<strong>SDW = your an idiot. And global warming is real, and we better think about new models of dealing with the world because what we decide is important will effect all of the world in the furure.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You know pfflam, and the other supports of his/her points of view, this is exactly why things are bad. Your need to jumpin and fix it! Yes the industrail revolution added immense polution and there is an effort needed to clean it up. However the "we need to decide" is what bothers me. We need to take our cues from our enviroment, not graft onto it.
As an example there were a group of ecologist working to solve the ozone problem a while ago. Their solution involved adding iron to the Antarctic ocean to inspire growth of plankton, there by adding more oxygen and reducing carbon dioxide with one of the most abundant forms of plant life we have. Sounds good, but what is the other side of the coin? Would the plankton starve the fish of needed gases in the water? Would it through off the balance of oxygen we breath? I don't know and don't pretend to. I do know that a drastic change on a global scale in the short term is not good. Ala industrial revolution.
What we need are studies showing what our enviroment is doing to compensate. There is an undeniable balance to nature and it corrects itself, slowly, most often impercetibly. But with people who can percieve and prove theories about the weigh and expanse of the universe there must be some who can percieve the changes.
What we need are studies showing what our enviroment is doing to compensate. There is an undeniable balance to nature and it corrects itself, slowly, most often impercetibly.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You have an excellent point. However, I think we are talking about preventive measures such as Kyoto rather than corrective ones such as your story. That said, I think we can all agree that eliminating or greatly reducing our use of fossil fuels and other pollutants will benefit the environment.
Plainly ignorant? Ignorant to what? Quite contrary to your statement, jimmac is completely aware of Bush's poor democratic record. For instance, was it not Dick Cheney who spoke out against the idea of democratic criticism of the President during the "war"? How completely undemocratic of the Bush White House. Sure, Bush sends our troops to fight for democracy, and he believes in its core concepts. Yet, when political pressure intensifies.... *poof*
So your point here is what, it was the right time to strike with "democratic criticism"?</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's a political question you're asking me.
(By the way, "democratic criticism" is not a special kind. "democratic" is simply an adjective used to describe who the critics are: aka- criticism from democrats. I apologize if I was unclear. Retrospectively, I should have written it the latter way.)
(By the way, "democratic criticism" is not a special kind. "democratic" is simply an adjective used to describe who the critics are: aka- criticism from democrats)
I thought this was a political dicussion <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> and i used the term "democratic criticism" as i did for exactly the reason you suggest. It was the political party of democrats alligning to oppose the republican party. There by making it a special kind of democratic. The special being the differentiation of the political beliefs we all hold, a democratic society, as opposed to those you hold the for the democratic party.
<strong> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> Please. You don't understand what you are talking about.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> please enlighten me then. Were you speaking of the democratic party in your post or the freedom of speech inherent in democracy being exercised by the democrats.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> please enlighten me then. Were you speaking of the democratic party in your post or the freedom of speech inherent in democracy being exercised by the democrats.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Both. The democratic party has a right to criticize whoever they choose. Cheney's lambasting the very idea of criticizing the president during the "war" is undemocratic.
Plainly ignorant? Ignorant to what? Quite contrary to your statement, jimmac is completely aware of Bush's poor democratic record. For instance, was it not Dick Cheney who spoke out against the idea of democratic criticism of the President during the "war"? How completely undemocratic of the Bush White House. Sure, Bush sends our troops to fight for democracy, and he believes in its core concepts. Yet, when political pressure intensifies.... *poof*
Oh give me a BREAK. Poor democratic record? I'd LOVE to hear about that. That is just a stupid statement.
And I'm sorry, just because we have the RIGHT to criticize the President and the war doesn't mean we HAVE too. And, I am convinced most of the criticism was for political gain.....not due to true beliefs.
AND....your last comment about Bush giving up democracy .....I have one thing to say: WHAT THE F.UCK? What are you talking about?
Jimmac writes:
[quote]Like most of his kind I think Bush represents less freedom ( although he preaches otherwise ). I don't think he is a good choice for president. Hence my statement ( well that and to get under your skin ).
Aren't you speaking of yourself? After all I'm sure you have said worse about certain democrats. So it comes down to this after all. People who don't agree with your political choice are ignorant. There is no other way to take your statement. Lame, lame, lame.
My descriptive statements ( mostly in fun ) were aimed at your viewpoints on the world and it's problems not your political choices. So sorry, you can't try that tact. <hr></blockquote>
As far as there being "no other way" to take my statement....that isn't true. I am open to disgareement......that isn't the issue. I truly and honestly believe your statement IS ignorant, not to mention totally unsupportable. Bush does not represent less freedom. Who the hell told you that?
Give me an extra big break. Everything you have said and your demeanor drips with close mindedness.
During republican rule the people of the United States have lost more personal freedoms than at any other time. Bush didn't need to tell me anything. Who stands up of for all these right wing agendas like taking away a woman's right to choose? The problem these days is the democrats are almost as bad. So we end up with milktoast candidates like we had last time.
Yes, from Watergate to the Contras I've seen it all. You know what? It stinks.
Listen bucko, I'd wager I've been around a lot longer ( 30 is still young to me which was almost 20 years ago, just about the average age of people on this forum ) than you so I don't need any lessons in right wing politics. I respect the opinions of people younger than myself until they try to tell me something I know is a bunch of horse sh*t.
Hey there's nothing wrong with being young ( after all I was there once ) but, When I hear crap like what I hear coming from some of these guys it's like deja vous.
By the way I think it's great that there are young people like yourself who can still question. It gives me hope. But, as for the rest hasn't the human race learned anything from the past?
It's really quite disheartening to hear the same closeminded garbage that I heard when I was a boy. I mean one would hope for some progress instead of going backwards. But I guess these bad apples are always around.
Oh give me a BREAK. Poor democratic record? I'd LOVE to hear about that. That is just a stupid statement.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You wouldn't consider Cheney's comments the epitome of democracy now would you? As far as my statement being labled "stupid-" No, sir, you honestly do not intend to offend my intelligence now do you?
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
And I'm sorry, just because we have the RIGHT to criticize the President and the war doesn't mean we HAVE too.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well... yes, I agree that having the right does not mean that one may freely exercise it anyway one chooses (Akin to the situation of "buying a high-priced sporting event ticket and freely yelling injurious epithets at players).
Yet, that is irrelavent to my point. Cheney criticized that very right to criticize the President during a time of "war."
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
And, I am convinced most of the criticism was for political gain.....not due to true beliefs.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> Democrats could enjoy politcal gain regardless of motive. To say that politics is not a part of true beliefs to polititians reflects a poor understanding of the political process.
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
AND....your last comment about Bush giving up democracy .....I have one thing to say: WHAT THE F.UCK? What are you talking about?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I should have clarified my statement to convey that when political pressure intensifies, Bush is willing to sacrifice some long and dearly held democratic principles. Like what? Dick Cheney's criticism of the First Amendment (which, ironically, is protected by the first amendment itself) Jeopardizing separation of Church and State- aka some "Faith Based Initiatives."
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
I truly and honestly believe your statement IS ignorant, not to mention totally unsupportable.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Earnest adverbs like "truly" and "honestly" should not replace actual support of an argument. Do you honestly (no pun or mocking intended) want us to take your word???
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
Bush does not represent less freedom. Who the hell told you that?</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>I work at a liberal arts College. Helping Young people step into adulthood is what we do. Even attorneys. The future needs people like you. Good luck! </strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks.
Cool. what college do you work at? I am attending King's College in northeastern pennsylvania this fall as a freshman English major.
Ah... Facilities Support Specialist from Salem, Oregon.
Willamette University. I work in the events dept. Which means I run the sound, do setups, supply equipment, and provide whatever the situation needs. Lectures, concerts, workshops ( even silly stuff ) etc. I'm very glad to be a part of it. My position means I get to sit in on some very interesting things.
Well... yes, I agree that having the right does not mean that one may freely exercise it anyway one chooses (Akin to the situation of "buying a high-priced sporting event ticket and freely yelling injurious epithets at players).
Yet, that is irrelavent to my point. Cheney criticized that very right to criticize the President during a time of "war."
I have to say i love this, "anyway one chooses" i believe that the point was the Time not the Way that they did it. You can take it out of context all you want but it was a defense against unethical political grand standing.
He was speaking against the criticism because it had already happened. He took an Ethical stand against it. I completely agree with it, they should not have tried to sway votes when standing by the current leader was more important. Ethics.
Last please stop speaking of open mindedness as if you have some handle on it. The fact that you discount things like ethics, and politicians using trying times to get elected shows you to be more closeminded in this.
Give me an extra big break. Everything you have said and your demeanor drips with close mindedness.
During republican rule the people of the United States have lost more personal freedoms than at any other time. Bush didn't need to tell me anything. Who stands up of for all these right wing agendas like taking away a woman's right to choose? The problem these days is the democrats are almost as bad. So we end up with milktoast candidates like we had last time.
Yes, from Watergate to the Contras I've seen it all. You know what? It stinks.
Listen bucko, I'd wager I've been around a lot longer ( 30 is still young to me which was almost 20 years ago, just about the average age of people on this forum ) than you so I don't need any lessons in right wing politics. I respect the opinions of people younger than myself until they try to tell me something I know is a bunch of horse sh*t.
1. I totally disgaree with your statement regarding people losing their rights under republican administrations. I suppose FDR putting the Japanese into camps isn't taken into consideration.....we were at war then, too.
2. Regarding the abortion point: You, like most liberals, automatically assume that a women has the right to choose. Many conservatives (but not all, as you must know) say that women don't have this right, because it is taking the life away of sentient being. They call it murder. It isn't "taking away a woman's right to choose" to them, its preventing murder. This is the part of your post that disturbs me most, because you won't even acknowledge the debate, which is quite intense. To you, it is just "the republicans taking away a woman's right to choose".......as if we all agree that this right is inherent in nature, which not everyone does. The abortion argument is complicated, and I'm not going to get into my views on it right now, but it seems obvious you can see your side, and ONLY your side.
3. Your age point is fairly irrelevent, I think, to this discussion. I am grown adult with a college education and a full time job. I have gone through more in my life than many people your age. I also work with people your age all the time, and we treat each other as equal professionals. The age argument might work when your opponent in a debate is, say, 15 (no offense guys!), but when one reaches a certain point, we are all adults. I would also like to point out that many people your age do not even remotely agree with you, so once again it seems your entire "I'm older" argument is pointless. I would even venture to say that the majority of people in your age group are MORE conservative than you are, but that is just a supposition (though I think a fairly level-headed one.....most would agree that people tend to become more conservative with age, no?)
[quote]I respect the opinions of people younger than myself until they try to tell me something I know is a bunch of horse sh*t. <hr></blockquote>
Comments
<strong>SDW = your an idiot. And global warming is real, and we better think about new models of dealing with the world because what we decide is important will effect all of the world in the furure.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You know pfflam, and the other supports of his/her points of view, this is exactly why things are bad. Your need to jumpin and fix it! Yes the industrail revolution added immense polution and there is an effort needed to clean it up. However the "we need to decide" is what bothers me. We need to take our cues from our enviroment, not graft onto it.
As an example there were a group of ecologist working to solve the ozone problem a while ago. Their solution involved adding iron to the Antarctic ocean to inspire growth of plankton, there by adding more oxygen and reducing carbon dioxide with one of the most abundant forms of plant life we have. Sounds good, but what is the other side of the coin? Would the plankton starve the fish of needed gases in the water? Would it through off the balance of oxygen we breath? I don't know and don't pretend to. I do know that a drastic change on a global scale in the short term is not good. Ala industrial revolution.
What we need are studies showing what our enviroment is doing to compensate. There is an undeniable balance to nature and it corrects itself, slowly, most often impercetibly. But with people who can percieve and prove theories about the weigh and expanse of the universe there must be some who can percieve the changes.
Enhance them and work in moderation.
<strong>
What we need are studies showing what our enviroment is doing to compensate. There is an undeniable balance to nature and it corrects itself, slowly, most often impercetibly.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You have an excellent point. However, I think we are talking about preventive measures such as Kyoto rather than corrective ones such as your story. That said, I think we can all agree that eliminating or greatly reducing our use of fossil fuels and other pollutants will benefit the environment.
[ 06-13-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</p>
<strong>
Plainly ignorant? Ignorant to what? Quite contrary to your statement, jimmac is completely aware of Bush's poor democratic record. For instance, was it not Dick Cheney who spoke out against the idea of democratic criticism of the President during the "war"? How completely undemocratic of the Bush White House. Sure, Bush sends our troops to fight for democracy, and he believes in its core concepts. Yet, when political pressure intensifies.... *poof*
[ 06-13-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
So your point here is what, it was the right time to strike with "democratic criticism"?
<strong>
So your point here is what, it was the right time to strike with "democratic criticism"?</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's a political question you're asking me.
(By the way, "democratic criticism" is not a special kind. "democratic" is simply an adjective used to describe who the critics are: aka- criticism from democrats. I apologize if I was unclear. Retrospectively, I should have written it the latter way.)
[ 06-13-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]
[ 06-13-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</p>
<strong>
That's a political question you're asking me.
(By the way, "democratic criticism" is not a special kind. "democratic" is simply an adjective used to describe who the critics are: aka- criticism from democrats)
[ 06-13-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I thought this was a political dicussion <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> and i used the term "democratic criticism" as i did for exactly the reason you suggest. It was the political party of democrats alligning to oppose the republican party. There by making it a special kind of democratic. The special being the differentiation of the political beliefs we all hold, a democratic society, as opposed to those you hold the for the democratic party.
<strong> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> Please. You don't understand what you are talking about.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> please enlighten me then. Were you speaking of the democratic party in your post or the freedom of speech inherent in democracy being exercised by the democrats.
edit for demon content no exorcisms here
[ 06-13-2002: Message edited by: Ruhx ]</p>
<strong>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> please enlighten me then. Were you speaking of the democratic party in your post or the freedom of speech inherent in democracy being exercised by the democrats.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Both. The democratic party has a right to criticize whoever they choose. Cheney's lambasting the very idea of criticizing the president during the "war" is undemocratic.
[ 06-13-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</p>
<strong>
Plainly ignorant? Ignorant to what? Quite contrary to your statement, jimmac is completely aware of Bush's poor democratic record. For instance, was it not Dick Cheney who spoke out against the idea of democratic criticism of the President during the "war"? How completely undemocratic of the Bush White House. Sure, Bush sends our troops to fight for democracy, and he believes in its core concepts. Yet, when political pressure intensifies.... *poof*
[ 06-13-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh give me a BREAK. Poor democratic record? I'd LOVE to hear about that. That is just a stupid statement.
And I'm sorry, just because we have the RIGHT to criticize the President and the war doesn't mean we HAVE too. And, I am convinced most of the criticism was for political gain.....not due to true beliefs.
AND....your last comment about Bush giving up democracy .....I have one thing to say: WHAT THE F.UCK? What are you talking about?
Jimmac writes:
[quote]Like most of his kind I think Bush represents less freedom ( although he preaches otherwise ). I don't think he is a good choice for president. Hence my statement ( well that and to get under your skin ).
Aren't you speaking of yourself? After all I'm sure you have said worse about certain democrats. So it comes down to this after all. People who don't agree with your political choice are ignorant. There is no other way to take your statement. Lame, lame, lame.
My descriptive statements ( mostly in fun ) were aimed at your viewpoints on the world and it's problems not your political choices. So sorry, you can't try that tact. <hr></blockquote>
As far as there being "no other way" to take my statement....that isn't true. I am open to disgareement......that isn't the issue. I truly and honestly believe your statement IS ignorant, not to mention totally unsupportable. Bush does not represent less freedom. Who the hell told you that?
Give me an extra big break. Everything you have said and your demeanor drips with close mindedness.
During republican rule the people of the United States have lost more personal freedoms than at any other time. Bush didn't need to tell me anything. Who stands up of for all these right wing agendas like taking away a woman's right to choose? The problem these days is the democrats are almost as bad. So we end up with milktoast candidates like we had last time.
Yes, from Watergate to the Contras I've seen it all. You know what? It stinks.
Listen bucko, I'd wager I've been around a lot longer ( 30 is still young to me which was almost 20 years ago, just about the average age of people on this forum ) than you so I don't need any lessons in right wing politics. I respect the opinions of people younger than myself until they try to tell me something I know is a bunch of horse sh*t.
[ 06-14-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>( 30 is still young to me )</strong><hr></blockquote>
I guess that would make me the 18 year old political maverick?
By the way I think it's great that there are young people like yourself who can still question. It gives me hope. But, as for the rest hasn't the human race learned anything from the past?
It's really quite disheartening to hear the same closeminded garbage that I heard when I was a boy. I mean one would hope for some progress instead of going backwards. But I guess these bad apples are always around.
But, here's to you, your kind, and the future.
[ 06-14-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>
Oh give me a BREAK. Poor democratic record? I'd LOVE to hear about that. That is just a stupid statement.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You wouldn't consider Cheney's comments the epitome of democracy now would you? As far as my statement being labled "stupid-" No, sir, you honestly do not intend to offend my intelligence now do you?
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
And I'm sorry, just because we have the RIGHT to criticize the President and the war doesn't mean we HAVE too.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well... yes, I agree that having the right does not mean that one may freely exercise it anyway one chooses (Akin to the situation of "buying a high-priced sporting event ticket and freely yelling injurious epithets at players).
Yet, that is irrelavent to my point. Cheney criticized that very right to criticize the President during a time of "war."
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
And, I am convinced most of the criticism was for political gain.....not due to true beliefs.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> Democrats could enjoy politcal gain regardless of motive. To say that politics is not a part of true beliefs to polititians reflects a poor understanding of the political process.
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
AND....your last comment about Bush giving up democracy .....I have one thing to say: WHAT THE F.UCK? What are you talking about?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I should have clarified my statement to convey that when political pressure intensifies, Bush is willing to sacrifice some long and dearly held democratic principles. Like what? Dick Cheney's criticism of the First Amendment (which, ironically, is protected by the first amendment itself) Jeopardizing separation of Church and State- aka some "Faith Based Initiatives."
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
I truly and honestly believe your statement IS ignorant, not to mention totally unsupportable.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Earnest adverbs like "truly" and "honestly" should not replace actual support of an argument. Do you honestly (no pun or mocking intended) want us to take your word???
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
Bush does not represent less freedom. Who the hell told you that?</strong><hr></blockquote>
AG John Ashcroft.
[ 06-14-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</p>
<strong>
But, here's to you, your kind, and the future.
[ 06-14-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks for your praise. Don't laud it on too much though- I want to become an attorney.
<strong>I work at a liberal arts College. Helping Young people step into adulthood is what we do. Even attorneys. The future needs people like you. Good luck!
Thanks.
Cool. what college do you work at? I am attending King's College in northeastern pennsylvania this fall as a freshman English major.
Ah... Facilities Support Specialist from Salem, Oregon.
[ 06-14-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</p>
[ 06-14-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>
Well... yes, I agree that having the right does not mean that one may freely exercise it anyway one chooses (Akin to the situation of "buying a high-priced sporting event ticket and freely yelling injurious epithets at players).
Yet, that is irrelavent to my point. Cheney criticized that very right to criticize the President during a time of "war."
[ 06-14-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have to say i love this, "anyway one chooses" i believe that the point was the Time not the Way that they did it. You can take it out of context all you want but it was a defense against unethical political grand standing.
He was speaking against the criticism because it had already happened. He took an Ethical stand against it. I completely agree with it, they should not have tried to sway votes when standing by the current leader was more important. Ethics.
Last please stop speaking of open mindedness as if you have some handle on it. The fact that you discount things like ethics, and politicians using trying times to get elected shows you to be more closeminded in this.
<strong>SDW2001,
Give me an extra big break. Everything you have said and your demeanor drips with close mindedness.
During republican rule the people of the United States have lost more personal freedoms than at any other time. Bush didn't need to tell me anything. Who stands up of for all these right wing agendas like taking away a woman's right to choose? The problem these days is the democrats are almost as bad. So we end up with milktoast candidates like we had last time.
Yes, from Watergate to the Contras I've seen it all. You know what? It stinks.
Listen bucko, I'd wager I've been around a lot longer ( 30 is still young to me which was almost 20 years ago, just about the average age of people on this forum ) than you so I don't need any lessons in right wing politics. I respect the opinions of people younger than myself until they try to tell me something I know is a bunch of horse sh*t.
[ 06-14-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
1. I totally disgaree with your statement regarding people losing their rights under republican administrations. I suppose FDR putting the Japanese into camps isn't taken into consideration.....we were at war then, too.
2. Regarding the abortion point: You, like most liberals, automatically assume that a women has the right to choose. Many conservatives (but not all, as you must know) say that women don't have this right, because it is taking the life away of sentient being. They call it murder. It isn't "taking away a woman's right to choose" to them, its preventing murder. This is the part of your post that disturbs me most, because you won't even acknowledge the debate, which is quite intense. To you, it is just "the republicans taking away a woman's right to choose".......as if we all agree that this right is inherent in nature, which not everyone does. The abortion argument is complicated, and I'm not going to get into my views on it right now, but it seems obvious you can see your side, and ONLY your side.
3. Your age point is fairly irrelevent, I think, to this discussion. I am grown adult with a college education and a full time job. I have gone through more in my life than many people your age. I also work with people your age all the time, and we treat each other as equal professionals. The age argument might work when your opponent in a debate is, say, 15 (no offense guys!), but when one reaches a certain point, we are all adults. I would also like to point out that many people your age do not even remotely agree with you, so once again it seems your entire "I'm older" argument is pointless. I would even venture to say that the majority of people in your age group are MORE conservative than you are, but that is just a supposition (though I think a fairly level-headed one.....most would agree that people tend to become more conservative with age, no?)
[quote]I respect the opinions of people younger than myself until they try to tell me something I know is a bunch of horse sh*t. <hr></blockquote>
Yes. Quite open-minded. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
And I respect the opinions of those older, until I decide what they tell ME is a bunch of horse sh*t.
[ 06-14-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]
[ 06-14-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>