John McCain's VP nominee Sarah Palin

jjp · Post by **jjp** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 12:02 pm

KungFooMasta wrote:Ok guys, we'll send 1% of support to each country in need of help. That will do a lot of good.

Doing nothing at all would do a lot more good, probably. Except for post-WW2-Germany tell me just one single nation that wasn't more fucked up and in chaos after military actions from the US than before.

Zool · Post by **Zool** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 12:28 pm

You know, I hear that NASA is looking for life on Mars.

Maybe it's so the US can go there and bring democracy for the life on Mars..

reptor · Post by **reptor** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 2:49 pm

KungFooMasta wrote:Right, I guess all of the references in Wikipedia regarding Iraq's history under the rule of Saddam Hussein must be lies and fictitious. Its cool you are stating your opinion, but its impossible for us to believe Iraq was peaceful when it simply was not.

You know, when someone punches you in the face and tells you "use this system I show to you" what are you going to do? Are you going to say "Oh, thank you! How generous you are! Thank You for punching my face!".
How are we punching them in the face? You think the Iraqi people loved their current situation? How is it you get this notion that the people loved their current government so much? Please send me a link or two, it would probably benefit a large number of people.

What would have happened if Saddam Hussein was just left alone and let him die naturally? You talk like after that there would be similar chaos and violence in Iraq like there is today. With respect to your view, I disagree.
Again, read up on the history to see how people come to power in Iraq. Most of the time its through killing people currently in power combined with killing and arresting your opponents. Gee, what a fantastic system, only the most violent and evil people come into power. Sounds like a place people would want to live in.

People always complain that we pick a particular place to help, when there are so many. Ok guys, we'll send 1% of support to each country in need of help. That will do a lot of good. I'm not sure how this will be effective in doing anything, but at least you'll have a different reason to insult us for trying to help people. I'm not sure where all this bitterness towards USA comes from, its quite amazing.

Stop putting words to my mouth, please. You did it again.

That's all I'm going to say now.

warmi · Post by **warmi** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:07 pm

jjp wrote:
KungFooMasta wrote:Ok guys, we'll send 1% of support to each country in need of help. That will do a lot of good.
Doing nothing at all would do a lot more good, probably. Except for post-WW2-Germany tell me just one single nation that wasn't more fucked up and in chaos after military actions from the US than before.

Japan , South Korea, Grenada, Panama, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Italy ?

Post by **xavier** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 7:38 pm

xavier wrote:America is a country full of rednecks, and the Palin shenanigans may turn out to be a huge selling point in November. "Hey, she's just like us!" *shrug*

Palin's gubernatorial disclosure filings also reveal her involvement in another failed startup -- a marketing business which was to go by the name Rouge Cou, which evidently is a literal French translation of "red neck."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-tr ... _wash.html

(which is largely a repeating of the AP wire story I was reading when I came across this)

I seriously doubt this is a coincidence.

Nice to know I can still call 'em.

jjp · Post by **jjp** » Sun Sep 07, 2008 1:43 pm

warmi wrote:Japan , South Korea, Grenada, Panama, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Italy ?

I didn't express myself clearly I guess. I should have said "anything post-WW2 and not autorised by the UN".

warmi · Post by **warmi** » Sun Sep 07, 2008 7:14 pm

jjp wrote:
warmi wrote:Japan , South Korea, Grenada, Panama, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Italy ?
I didn't express myself clearly I guess. I should have said "anything post-WW2 and not autorised by the UN".

Iraq would be the only one I guess ...

KungFooMasta · Post by **KungFooMasta** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 3:51 am

I'm just wondering, what will all the critics say when Iraq has a fully functioning independent democratic government, that is more stable and peaceful than before? For once, it would be nice to hear all of you give USA an apology.

Post by **Jabberwocky** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 10:52 am

KungFooMasta wrote:I'm just wondering, what will all the critics say when Iraq has a fully functioning independent democratic government, that is more stable and peaceful than before? For once, it would be nice to hear all of you give USA an apology.

Sure. Come on over, I'll be floating on a cloud, being fanned by several exotically dressed nubile women with tropical leaves, being fed peeled grapes and quaffing bottles of 100 year old Chateau Lafite.

Oh wait, are we talking about the real world here?

KungFooMasta · Post by **KungFooMasta** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:34 pm

reptor · Post by **reptor** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:05 am

The one good reason to start the war has still not been heard.

Unless that is not given to us, an apology is certainly *not* coming. It is as simple as that.

All the reasons your government told to us were outright lies. Primarily the war was started because of lies (Or can they be so stupid and have so bad intelligence. I don't think so, that's why I say "lies"). I think people in the USA should be aware of this by now.

I saw the nice graphics made by the USA about mobile WOMD laboratories Iraq allegedly had. The only problem to GWB administration was that they could not find any of those from Iraq.

Then we have not been presented proof that the alleged Al-Qaeda connection was true. I conclude, if it was true, the proof would have been shown to us already. Don't you think GWB would like to show the whole World that that was true. He would try very hard to prove it. But we don't hear about it anymore.

It is the basic principle of our juridical systems, the Burden of Proof. It is on the USA, not on anyone else. *YOU* prove that your accusations against Iraq were true. If you cannot do that, then don't come ask for an apology if we tell you that what you did wasn't good at all, and had no sensible justification.

I think the justification for most of the U.S. population was "Blind rage stemming from 9/11/2001 WTC terrorist attack". Others tried to tell, you "now, take a deep breath and think about it! we think you might be going to do something stupid now" and because you were so blinded by the rage, you just were insulted by these "know-it-all" type of people who tried to tell you not to do it, and then you just wanted to insult them, which you did.

The USA had a lot of sympathy from the World because of 9/11/2001 (I cried in front of my TV when I saw what happened), but your government screwed up big time and took a lot (probably most) of that sympathy away. That's how it went.

If someone needs to apologize to the citizens of the USA, it is GWB and the others who planned the whole mess. In fact, it would not be wrong at all to *properly* put them to a court of law to explain what were they exactly doing.

Nauk · Post by **Nauk** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:13 am

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

not much more to add to that.

Post by **xavier** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 5:13 am

What does any of this have to do with John McCain or Sarah Palin?

Please take this tangent to another thread or get back on topic.

warmi · Post by **warmi** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 5:32 am

reptor wrote:
Others tried to tell, you "now, take a deep breath and think about it! we think you might be going to do something stupid now" and because you were so blinded by the rage, you just were insulted by these "know-it-all" type of people who tried to tell you not to do it, and then you just wanted to insult them, which you did..

Others had their own business to take care of , which in this case happened to run counter to whatever Bush was planning for Iraq.
In any case, it doesnâ€™t really matter what others think â€“ what they say is always influenced by the fact that they have their own interests and biases.

The USA had a lot of sympathy from the World because of 9/11/2001 (I cried in front of my TV when I saw what happened), but your government screwed up big time and took a lot (probably most) of that sympathy away.

What does it matter to you if Saddam is around or if Iraqis are being killed ?
Think about it for a second â€“ they were being murdered and tortured in great numbers for close to 30 years now - it seems that to many people their fate suddenly became of paramount importance as soon as Uncle Sam got involved.

reptor · Post by **reptor** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 12:19 pm

The connection to Palin and to McCain is that the Republican party seems to be wanting to mostly continue on the path the GWB administration has taken. Although they have had to soften their approach a little bit likely because of all the heat GWB and his administration has received, but I see the change in their approach is not enough.

The Burden of Proof about the reasons why the war was started is not on me, it is on the USA. Isn't it very undemocratic to ignore this principle. The Burden of Proof is an important cornerstone of our democratic societies. Can you just forget it when dealing with countries such as Iraq. It seems you are willing to conveniently ignore it whenever doing so suits your, no matter how crazy, ideas.

We just are not going to let you start wars based on lies and get away with it.

If you want to comment my comments about the Iraq War then please do so in a private message. I will not post about the war anymore to this thread.

KevinMulder · Post by **KevinMulder** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 12:56 pm

xavier wrote:What does any of this have to do with John McCain or Sarah Palin?

They both use Ogre

VictorMoran · Post by **VictorMoran** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 7:00 pm

KevinMulder wrote:
xavier wrote:What does any of this have to do with John McCain or Sarah Palin?

They both use Ogre

You take as a joke, but it is actuallt quite serius, and It has a great deal to do with the Sarah Palin / John Mccain ticket.
When you have the dominant candidate of a presidential campaign going around chanting that a war wedged on lies, manipulations, deceptions, and adulteration of intelligence; is Godâ€™s plan then we all have much worried about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H-btXPfhGs

I as Christian, pray almost every night, and I ask god for the well being of me and my family. I talk to God but I never had the experience that God talked back to me.
It seems that every time God talk to Christian leaders, he order disastrous events.
According the Pat Roberson, John Hagee, Ferry Farwell, James Dobson, Ted Haggard, etc
God sent 9/11, Katrina, Sumatra tsunami, earthquakes in china, and all other naturals or humans made catastrophes since the history of human kind.

How do we know that at the first serious international crisis, God will not tell Palin to launch a nuclear attack against a solvent nation in his name? say Iran or Russia.
Religious leaders do act on the base of reason they act on impulses dictated by the will of God.

johnhpus · Post by **johnhpus** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 7:13 pm

I'm really not that concerned that religious zealotry will cause these people to make those sorts of decisions. I think that the so-called religious beliefs of many major candidates are just a lever they use to convince the public.

Think about how hard it would be to reconcile the greed and manipulation needed to win high public office with the actual written tenets of Christianity (or other religions).

Code: Select all

Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Matthew 19:23-24 (NIV)

Post by **xavier** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 7:19 pm

VictorMoran wrote: How do we know that at the first serious international crisis, God will not tell Palin to launch a nuclear attack against a solvent nation in his name? say Iran or Russia.
Religious leaders do act on the base of reason they act on impulses dictated by the will of God.

Because we are not a theocracy (a la Iran) and God does not make the decisions. Nor do Presidents, Vice Presidents or anyone else, make them alone.

It's impossible for one person, in other words, unilaterally to press the button.

So such fears are baseless, in reality, and are often used by the *other* side as a lever against the religious-seeming candidate.

warmi · Post by **warmi** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 7:49 pm

johnhpus wrote:

Code: Select all

Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Matthew 19:23-24 (NIV)

Well, obviously Jesus was not against engaging in class warfare and frankly, looks like had some commie tendencies

I don't really care about this stuff from 2000+ years ago ... but for some Christians who take this stuff literally, it clearly represents a contradiction of sorts.

johnhpus · Post by **johnhpus** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 8:20 pm

Hah, yeah. "Jesus was a Commie" would make a great bumper sticker.

reptor · Post by **reptor** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 9:52 pm

It is not a long ago when I was reading some online sources which talked about the subject of politics and religions in the USA.

My conclusion after some reading was that it likely is unconstitutional that a President of the U.S. uses a religion in his or her speeches to make points or to boost the speeches.

I would have to do more reading to come to a more certain concusion about this, but I spent a couple of hours reading about it and that's how it looks like to me.

So it could be possible, as I see it, that the people of the USA could succesfully sue their President if the President uses any religion to boost his speeches. Or preaches about values of any religion. My conclusion was that the President of the USA cannot legally endorse any religion.

VictorMoran · Post by **VictorMoran** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 11:27 pm

xavier wrote:
VictorMoran wrote: How do we know that at the first serious international crisis, God will not tell Palin to launch a nuclear attack against a solvent nation in his name? say Iran or Russia.
Religious leaders do act on the base of reason they act on impulses dictated by the will of God.
Because we are not a theocracy (a la Iran) and God does not make the decisions. Nor do Presidents, Vice Presidents or anyone else, make them alone.

Donâ€™t you thinks a person that:
Wants creationism to be taught on science classes in schools by law,
Thinks American invasion of Iraq is God will,
Thinks people can be possessed by Demons and Satan,
Do not believe in the conservation of natural resources and endanger species, Do no believe in global warming,
Thinks the government should prohibit the use of contraceptive and condoms, and it goes on and on.
And the force behind these believes is God. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XaQG8j5maI

God is telling her that we should exploit natural resouses with total disregard to conservation, the future of the country and the planet. I say that is a big step toward a theocracy?
In fact the only reason the extremist Christian right is so energized is that she is their messiah.
To quote George Will in This Week â€

Post by **xavier** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 2:08 am

VictorMoran wrote:I say that is a big step toward a theocracy?

The same concerns were raised when a Catholic was the President, and I think history will confirm that the United States was not turned into an arm of the Vatican.

Fearmongering is an age-old pastime in public policy and elections cycles, and this election cycle is no different than any other in the history of this country.

KungFooMasta · Post by **KungFooMasta** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 2:23 am

I've recently been able to view youtube videos at work with audio, and I hope all the previous youtube videos I never got around to seeing aren't comparable to the one 2 links up, that is pretty horrible. Anybody can simply take a bunch of bad clips and string them together, thats a pretty biased view there. I think some people are trying to make mountains out of mole hills..