RE: So THIS is progress

RE: So THIS is progress (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Real0ne -> RE: So THIS is progress (5/27/2007 11:19:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord I rather doubt the war was ever meant to protect oil. Intelligence officials, accurately, predicted that many Iraqi oil fields would be torched the moment we went in. Is production back to near-normal levels yet? no its above normal thats why exxon decided to cut production during the summer driving season LOL

CuriousLord -> RE: So THIS is progress (5/27/2007 11:26:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord "Arms", context, refers to muskets and the such, does it not? Of course not. If they MEANT muskets, given the amount of time they took to draft the Amendment, then they would have SAID "Muskets". Arms means Arms. What else could it mean? It's only got 4 letters. I don't see a whole lotta wiggle room. Oh, true. Four-letter words tend to have singular intepreation and well-established boundaries which everyone can agree on. "Love", for example. "Arms", after all, only have twelve noun entries in Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. The foremost of these definitions for the context is: "a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense". This definition does not delimit "arms" to even being a weapon- it can be anything. Including purgury before the Supreme Court. Therefore, I propose you define "arms", as you perceive it to be, should you wish to cite the founding fathers using such a word. quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: Or would you argue that "arms" would include nuclear weapons, that any sociopath living in New York could just go buy one the day his girlfriend dumps him? Why do you hate Private Property Rights, which underpin all other freedoms??? Private property rights are the establishment of ideals concerning an individual's right to own property. Should an individual's right to own property interfere with another individual's right to, such as, one owns a nuclear weapon which destroys a city, which happens to destroy the property (and lives) of millions, then are you not putting one's right before others'? This is a contradiction. A system is invalid in the presense of such contradictions. One must establish guidelines for dealing with contradictions, adopt a new system, or accept anarchy. Further, "Private Property Rights" underpin all other freedoms? I would argue that the "right to life" is far more fundamental than the "right to ownership". Also, is one hateful for thoughtfully considering? I suggest you "hate" a bit before responding. ;) quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: How is a speicifc figurehead paramount to a policy? How is the current policy failed? Well, we're still dying and killing in Iraq. That's a failure. People are still dying in hospitals. If I remember "Scrubs" right, about a third of admitance. That's a lot of people! Far more than have died in Iraq! Is this to say hospitals should be abandoned because they don't prevent all deaths? Or, perhaps, in the absense of a perfect solution, an imperfect solution must be adopted? Ignoring something, after all, is a solution; just, often, less perfect than others available. quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: In what argument would you contend that recess equates to apathy? Well, round these parts, if there work that needs don't you stick to it until it's done. Yes, but you're failed to make a connection between recess of convention and failure to work. Have you considered the possiblity that governing officials may be needed outside of the official meeting room to deal with the more practical ends of a nation in the state of civil war? That they may be attempting to regulate things more directly at the moment, and meeting more in private as to not, themselves, be blown up so that they might continue the establishment of a lawful society? quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: Then this is to say that a human life is the responsibility of its governing body, and not the concern of humanity outside of the institution of government? Well, not really. It's just not the concern of the United States Government. The UN, perhaps.... The Iraqi Government, definitely. As far as I'm aware, both the UN and the Iraqi Government are both trying to help out in Iraq. To my knowledge, despite their attempts, both, together, still insurficient to bring an end to the bloodshed. Even with the US's help, from my understanding of events, people are still dying in Iraq. How are the lives of humans in another country, such as Iraq, of no concern to others living in another country, such as the United States? quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Are you claiming the US has used chemical showers and ovens to kill Iraqis? If not, what is the relevance of this? You brought up nuking parts of Iraq, I mentioned that traditionally, the showers and ovens were used for the same purpose. Meh. Nukes are less traumatic, if you fire enough to get all targets in the blast zones. Instant, unforeseen, painless death, on a massive scale. New types of nukes- like the ones the US would use- don't even emit radioactive radiation like the kind that made people in Japan sick shortly before the end of World War II. quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: It appears you're arguing that a troubled foreign government should be left alone to deal with its issues. Bringing up a Nazi-era reference to the Germans killing off their citizens during the time when outsiders were too apathetic to act based on their own well-beings seems to be in determent to your own point. If PRESCOTT BUSH didn't actively assist the Nazis and Hitler, 6 million more Jews might be alive today. So maybe I don't think much of the Family in the first place. So, you'd contend we should ignore Iraq- and let them do their own self-mutilation thing- since the Bush family is against the people killing innocents? I would argue that the lesson from the Halocaust is to watch out for things like, well, you know, the Halocaust, especially in places at risk of "ethnic cleansing"- you know, like Iraq. I'm not sure if "don't-ever-agree-Bush's" is really a better lesson. Unless, of course, you care to take this all of the way for a day and tell everyone about it tommorow. I hear Bush's tend to be in favor of continued and regular breathing. Hell, they're doing it all the time. Now why let a little thing like common sense or reason get in the way of us hating Bush's?

Real0ne -> RE: So THIS is progress (5/27/2007 11:29:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Of course not. If they MEANT muskets, given the amount of time they took to draft the Amendment, then they would have SAID "Muskets". Arms means Arms. What else could it mean? I think CL's point is that arms were far more limited--and far less lethal--when the Second Amendment was passed. I'm not sure the framers quite envisioned teen gang members with AK-47s. the whole purpose however is that the people if need be could change a tyrannical governemnt by force if necesary, so the people can have the muskets and the gov can have the nukes, easy win for the people. The constitution is specific and made that way for a reason. Arms is arms ia arms all day long! Blacks law, 5th ed ARMS. Any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes in his hands, or uses in his anger, to cast at, or strike at another. Co. Litt. 161 b, 162 a; Crompt. Just. P. 65; Cunn. Dict. h. t. Got a mini nuke?

Real0ne -> RE: So THIS is progress (5/27/2007 11:33:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord "Arms", context, refers to muskets and the such, does it not? Of course not. If they MEANT muskets, given the amount of time they took to draft the Amendment, then they would have SAID "Muskets". Arms means Arms. What else could it mean? It's only got 4 letters. I don't see a whole lotta wiggle room. Oh, true. Four-letter words tend to have singular intepreation and well-established boundaries which everyone can agree on. "Love", for example. "Arms", after all, only have twelve noun entries in Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. The foremost of these definitions for the context is: "a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense". This definition does not delimit "arms" to even being a weapon- it can be anything. Including purgury before the Supreme Court. Therefore, I propose you define "arms", as you perceive it to be, should you wish to cite the founding fathers using such a word. how about an 1856 law dictionary as seen above?

CuriousLord -> RE: So THIS is progress (5/27/2007 11:34:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord I rather doubt the war was ever meant to protect oil. Intelligence officials, accurately, predicted that many Iraqi oil fields would be torched the moment we went in. Is production back to near-normal levels yet? no its above normal thats why exxon decided to cut production during the summer driving season LOL You're aware only about a tenth of the oil (roughly- need to look up the figure) comes out of Iraqi, right? Iraqi production drops in half, there's still 95% oil production- and others can just pick up the slack (and, well, make more money).

CuriousLord -> RE: So THIS is progress (5/27/2007 11:36:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne how about an 1856 law dictionary as seen above? It's probably on the right track to some degree or another, but it can't speak for the founding fathers.

Real0ne -> RE: So THIS is progress (5/27/2007 11:37:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord I rather doubt the war was ever meant to protect oil. Intelligence officials, accurately, predicted that many Iraqi oil fields would be torched the moment we went in. Is production back to near-normal levels yet? no its above normal thats why exxon decided to cut production during the summer driving season LOL You're aware only about a tenth of the oil (roughly- need to look up the figure) comes out of Iraqi, right? Iraqi production drops in half, there's still 95% oil production- and others can just pick up the slack (and, well, make more money). yah but it is appropriately labelled a cartel that and iraq has the 3rd largest oil reserves in the world

farglebargle -> RE: So THIS is progress (5/27/2007 11:41:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Oh, true. Four-letter words tend to have singular intepreation and well-established boundaries which everyone can agree on. "Love", for example. "Arms", after all, only have twelve noun entries in Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Of course in the context of the Constitution, specifically the 2nd Amendment, there is only one clear meaning. This is what I meant about admitting ones illiteracy. quote: The foremost of these definitions for the context is: "a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense". This definition does not delimit "arms" to even being a weapon- it can be anything. Including purgury before the Supreme Court. Therefore, I propose you define "arms", as you perceive it to be, should you wish to cite the founding fathers using such a word. What does "Armas" mean in Latin? quote: Private property rights are the establishment of ideals concerning an individual's right to own property. Should an individual's right to own property interfere with another individual's right to, such as, one owns a nuclear weapon which destroys a city, which happens to destroy the property (and lives) of millions, then are you not putting one's right before others'? Ah, you are making the error of confusing OWNERSHIP with USE, and of course the CONTEXT OF USE. Try to keep them straight. quote: Further, "Private Property Rights" underpin all other freedoms? I would argue that the "right to life" is far more fundamental than the "right to ownership". Your BODY is your most valuable POSSESSION... You are legally "Free" specifically because YOU OWN YOUR SELF. quote: People are still dying in hospitals. That's just immature and stupid. DUH! No shit. What does that have to do with the CHOICE to needlessly waste lives by the continuing attempts to get the Kurds, Shia, Sunni, Persians and Other to sit around the campfire, pass the bong, and sing Kumbaya??? quote: quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: In what argument would you contend that recess equates to apathy? Well, round these parts, if there work that needs don't you stick to it until it's done. Yes, but you're failed to make a connection between recess of convention and failure to work. Until they stand up, Bush will hold our troops hostage, and won't let them stand down. They have no other task then to get their shit together, and if they don't their government needs to be replaced. We did it before, no reason we can't do it again. quote: Have you considered the possiblity that governing officials may be needed outside of the official meeting room to deal with the more practical ends of a nation in the state of civil war? That they may be attempting to regulate things more directly at the moment, and meeting more in private as to not, themselves, be blown up so that they might continue the establishment of a lawful society? So they can't do the job, you're saying. Because they SHOULD HAVE CONTROL ALREADY. Every day's continued delay is just, like for a junkie or alkie, enabling their addiction. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: Then this is to say that a human life is the responsibility of its governing body, and not the concern of humanity outside of the institution of government? Well, not really. It's just not the concern of the United States Government. The UN, perhaps.... The Iraqi Government, definitely. As far as I'm aware, both the UN and the Iraqi Government are both trying to help out in Iraq. To my knowledge, despite their attempts, both, together, still insurficient to bring an end to the bloodshed. Even with the US's help, from my understanding of events, people are still dying in Iraq. I don't see "Occupy Iraq " delegated in the Constitution, do you? So WHY did the US invade without UN sanction or assistance? quote: How are the lives of humans in another country, such as Iraq, of no concern to others living in another country, such as the United States? OH, OTHER PEOPLE, sure. Do whatever you want. It's not THE GOVERNMENTS RESPONSIBILITY. Do you want it to be? Amend the Constitution.

Real0ne -> RE: So THIS is progress (5/27/2007 11:46:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne how about an 1856 law dictionary as seen above? It's probably on the right track to some degree or another, but it can't speak for the founding fathers. well of course they were using "your" rendition of the definition 200 years after the fact LOL On the right track, thats a rediculous thing to say. It "IS" the freaking track regarless of how you and others wish to paint, revise, or slice it! That is why i posted it.

selfbnd411 -> RE: So THIS is progress (5/27/2007 11:47:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: I don't really care about 600,000 iraqis dead or 600,000,000. Oh my. I'm still trying to figure out if he was meaning that literally or not. [8\|] Yep, I sure did! But don't misunderstand me...It's not in our national interest to kill innocents. We created the conditions in Iraq that allowed a thousand year long religious conflict to bubble to the surface and erupt into an orgy of death, with blood on everyone's hands--Shia, Sunni, British, and American. The question is: what can be done about it? Are we going to raise a conscription army of half a million troops to clamp down on a civil war? Would that even work? Probably not, so we should get out now and let them settle this fight on their own. It will be bloody, to be sure, but it's a question of a lot of blood being spilled now or a lot of blood being spilled over the next 20-40 years. National self interest doesn't have to result in brutal imperialism. It's in our national self interest to encourage the spread of democacy and human rights. Free people tend to buy more stuff, and we should focus on being the ones selling it to them. There's no reason we can't go back to striving for the policy we pursued (albeit imperfectly) from 1932-1980: the creation of an American empire--an empire of freedom and prosperity for all who choose to partake in it.

Real0ne -> RE: So THIS is progress (5/27/2007 11:51:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: selfbnd411 quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: I don't really care about 600,000 iraqis dead or 600,000,000. Oh my. I'm still trying to figure out if he was meaning that literally or not. [8\|] Yep, I sure did! But don't misunderstand me...It's not in our national interest to kill innocents. We created the conditions in Iraq that allowed a thousand year long religious conflict to bubble to the surface and erupt into an orgy of death, with blood on everyone's hands--Shia, Sunni, British, and American. The question is: what can be done about it? Are we going to raise a conscription army of half a million troops to clamp down on a civil war? Would that even work? Probably not, so we should get out now and let them settle this fight on their own. It will be bloody, to be sure, but it's a question of a lot of blood being spilled now or a lot of blood being spilled over the next 20-40 years. National self interest doesn't have to result in brutal imperialism. It's in our national self interest to encourage the spread of democacy and human rights. Free people tend to buy more stuff, and we should focus on being the ones selling it to them. There's no reason we can't go back to striving for the policy we pursued (albeit imperfectly) from 1932-1980: the creation of an American empire--an empire of freedom and prosperity for all who choose to partake in it. i always thought it was in our best interest to spread the cause of a "republic" not democracy, communisms kissin cuzin.

CuriousLord -> RE: So THIS is progress (5/27/2007 12:06:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne yah but it is appropriately labelled a cartel In what way has an oil-driven cartel instrumented and then profitted from the War in Iraq? quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne that and iraq has the 3rd largest oil reserves in the world And China has the 1st largest population in the world. By a landslide. Still, it has less than 20% of the world's population. The world's a big place. When you cut it up into many pieces, none of which are outrageously large (not to say that China isn't!), even the largest piece is just a piece.

LightHeartedMaam -> RE: So THIS is progress (5/27/2007 12:20:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity I blame the far left for these deaths. Al-qaeda in Iraq has learned that the far left in America and throughout the world uses these deaths to try to give Al-qaeda victory and America defeat, and so the two work hand-in-hand to kill American soldiers and use the deaths for their joint propaganda campaigns If the Right didn't start the war, there would be no deaths for the Left or anybody else to "use". No matter WHO the 1000 were, this whole situation stinks. I do admire your tenacity Sanity. You'll go down swinging just a good little republican :)

CuriousLord -> RE: So THIS is progress (5/27/2007 12:45:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Oh, true. Four-letter words tend to have singular intepreation and well-established boundaries which everyone can agree on. "Love", for example. "Arms", after all, only have twelve noun entries in Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Of course in the context of the Constitution, specifically the 2nd Amendment, there is only one clear meaning. This is what I meant about admitting ones illiteracy. quote: The foremost of these definitions for the context is: "a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense". This definition does not delimit "arms" to even being a weapon- it can be anything. Including purgury before the Supreme Court. Therefore, I propose you define "arms", as you perceive it to be, should you wish to cite the founding fathers using such a word. What does "Armas" mean in Latin? Then just stop saying it's obvious and answer the question, silly. :P Still, legal scholars continue to argue about this point. Give us your take on it so we know what prospective you're trying to argue from. How do you intepret "arms" mean in context? (And, seriously, if you're having a hard time seeing the different ways of seeing it, I'll be glad to point some out for you. There's more than one.. but, if you think there's only one, I'm rather curious as to which one you saw before any others.) quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: Private property rights are the establishment of ideals concerning an individual's right to own property. Should an individual's right to own property interfere with another individual's right to, such as, one owns a nuclear weapon which destroys a city, which happens to destroy the property (and lives) of millions, then are you not putting one's right before others'? Ah, you are making the error of confusing OWNERSHIP with USE, and of course the CONTEXT OF USE. Try to keep them straight. Not really. I'm assuming that, in many circumstances, acquisition implies intent to use. Which implies ownership with use. Unless, of course, you'd like to argue there aren't people out there who would just love to nuke New York City. Still, if you do, I'd like to bring up 9/11. Try to keep up. ;) quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: Further, "Private Property Rights" underpin all other freedoms? I would argue that the "right to life" is far more fundamental than the "right to ownership". Your BODY is your most valuable POSSESSION... You are legally "Free" specifically because YOU OWN YOUR SELF. You think we're legally allowed to live because we own our bodies? That the right to live is based off the right to own things? What of Native American culture? Not exactly a huge empathesis on ownership there. I'm pretty sure, though, that they were big on the right to live. Same thing in a Communist society. This is to say, it seems to be the course that right to life is more universal than right to own, and it seems to follow that this implies life is more fundamental than possession. Unless, of course, we should begin charging people with property damage en lue of murder charges? Kidnappers with "Grand Larcency: Child"? Further, if right to life is based only off ownership, would you contend, in the BDSM context, that owning another, in all cases, means that a Master might murder his slave in a society in which slavery was legal, for instance, the classical American South? If not, then why was it a crime? Why do Bible passages on slavery attest to such being a crime? If, in some afterlife, people become incorpal, would ending another's existence then be okay, or less of a crime, than murder now, as it does not harm a body? I see numerous holes in your belief that ownship of self is greater than right to life. These are just a few contradictions in life and problems in the theory you have. quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: People are still dying in hospitals. That's just immature and stupid. DUH! No shit. What does that have to do with the CHOICE to needlessly waste lives by the continuing attempts to get the Kurds, Shia, Sunni, Persians and Other to sit around the campfire, pass the bong, and sing Kumbaya??? Ah, I see. So it's stupid and immature to make an obvious analogy, now is it? It's funny how you call it "wasting life" when it kills someone, but call it "sit around the campfire, pass the bong, and sing Kumbaya" when it's about not killing someone. It would be silly to sacarfice lives to get people to sit at a fire, smoke a drug that's illegal anyhow, and sing a lame song. On the other hand, losing some lives in the process of trying to get people not to killl eachother is much another matter. I ask you not confuse these again. quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: Yes, but you're failed to make a connection between recess of convention and failure to work. Until they stand up, Bush will hold our troops hostage, and won't let them stand down. Because Bush's goal is to make troops stay in Iraq. Not like he's trying to achomplish anything or has any other motivation. quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle They have no other task then to get their shit together, and if they don't their government needs to be replaced. And why do they all need to be in one, huge, large meeting all the time to do this? Is it not conductive to work with the people? Is avoiding being in a good bombing target, thus not allowing themselves, the government of Iraq, to be destroyed, not conductive to the establishment of order in Iraq? quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle We did it before, no reason we can't do it again. Probably could replace the government again. Probably piss off even more people and build more sympathy for terrorists, too. Not that replacing them is even likely to help. quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: Have you considered the possiblity that governing officials may be needed outside of the official meeting room to deal with the more practical ends of a nation in the state of civil war? That they may be attempting to regulate things more directly at the moment, and meeting more in private as to not, themselves, be blown up so that they might continue the establishment of a lawful society? So they can't do the job, you're saying. Because they SHOULD HAVE CONTROL ALREADY. Every day's continued delay is just, like for a junkie or alkie, enabling their addiction. You think Iraqi leaders, most of whom have no experience on that scale of power, should be able to bring together a nation of warring cultures in a few short years? That their inability to do so is somehow an additction that, by accepting, we're enabling? That someone else could make everyone happy pretty quickly? quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: As far as I'm aware, both the UN and the Iraqi Government are both trying to help out in Iraq. To my knowledge, despite their attempts, both, together, still insurficient to bring an end to the bloodshed. Even with the US's help, from my understanding of events, people are still dying in Iraq. I don't see "Occupy Iraq " delegated in the Constitution, do you? So we should base all of our actions off the Constitution? Just ignore things that aren't in it? Because I'm pretty sure the Constitution didn't say anything about not having hardcore sex on city side walks, either. Actually, I'm pretty sure child porn's constitutional. Unless, did you see something against it in the Constitution? quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle So WHY did the US invade without UN sanction or assistance? Because it wanted to invade and the UN didn't. How does this tie in with the idea we should withdraw troops? quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: How are the lives of humans in another country, such as Iraq, of no concern to others living in another country, such as the United States? OH, OTHER PEOPLE, sure. Do whatever you want. It's not THE GOVERNMENTS RESPONSIBILITY. Nor is it the government's responsibility not to. quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Do you want it to be? Amend the Constitution. The Constitution didn't say you could type on a computer, farglebargle. No, I'm rather sure it didn't mention anything about that. You need to stop, now, until you get it amended, if you want to do so. Unless, of course, perhaps people can do things that aren't in an ancient piece of paper that happens to not include everything possible? By the way, I didn't see us helping out the Allies in World War II in the Constitution. Could you cite the admendment for me?

Real0ne -> RE: So THIS is progress (5/27/2007 12:51:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne yah but it is appropriately labelled a cartel In what way has an oil-driven cartel instrumented and then profitted from the War in Iraq? last i heard the imperialists cut was roughly 30%. price of oil is at an all time high, i dont see anyone from the cartel holding pricing down, how many troops do they have invested in this little invasion?

Real0ne -> RE: So THIS is progress (5/27/2007 12:56:14 PM)
After reading your post #74 http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=1041409 i actually had to look at your profile to see if you were from america, i would not have guessed.

farglebargle -> RE: So THIS is progress (5/27/2007 1:11:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord What does "Armas" mean in Latin? Then just stop saying it's obvious and answer the question, silly. :P Still, legal scholars continue to argue about this point. Give us your take on it so we know what prospective you're trying to argue from. How do you intepret "arms" mean in context? arma : arms, weapons. quote: (And, seriously, if you're having a hard time seeing the different ways of seeing it, I'll be glad to point some out for you. There's more than one.. but, if you think there's only one, I'm rather curious as to which one you saw before any others.) Oh, the people who say "Arms != Arms" surely exist. And I question their literacy, or if they are literate, their motivation for suggesting anything but "Arms = Arms". It's the position of a madman, and I think indefensible. quote: Not really. I'm assuming that, in many circumstances, acquisition implies intent to use. Which implies ownership with use. So the United States has the intent to use it's nuclear arsenal? .... Trimmed a lot of stuff..... Summarizing... The "Right to Life"... We have ONLY those rights we are willing and able to defend. You had the right to operate your motor vehicle, however YOU as it's owner CHOOSE, but you gave them up in exchange for a set of plates, and a driver's license. Was it a fair trade? That's your decision. Just to provide an example... quote: That's just immature and stupid. DUH! No shit. What does that have to do with the CHOICE to needlessly waste lives by the continuing attempts to get the Kurds, Shia, Sunni, Persians and Other to sit around the campfire, pass the bong, and sing Kumbaya??? Ah, I see. So it's stupid and immature to make an obvious analogy, now is it? It is a stupid and immature analogy. Naive. quote: It's funny how you call it "wasting life" when it kills someone, but call it "sit around the campfire, pass the bong, and sing Kumbaya" when it's about not killing someone. Hey, that's the Bush Plan, not mine. I don't believe the various groups in Iraq will ever act as Bush really, really, really hopes they would.... Hope is a wonderful thing. It ain't enough by itself in this context, and it looks like Bush can't deliver anything else. quote: It would be silly to sacarfice lives to get people to sit at a fire, smoke a drug that's illegal anyhow, and sing a lame song. On the other hand, losing some lives in the process of trying to get people not to killl eachother is much another matter. Yeah... I don't see that delegated to the Federal Government. You got a citation from the Constitution to support your plan of World Domination and Subjugation as being anything expressly delegated by The People? I didn't think so. Hamiltionians really just love pulling shit out of their asses, smearing it on the constitution, and then saying, LOOK!, It says something other than what's clearly written!!! quote: quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle We did it before, no reason we can't do it again. Probably could replace the government again. Probably piss off even more people and build more sympathy for terrorists, too. Not that replacing them is even likely to help. Who the fuck cares, they are there, we are here. If they come here, we have plenty of people, like those on Flt 93, who ain't gonna wait for the Feds to pull their thumbs out of their asses. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Do you want it to be? Amend the Constitution. The Constitution didn't say you could type on a computer, farglebargle. No, I'm rather sure it didn't mention anything about that. You need to stop, now, until you get it amended, if you want to do so. You REALLY have no fucking idea how a Federal Republic operates under a Constitution, all founded upon the Declaration of Independence, if you're ignorant enough to even SUGGEST that The Constitution in ANY WAY empowers The People, and does ANYTHING OTHER then explicitly delegate and restrict authority TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. The CONSTITUTION tells THE GOVERNMENT ONLY WHAT THEY MAY DO. I mean, to suggest it says ANYTHING about the unalienable rights other than, Don't Do This, is quite laughable... I'm going to ignore your further rantings.

DomKen -> RE: So THIS is progress (5/27/2007 1:45:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirDominic Hussein was a vicious thug who had killed roughly 100,000 of his own people over the years and had shown no indication of changing or finding a way to improve the situation for his people. I have never understood someone who states this. There are murderous thugs running countrys all over the planet. Why pick Hussein over all the others? As evil and brutal a tyrant as he was, he was one of the few in the Middle East who had a secular government instead of one controlled by religious factions. Not to mention he was our ally when he was at war with Iran. He was still the same brutal maniac then. So what changed????? Who said I didn't favor replacing all the murderous thugs? To put it bluntly I would rather have my brothers in arms die in combat against murderous bastards like those who run North Korea, China, Syria and Burma rather than as mercenaries for Exxon and Haliburton.

Real0ne -> RE: So THIS is progress (5/27/2007 2:05:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle You REALLY have no fucking idea how a Federal Republic operates under a Constitution, all founded upon the Declaration of Independence, if you're ignorant enough to even SUGGEST that The Constitution in ANY WAY empowers The People, and does ANYTHING OTHER then explicitly delegate and restrict authority TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. The CONSTITUTION tells THE GOVERNMENT ONLY WHAT THEY MAY DO. I mean, to suggest it says ANYTHING about the unalienable rights other than, Don't Do This, is quite laughable... I'm going to ignore your further rantings. i honestly thought he had to be from a foreign country and as i said i had to peek at his profile to see where he was from... imo it makes the point however the extent of the revisionist teachings if there are any at all in the school system today. you hit the target dead center, people actually believe their rights are handed to them on a silver platter. i remember the ben franklin quote when mrs parker asked him what kind of government they had come up for the republic and he replied " we have a republic madam if you can keep it" Like OBL says below this country is doomed.

CuriousLord -> RE: So THIS is progress (5/27/2007 2:35:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Oh, the people who say "Arms != Arms" surely exist. And I question their literacy, or if they are literate, their motivation for suggesting anything but "Arms = Arms". It's the position of a madman, and I think indefensible. So you're saying it's wrong for someone to take "arms" to mean "arms, contemporary" instead of "arms, furustic"? You're saying one would be mad, insane, to believe that someone writing the word "arms" hundreds of years ago meant weapons as they were in their time? quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle So the United States has the intent to use it's nuclear arsenal? Do you remember Japan, around the end of World War II? Or the pass codes being transferred during the Cuban Missile Crisis? Or the military's ideas of using nuclear bombs as bunker busters? Or using them as a scare tactic? Or using them for research, either on the bomb itself or in exploding it on a desert or deserted island? Yes, yes it does. Usage dropping of late is one reason for trimming back the supply.Summarizing... The "Right to Life"... quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle We have ONLY those rights we are willing and able to defend. That's so simplfied it's blantantly wrong. The idea "some rights would be lost if not defended" is true. The idea "ALL rights need be defended or lost" is not. By empathesing "ONLY", you betray you need this generalization to work. And it doesn't. For instance, an individual has the right to kill a bug on his own propety. Why? No one cares. To maintain a freedom, an individual must be willing and able to deter or defeat those that would attack it. No one's going to attack your right to squish an ant. No one gives a damn. Still, are you talking about the right to bare arms? The right to bare arms is sacarficed for the better of greater rights- such as that to live- the first and foremost among rights. You're naive if you think allowing everyone to bare arms, contemporary, would be for the betterment of society. Unless you're in favor of giving the same people that suicide bomb nukes. In that case, you're just crazy. quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle You had the right to operate your motor vehicle, however YOU as it's owner CHOOSE, but you gave them up in exchange for a set of plates, and a driver's license. Was it a fair trade? That's your decision. No, I never did. A motor vechile operates. On what? A road? Government property? You're so big into ownership- how could you think I could do what I want on the government's property? If an owner of a vechile speeds along at max speed while drunk- do you think this should be legal? Nothing against it in the Constitution! Both his body and his care are his property. Colateral damage. Learn about it. When a right violates others, there needs to be deligation. Which means loss of some rights to preserve others. quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle It is a stupid and immature analogy. Naive. It's stupid because it's accurate and highlights just how silly your notion is..? Give reasons- logical one- not just an unfounded statement that you think something's stupid just because it finds your ideas in error. quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: It's funny how you call it "wasting life" when it kills someone, but call it "sit around the campfire, pass the bong, and sing Kumbaya" when it's about not killing someone. Hey, that's the Bush Plan, not mine. I don't believe the various groups in Iraq will ever act as Bush really, really, really hopes they would.... Hope is a wonderful thing. It ain't enough by itself in this context, and it looks like Bush can't deliver anything else. You really think Bush is out to get people to sit around a campfire, pass a bong, and Kumbaya? If that's not, represent his views more accurately. Until then, you're not actually saying anything of substaince. quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: It would be silly to sacarfice lives to get people to sit at a fire, smoke a drug that's illegal anyhow, and sing a lame song. On the other hand, losing some lives in the process of trying to get people not to killl eachother is much another matter. Yeah... I don't see that delegated to the Federal Government. You got a citation from the Constitution to support your plan of World Domination and Subjugation as being anything expressly delegated by The People? I didn't think so. I now have a plan "of World Domination and Subjugation"..? quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Hamiltionians really just love pulling shit out of their asses, smearing it on the constitution, and then saying, LOOK!, It says something other than what's clearly written!!! That's a lovely picture.. I'm certainly glad it's relevant to this conversation, elsewise I might be questioning your sanity right about now.. I think I'm going to be stopping at this point and withdraw from the conversation. Thanks for the debate.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875