to achieve peace is thru force or threat of force.”

jojo: “Painfully Orwellian”

Where in history or in fiction have peace and other good things been achieved w/o force or threat of force?

Boomstam: “in this case salle is right, his arguments are oke. altho maybe not totally comforming the reality”

Where do we differ?

salle to vano: “When I was your age, I had the same opinions as you did.”

jojo: “Funny when I was his age, I had your opinions, christian and all – I kid you not.”

I believe you.

1. Usually people go this way: as children they follow their parents. As teens they rebel against their parents. As adults they come back to their parents.

2. This segues up with: as children we are conservative like our parents. As teens we become liberal to rebel against our parents. As adults we (eventually) become conservative again.

3. Or: as children and teens we are liberal. As adults we (eventually) become conservative.

I know many who have gone thru one or more of the above stages. I myself went through #1 and #2.

You’re one of the very few I’ve encountered (online or in person) who has gone the other way, i.e. from conservative to liberal (assuming you remain liberal).

How old are you, if you don’t mind my asking.

“Strongest life changers – De Bono, Pirsig, Chomsky and Dawkins”

I’ve read de bono (if it’s the same one you’re referring to).

I detest chomsky.

“Heaped on with Psychology, History, Philosophy and Science. Maybe you could start – but your probably too old. (Don’t mean any disrespect – just thinking of the cliche ‘an old dog can’t learn new tricks’)”

no offense taken. But you don’t think I’ve read Psychology, History, Philosophy, and Science, ey? :P

Oh, I promise you not, to follow any of the above paths. Whether you have statistics on your side on not, I will follow the humane way, which doesn’t include the most comfortable or most convenient for me, but the true way.

“Oh, I promise you not, to follow any of the above paths”

Did you mean to put the comma in there? Did you mean to say “I promise you not” as in “I don’t promise”?

But either way, I believe your meaning is that you promise not to become more conservative as you age; is that correct?

I understand the feeling of being happy with oneself as one is.

I understand the feeling of not wanting change.

I understand the feeling of never wanting to grow up.

And I understand the feeling of not wanting to become one’s parents.

“Whether you have statistics on your side on not”

I do have them on my side:

-Parents pass on values whether they mean to or not; children get values from their parents whether they appear to or not.

-People change whether they want to or not

-People try to hold onto things that go away

-And people tend to become more conservative as they age (unless they’re unlucky)

“I will follow the humane way”

By that I assume you mean you intend to remain a liberal democrat?

“which doesn’t include the most comfortable or most convenient for me”

Are you saying that it’s more comfortable for you to be conservative?

by the way, I used to live near mead, wa. many years ago.

salle: “[japan has] since become a rich nation, a democracy, an ally of the US, and a positive force in the world”

“And funnily enough a very atheist nation”

Funny in what way?

It’s true that Christianity has not taken hold in japan. They don’t have Christianity in their history. They are distant from Christian strongholds.

I had been making a point about the usefulness of force and the use of force for moral purposes.

but I think you are making a criticism of christianity; is that correct?

if so, I’d like to take this opportunity to defend christianity:

That is perhaps the biggest advantage the US has over Japan: the US is Christian; japan is not.

The combination of Christianity, democracy, and capitalism makes the US the best, most moral nation in history.

japan, tho an ally, does not have this distinction.

This is not an arrogant statement; I had nothing to do with the founding of the US. I’m not that old. :P

It is simply a statement of fact.

Number 1: Sorry for using a comma in the wrong place.

Number 2: I’m Liberal. That doesn’t mean I’m a Democrat.

Number 3: Being Conservative and growing up have nothing to do with each other. That is, regardless of what statistics say.

Number 3: My parents are Democrats who always vote Democrat no matter the issue. I am not a Liberal because I agree or disagree with them. I know both sides, and I like the side I’m on.

Number 4: Where do you get off talking like you’re somehow superior to non-Conservatives? You have you opinions and we have ours.

Number 5: Don’t compare yourself to me. Ever. You don’t know me, so don’t act like you can forsee my future.

Number 6: Yes, current Conservative ideals (in my eyes, from what I’ve seen) benefit individuals as opposed to everyone all around.

Number 7: I am not a statistic. I’m a person, and would like to be treated that way.

And jojo, the first line in your link, Leviticus 20:9. made me so laugh…..its a bad translation. the original translation out of hebrews is: If anyone curses his father or mother, he will die for sure. and die is the second die as in not going to heaven. after that i stopped reading that respectless site.

I went here to look that up and the other english translations said the same. http://www.biblegateway.com/ So your saying don’t read the english translated bible because you might interpret it incorrectly????? God I feel sorry for the people who have been killed for all the bible misinterpretations. Please translate the rest of those bible quotes, because they are all pretty horrid. Especially the slavery ones. I don’t know how it is ‘respectless’, it just has New International Bible quotes. I’m really confused by your statement.

Reading your other things you just don’t make any sense. I can understand your poor english (my italian grandparents who suffered through nazism have the same poor english, so I’m used to it). There just silly inane assertions with nothing to back them up.

I find this a common christian trait. No empirical backup. Two kinds of Christians I know of:

The dictionary defined: having or showing qualities associated with Christians, esp. those of decency, kindness, and fairness. They pretty much are humble and live by that. They don’t wear their religion on their sleeve, forcing their piousness upon us, and we respect them. Then there’s the other kind who don’t make any sense, make wild invalid assertions, and assert violence and war – a blight on humanity. I’ve only met 3 of the dictionary defined kind. And I’ve known a lot of Christian’s (as I’ve stated in my involvement). Non-Christians respect Dictionary defined Christians. If you want more Christians become the dictionary defined kind.

“Salle, your posts are arrogant” I’m sorry you think so. I’m sorry you have interpreted them in that way. I can assure you they are not arrogant.

They are – here’s a couple – secondarily, what defends and is good for the US is also good for the world. On the contrary, the US is like Superman: very powerful, but also very ethical and moral. A “good guy.” A boy scout. The world is blessed and lucky that the one “superpower” on earth is the US.

And this is patronizing: That’s the trouble. Intelligent, well-meaning youngsters like yourself have been brain-washed and indoctrinated by the schools, from pre-school all the way through grad school. Also by the media.

More of what you said snipped, lots of baseless assertions, please some empirical evidence – it’s not that hard to use google

Yes and no with what you said, with caveats. Iraq was impotent from sanctions. Weapons inspectors found no WMD . Iraq had no military strength to attack the US. If you where to make a list of possible threats to the US – North Korea and Iran would be at the top of that list. Not Iraq. You believed the propaganda and there was no evidence. The world would prefer the UN not the US. The US just has to respect the UN.

If the US were a do-gooder without regard to its own welfare,

You could say self-interest. Here’s another one: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1991321,00.html My assertion stands that it is manipulation of oil prices to benefit bushes cronies. My other link asserts that Bush is definitely not dictionary defined christian. Might be a nice guy and all, actions and policies say another: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1991321,00.html

With regard to sincerity, I think you, jojo, are sincere. And I hope that you regard me as sincere.

Sincerity is irrelevant, just back it up.

_I think bush is sincere as well. _

If he was, he should have resigned after they didn’t find WMD . He and his cabinet asserted WMD as reasons for going to war. They didn’t find any. So you have 2 possibilities – he was incompetent and should have resigned. That is the norm. Or he was acting in his own interests. If he was acting in his own interests, he is a war profiteer and criminal. I think impeachment is the answer, maybe treason – would have to look that one up.

snip. how would you like it if people trashed the subjects and categories of your favorite things?

If they backed up there assertions I wouldn’t have a problem with it. But the things I like, don’t go around war mongering.

Yes. And most people are wrong.

You haven’t backed up your assertions. If we don’t have evidence we have your kind of “truthiness”

“I don’t think going against the people of the world is pro-democracy act” is in this case a non-sequitur.

Can be interpreted as such – thinking more of the US/UN shenanigans.

The fact is that the USA is the Federation. The main reason why the US is the Federation is that the US is the good guy.

Oh please. Your analogy falls down when you invoke the prime directive – “Non-involvement in other cultures” (See above military involvement links and Iraq)

Well, I certainly don’t care for that quote.

Made by a man much wiser and more timely than yourself and your assertions. Patriotism seems to follow the same path as Christianity and Conservatism – it becomes dogmatic. Screw this “My country right or wrong” – Whatever happened to appreciating your countries culture, and leaving it at that.

What’s pointless about “putting your money where your mouth is”? Isn’t it better for someone to move to a place where he agrees with the government? Wouldn’t he be happier?

I’ll come clean, I have entertained the thought. But to convince everyone is pointless. So us Science believers get the technology, and you Christians get to go live like the Amish. :)

Actually, christianity (and its predecessor judaism) is responsible for science and technology for two reasons

Point 1. Technology predates judaism. Point 2. it’s more correct to say “it introduced the motivation to learn about and appreciate the world around them” – the Christian God didn’t exist then.

Also, during the Dark Ages, christianity (through the Catholic Church) preserved science and technology

Odd statement.

More stuff

Compassion not for government? Not even domestic policy?

Japan made a really poor strategic move in hitting the US. As I said, evil is so black and white, and my link gives you background on the politics then. Even though I think it was wrong for the US to attack Iraq, I don’t see that as evil, but I could if I did see things in black and white terms. Iraq did not attack the US, the japanese did. The US response was justified. The US/Iraq war was justified on WMD , now its bringing democracy to that country. This is just too labored.

I say the paradigm holds on both the micro and macro levels. You say the paradigm should be changed on the macro level. Fine. why should the paradigm be changed?

I thought it was obvious – the risk to life.

Where in history or in fiction have peace and other good things been achieved w/o force or threat of force?

Obvious, Gandhi. Force is used without wisdom. And this opens up a can of worms, and I’m bored.

You’re one of the very few I’ve encountered (online or in person) who has gone the other way, i.e. from conservative to liberal (assuming you remain liberal).

Bringing it to a left/right dichotomy is so black and white. There are many reasons why someone would become conservative. Good for them. By why follow the dogma? Why stick to sexism, racism, and religion. The world is evolving, and the most important positive values of compassion, justice, friendship, love, curiosity are always there and always a virtue and never obsolete.

How old are you, if you don’t mind my asking.

That’s impolite, but I’m in my 30’s.

I’ve read de bono (if it’s the same one you’re referring to).

Edward De Bono.

I detest chomsky.

Understandable for a christian, he is an extreme empiricist.

no offense taken. But you don’t think I’ve read Psychology, History, Philosophy, and Science, ey? :P

If you have, very superficially.

The combination of Christianity, democracy, and capitalism makes the US the best, most moral nation in history.

Actually every country on this list below the US is more moral in regards to homicide. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

And you have the most teen pregnancies: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_tee_pre-health-teenage-pregnancy

Lot’s of jails too: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_jai-crime-jails

Maybe you could show us this statistical graph which backs you up. It’s more accurate to assert that you would be safer from murder and your teen daughter getting pregnant if you live in a country with less christians.

And this is where I conclude. I’m getting bored of your assertions without anything to back it up. It’s really simple, go to a site called http://www.google.com. Research your point. If you can’t find anything to back up your assertion and if you find the opposite, your probably wrong. Simple critical thinking – it really takes no energy at all. I would say from what you have written that you are a very lazy thinker, and again your assertions baseless and useless. If you can do that, I’ll reply. Otherwise I’m just talking to a parrot, indoctrinated with mindless ideology.

to my fellow bush-supporters, conservatives, and republicans: well, I tried. :)

off to greener pastures…

liberals suck.

dont know if you understand german, but it does make good sense in this language. 9 Wer seinem Vater oder seiner Mutter fluchet, der soll des Todes sterben. (luther version anno 1554)

9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. (King james version)

the same quote Jezus repeats in mat 15,4 by the way.

“Where do we differ?”

Christians are just as evil and bad as non-christians. The US has a lot of false christians, and the strengt of your country doesnt come from believers, infact the US isnt that great at all in freedom, humanrights and open mindness. But i agree to it that the world is lucky to have the US as superpower and not russia, germany, japan, italy or china. I also agree on it could takes force to make it peacefull, but force isnt always the solution. like ghandi, his actions did not deleted fightings and war. those 2 country still having their own cold war. but the peace with S-Arabia didnt come from force but by talking

Boomstam, if you’re really trying to say that you’re a good Christian, you need to reexamine the things you write. Not only the things on this forum, but other people you harass on this site. Here’s a direct quote from someone straight off of your profile, “psst, allah got sucked by mine dog”. Enough said.

Christians are just as evil and bad as non-christians

nuf said

IM SO happy I dont live in america pats all americans

yeah, feel the same way!!

evil

Bush sucks 8llllllllllllllllllD

:)

Visiting this page again after a break.

We may not all of us agree on everything, but at least we can be clear about our positions of disagreement.

Some would call me a “hawk,” and my ideological opponents “doves.” I accept these labels, if by them we mean that hawks are pro-military and doves are anti-military, or that hawks are quicker to resort to force than doves.

I believe we all of us share common ground in that we consider the attack of 9-11 on America’s World Trade Center to be a very negative occurrence. (I freely and frequently use the word “evil” to describe this attack, though I realize some of my dove-ish opponents would not use this word.)

I believe we also can agree that Saddam was a very negative influence on the world. (Again I would use the word evil.)

And thirdly, I believe we can all agree that is it the ideal to use diplomacy and negotiation to resolve disputes.

I think we all agree that diplomacy should never cease, should be on-going, and that it is important to pursue negotiation before, during, and after military action, if any.

I think I have demonstrated my regard for diplomacy and negotiation by my posts here: I have endeavored to be a good “diplomat,” to refrain from cursing and profanity, and to avoid making insults, especially of a personal nature.

That’s because I enjoy debate when the participants can “disagree without being disagreeable.”

I don’t encourage immature or over-emotional words; I consider them not to be conducive to “disagreeing without being disagreeable.”

When I perceive an opponent across the table is getting too hot under the collar, I try to disarm the situation. Sometimes that means taking a step back from the debate, as I did.

My position as a hawk is consistent and cohesive: “speak softly and carry a big stick.” Of course on this webpage, I don’t carry any stick whatsoever. But whether I wield power or not, I always try to “speak softly,” i.e. use civility in my dealings with people.

I hold that the more civil one is, the less often one has to resort to force.

A few of my dove-ish opponents in this forum, on the other hand, have shown themselves to be what I consider to be somewhat poor diplomats, poor negotiators.

This seems to me to be somewhat of a contradiction: Doves advocate relying on negotiation more than hawks (and the most dove-ish advocate using ONLY negotiation and NEVER force).

So it seems to me if you are a dove, you should take special care to use civility, and be especially diplomatic.

That’s why I admire, respect, and support President Bush. He is not short-tempered. He does not act impulsively. He is civil and diplomatic and every other good quality I’ve mentioned here.

But he also “carries a big stick.”

It is necessary for our mutual enemies, the terrorists, to fear Bush.

Salle:

Some things that you say are ok. But generally your reasoning comes across as laboured. (Anecdotes are just plain silly) If I am starting to come across as being edgy, it is because I provide evidence behind my assertions and you don’t. If you don’t have evidence, you have nothing. Nothing. If I am taking a rational approach while backing it up, and you can’t back up yours, of course we’ll all get pissed off.

So put your money were your mouth is, and back up your statements! Else we’ll just put it down to another mad Christian holding up a sign on a street corner, total gibberish.

jojo: “Some things that you say are ok” thanks. Like what?

jojo: “Anecdotes are just plain silly” anecdotes in general?

jojo: “I provide evidence behind my assertions and you don’t. If you don’t have evidence, you have nothing. Nothing. If I am taking a rational approach while backing it up, and you can’t back up yours, of course we’ll all get pissed off. So put your money were your mouth is, and back up your statements! Else we’ll just put it down to another mad Christian holding up a sign on a street corner, total gibberish”

Is that how you talk to people to persuade them to your side?

Is that how you would negotiate with osama bin laden, Iran, or North Korea?

salle: “sometimes one must stand up to the bully; by this I mean hit back. this strategy has a better success rate. you pop the bully”

jojo: “Great for kids, but the bully usually doesn’t get killed. (And the innocent school friends around them)”

Salle: “I say the paradigm holds on both the micro and macro levels. You say the paradigm should be changed on the macro level. Fine. why should the paradigm be changed?”

Jojo: “I thought it was obvious – the risk to life.”

What’s “obvious” to you might not be so obvious to me.

Let me get this straight: You’re saying that it’s okay to stand up against bullies unless the stakes are life and death? So if the stakes are life and death then one should not stand up to bullies? Is that right?

the bullies that are reading this thread—what do you think they think?

Salle: “Where in history or in fiction have peace and other good things been achieved w/o force or threat of force?”

Jojo: “Obvious, Gandhi”

What’s obvious to you might not be so obvious to me.

1. Gandhi stood up against his opponents. that’s different from your position, right? You’re not for resisting the terrorists; you’re for talking to them, correct?

2. it takes much more courage than most people have to use gandhi’s tactics of hunger strikes and non-violent resistance (to put yourself in harm’s way, then not defend yourself). Perhaps you have such courage. If so, you’re in the tiny minority and would have a very difficult time recruiting those like you.

3. gandhi’s tactics worked because his opponents were civilized; Britain is one of the most civilized societies in history. Gandhi’s tactics will not work against our current enemies (terrorists, Iran, North Korea, etc.). They are not civilized. If you try non-violent resistance against them, they will eagerly torture you to death, then sell the video. If you try a hunger strike against them, they will let you starve, or if they might hurry your death along with torture.

Boomstam: “peace with S-Arabia didnt come from force but by talking”

I disagree; it did come from force – the threat of force. Saudi Arabia wouldn’t talk to us if it didn’t fear us.

Civilized societies respect the virtues: patience, restraint, reason, and so on.

Bullies and those who are not civilized respect only strength; they have contempt for weakness and what they consider weakness.