Vote for the Democratic Primaries

[The Sludge]

vote vote vote!!!!!!

[dei]

Did you forget some people?

[BridgeToSolace]

Biased much?

It's too difficult in politics to gauge what all of the candidates stand for and such. Debates don't really help, because they only talk about hot button issues (which invariably are explained in rhetoric and generally aren't terribly important).

That's the problem with democracy: too much damn work.

But cheers to me for not voting because I don't know enough rather than voting based on "Omg Obama r kewl!"

[The Sludge]

I thought I had all the canadates and I want to do a republican one too.

[BridgeToSolace]

WHAT ABOUT MIKE GRAVEL!?!?!?!?!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Democratic_presidential_candidates

There's a nice list.

Haha, they got the silliest picture for Dean that they could.

[dei]

You missed Gravel and Kucinich.

[Reaganista]

kucinich

[Mr. Ron]

Kucinich

[dei]

Kucinich.

[The Sludge]

Oddly, I like Dodd.

[Hababi]

Biden is the only good Democrat.

[Iscariot]

barack

the other candidates are just too 'lol'

[Seafroggys]

Mike Gravel is hilarious. That's why I'd vote for him :D

[Det_Nosnip]

Kucinich...he has the hottest wife. :D

In all seriousness though, he's the only major candidate that supports gay marriage, and therefore I feel morally obligated to vote for him. As far as "candidates that are likely to actually get the nomination," my vote would be for Obama.

[dei]

Mike Gravel is hilarious. That's why I'd vote for him :D

Don't vote.

[masada]

y catn i vote fer 2?

:(

[Akira]

barack

the other candidates are just too 'lol'

And by "all the other candidates," you mean Edwards and Clinton?

[Mr. Ron]

Obama is crap.

[Iscariot]

And by "all the other candidates," you mean Edwards and Clinton?

them and everyone else on the democratic ballot

all i've heard is a bunch of bleeding heart constitutional crap that won't add up to anything in the white house i just want to hear someone with a realistic view of the problems and how to solve them hence voting obama

Obama is crap.

coming from the guy voting kucinich that really means nothing to me

[Iskandar]

Obama is crap.He's not bad at all. Why do you say that?

[Seafroggys]

Kucinich...he has the hottest wife. :D

In all seriousness though, he's the only major candidate that supports gay marriage, and therefore I feel morally obligated to vote for him. As far as "candidates that are likely to actually get the nomination," my vote would be for Obama.

Agree and agree.

That Gravel comment was a joke btw, but he is pretty damn funny sometimes.

Even though I'm not registered Democrat (thus can't vote in the primaries) I would definitally vote for Kucinich. One, because he's the only one who really has a tough stance on any of the issues that are important. And two, because he has a ****ing smoking wife! :naughty:

[Iscariot]

He's not bad at all. Why do you say that?

because he prefers someone who votes against 100% of the troop funding proposals that come across his desk and let's not forget that association with the green party we can't forget their obviously well-targeted political goals

[Seafroggys]

I'm a member of the Green Party. :(

[Reaganista]

why should troops be funded

[Otherside]

john edwards

[Mr. Ron]

He's not bad at all. Why do you say that?

I really just think he's all charisma. Thats not a bad trait to have, but being an effective president requires more than just being young and charismatic.

[Iscariot]

why should troops be funded

because there's a huge moral and realistic separation between supporting the war and supporting the troops. You don't have to support the war in Iraq to understand that those soldiers are there are on orders and not of their own choice, and as long as they're there and fighting they should be provided the highest levels of funding available to make sure they have the equipment and the supplies needed to survive long enough to come back home to their families

or you know we could just cut all funding let them all die and indulge the reckless ignorant hyper-liberal view of necessary isolationism growing in the congress

I really just think he's all charisma. Thats not a bad trait to have, but being an effective president requires more than just being young and charismatic.

at least he's offered more than "if i were president i would damn the 3rd world nations of the middle east and bring everyone home on a plane tomorrow"

[Smokey D]

The Nuremberg trials provide precedent for the argument that following orders you know to be morally wrong is against international law.

[Iscariot]

the order to ship out to iraq was not morally wrong nor are most of the orders given overseas save for the obvious no-brainers like shooting unarmed civilians just for the sake of killing

it's melodramatic to claim that every soldier in the united states military could just hop on a plane and go home because the order to deploy is immoral

if the united states were openly and unabashedly breaking international law they would not have had the aid and commitment of the international community, including nations such as the uk and australia

[Smokey D]

Not all of them could, and not all of them would think it amoral though.

But it does mean that there isn't a moral gulf between 'supporting the war' and supporting the troops. Or at least, if there is one, it isn't as large as you're suggesting.


if the united states were openly and unabashedly breaking international law they would not have had the aid and commitment of the international community, including nations such as the uk and australia

Oh please. Of course they broke international law. It doesn't matter whether they've got accomplices.

The argument you're looking for is 'there is no such thing as international law'.

[Iscariot]

Not all of them could, and not all of them would think it amoral though.

there is a difference between a brazen order and an immoral order

just because an order rubs one viewpoint the wrong way does not make the offensive viewpoint immoral, especially if that viewpoint garners military support from a community that in itself defines the guidelines of moral and immoral orders

But it does mean that there isn't a moral gulf between 'supporting the war' and supporting the troops. Or at least, if there is one, it isn't as large as you're suggesting.

it's there as plain as day and visible to anyone capable of multilateral thinking

it's perfectly acceptable and perfectly obvious how one could hold a level of disdain for the current conflict and still desire to support the troops involved

it's a question of what is greater, your ego or your foresight

someone like kucinich can vote against 100% of the funding proposals he's presented with because he doesn't support the war, but it presents a disgusting gap in his train of logic because it ignores the fact that in reality the troops are not present in this current theater due to an immoral order to deploy and to deny them the necessary funding they require to do their job and stay alive is to condemn them to death just as much as the initial deployment and that is an immoral order

Oh please. Of course they broke international law. It doesn't matter whether they've got accomplices.

it matters whether the scribes of international law recognize and pursue it as a violation of such

The argument you're looking for is 'there is no such thing as international law'.

no i'm the one making logical claims in this discussion remember

[Smokey D]

there is a difference between a brazen order and an immoral order

just because an order rubs one viewpoint the wrong way does not make the offensive viewpoint immoral, especially if that viewpoint garners military support from a community that in itself defines the guidelines of moral and immoral orders

Continuing to fight in an illegal war that serves very little purpose could very easily be considered immoral.


it's perfectly acceptable and perfectly obvious how one could hold a level of disdain for the current conflict and still desire to support the troops involved

it's a question of what is greater, your ego or your foresight

It's also insulting to suggest that troops by virtue of being soldiers become automatons who automatically surrender their personal morality to a wider institution like the military.

it matters whether the scribes of international law recognize and pursue it as a violation of such

Except the US doesn't recognise itself as subject to any international law.

Of course, nor did Nazi Germany but it was still enforced ex post facto.

no i'm the one making logical claims in this discussion remember

I don't see what's illogical about the statement 'there is no such thing as international law'.

[Reaganista]

because there's a huge moral and realistic separation between supporting the war and supporting the troops. You don't have to support the war in Iraq to understand that those soldiers are there are on orders and not of their own choice, and as long as they're there and fighting they should be provided the highest levels of funding available to make sure they have the equipment and the supplies needed to survive long enough to come back home to their families

or you know we could just cut all funding let them all die and indulge the reckless ignorant hyper-liberal view of necessary isolationism growing in the congress
if you stop sending them money the president would eventually be forced to withdraw

[ringworm]

I honestly couldnt decide between those 8 candidates right now

I dont like any of them, but dont know enough about all of them

[lunchforthesky]

Kucinich.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

because there's a huge moral and realistic separation between supporting the war and supporting the troops. You don't have to support the war in Iraq to understand that those soldiers are there are on orders and not of their own choice, and as long as they're there and fighting they should be provided the highest levels of funding available to make sure they have the equipment and the supplies needed to survive long enough to come back home to their families

or you know we could just cut all funding let them all die and indulge the reckless ignorant hyper-liberal view of necessary isolationism growing in the congress



at least he's offered more than "if i were president i would damn the 3rd world nations of the middle east and bring everyone home on a plane tomorrow"


I fail to see anything wrong with not meddling in other countries affairs and bailing on a lost war in which nothing good can now possibly come in a country that hates us. Don't you think that maybe a good deal of the hatred in the Middle East and especially Latin America comes from you Americans deciding against isolationism?

[Iskandar]

I really just think he's all charisma. Thats not a bad trait to have, but being an effective president requires more than just being young and charismatic.Check out his political views, particularly domestically. He's pretty cool.

[Loser]

Though I know it won't happen, I'd like to see Gravel win.

I'm not joking either.

[ringworm]

john edwards

pls say you're kidding :)

[Akira]

pls say you're kidding :)

ya lyk3 omg eduards is n ambuance chazer!!11!!1

[ringworm]

dont forget, i actually live in the state he represents, as does Otherside, do you?

[lunchforthesky]

What does Biden have to say about gay marriage and Abortion?

I like him on Iraq and Darfur.

[Akira]

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Joe_Biden.htm

[BridgeToSolace]

Ugh, why are elections decided on silly social issues?

There's more to government than icky gay sex :(

[lunchforthesky]

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Joe_Biden.htm

Not bad at all.

Wouldn't be my first choice but if he became president i'd be satisfied.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Ugh, why are elections decided on silly social issues?

There's more to government than icky gay sex :(

I don't know why that's even a national issue, that should be a state issue, along with abortion, and shouldn't even be bothered with the president. But I agree.

[Smokey D]

Human rights shouldn't be state issues.

[Akira]

Abortion is a human rights issue?

[Smokey D]

Yes.

[Hababi]

Why not, the death penalty already is a state issue, so why not the death penalty for unwanted babies?

[Mr. Ron]

Why not, the death penalty already is a state issue, so why not the death penalty for unwanted babies?

apples and oranges

[Smokey D]

You don't seem to get what I'm saying. No human rights should not be a state issue. That includes the death penalty.

[Hababi]

apples and oranges

The death penalty isn't a human rights issue?

[Hababi]

You don't seem to get what I'm saying. No human rights should not be a state issue.

Why not?

[Smokey D]

Because human rights are too important.

State rights should be subordinate to individual rights.

[Ando!]

I meant to vote obama but goofed

[lunchforthesky]

I don't get all the love for Obama. I like Hilary more than him.

[Mr. Ron]

The death penalty isn't a human rights issue?

No you were lumping abortion and the death penalty together.

[Hababi]

Because human rights are too important.

(some) Human rights are also subjective. Opinion on the matter contrasts sharply state by state; I see no reason for the federal government to mandate a position one way or the other.

Right now, the fed government says the death penalty is ok; should all the states that ban the death penalty overturn the ban, then?

State rights should be subordinate to individual rights.

Since when is the fed government the best voice on this matter?

[Mr. Ron]

(some) Human rights are also subjective. Opinion on the matter contrasts sharply state by state; I see no reason for the federal government to mandate a position one way or the other.

Right now, the fed government says the death penalty is ok; should all the states that ban the death penalty overturn the ban, then?


Since when is the fed government the best voice on this matter?

Can you imagine what it would be like in the bible belt if human rights were left to the state?

[Hababi]

Can you imagine what it would be like in the bible belt if human rights were left to the state?

Yeah, they'd be much closer to ideal :D

[Mr. Ron]

you really really terrify me sometimes steve

[ringworm]

Yeah, they'd be much closer to ideal :D
yup, i hardly agree w/many religious people except on the conservative laws that usually come with them

[Hababi]

you really really terrify me sometimes steve

What'd be so terrifying about it?

[Iskandar]

What'd be so terrifying about it?Um.

[Hababi]

Um.

That's not a sufficient answer ;)

[Mr. Ron]

What'd be so terrifying about it?

Have you ever been to some of the areas in the bible belt where slavery and banning gay rights is still seen as "not such a bad idea"?

[Hababi]

Have you ever been to some of the areas in the bible belt where slavery and banning gay rights is still seen as "not such a bad idea"?

Dude, Christians led the way in banning slavery, so you're really off base :\

Also what does "banning gay rights" mean?

[Iskandar]

Have you ever been to some of the areas in the bible belt where slavery and banning gay rights is still seen as "not such a bad idea"?Zero's all for that, though.

[Mr. Ron]

Dude, Christians led the way in banning slavery, so you're really off base :\

Too bad that has nothing to do with modern Christianity and the culture in some of those areas.

[ringworm]

Have you ever been to some of the areas in the bible belt where slavery and banning gay rights is still seen as "not such a bad idea"?

o c'mone man, slavery, thats a little extreme :rolleyes:

[Hababi]

Too bad that has nothing to do with modern Christianity.

Ummmm yes it does. To accuse Christians of racism shows ignorance. Prove it or recant :smash:

Also, what does "banning gay rights" mean?

[Iskandar]

As usual, Steve attributes glasnost, human development, the Renaissance and the defeat of Hitler to Christianity.

[Mr. Ron]

o c'mone man, slavery, thats a little extreme :rolleyes:

No really. I've been to some of the bible belt states before and in some areas theres people that wouldn't mind it.

[ringworm]

i live in the bible belt

[Mr. Ron]

Ummmm yes it does. To accuse Christians of racism shows ignorance. Prove it or recant :smash:

Also, what does "banning gay rights" mean?

I'm not accusing Christians, I'm accusing hicks.

[Hababi]

As usual, Steve attributes glasnost, human development, the Renaissance and the defeat of Hitler to Christianity.

And as usual, you and Ron take the knee jerk (and completely incorrect) view that Christianity ought only to be blamed and never credited for the good it has brought.

No really. I've been to some of the bible belt states before and in some areas theres people that wouldn't mind it.

Hahaha so now some backwoods illiterate section (and I wonder exactly why you were there)=the whole state? FYI, Christians, particularly in the Bible belt, are much more charitable, and have been a big voice pushing for greater humanitarian efforts in Africa.

[Iskandar]

And as usual, you and Ron take the knee jerk (and completely incorrect) view that Christianity ought only to be blamed and never credited for the good it has brought.I'd take that over attributed mythical powers to Christianity that it never possessed.
Christians, particularly in the Bible belt, are much more charitable, and have been a big voice pushing for greater humanitarian efforts in Africa.Let me guess: Missionary work has a lot to do with this.

[Mr. Ron]

Im Not Talking About Christians Steve

[Iskandar]

Owned by caps filter.

[ringworm]

I'm not accusing Christians, I'm accusing hicks.
no, what you're doing is what is wrong with the country right now, and you sound a little like Amit, tbo, one of the biggest racists in here who loves to associate an entire region with one false lable that really should be used to describe the entire country

pretty soon, we'll get tired of being called these terms and just start implementing them, since everyone thinks we act a certain way anyway

[Mr. Ron]

yeah im too lazy to fix it. :I

[lunchforthesky]

Missionaries are pretty much the lowest lifeform in existence.

[Mr. Ron]

no, what you're doing is what is wrong with the country right now, and you sound a little like Amit, tbo, one of the biggest racists in here who loves to associate an entire region with one false lable that really should be used to describe the entire country

pretty soon, we'll get tired of being called these terms and just start implementing them, since everyone thinks we act a certain way anyway

I said some areas in the bible belt, not the entire bible belt.

[Hababi]

Let me guess: Missionary work has a lot to do with this.

Missionaries help.
Im Not Talking About Christians Steve

Ok so you're just proposing a slippery slope where the most ill educated and backwards of the states (constituting, btw, maybe 5% of the population, if that) somehow comes to dominate power...

[Mr. Ron]

Except these opinions are not limited to backwoods regions, but major cities and towns.

[Iskandar]

Missionaries help.Missionaries are there first and foremost to impose their religion upon others. Don't kid yourself. That's the whole point of missionaries.

[Hababi]

Except these opinions are not limited to backwoods regions, but major cities and towns.

So, how many members of the house are saying that slavery was a good thing? Heck, find some state reps.

You can't :\

And you still haven't said what "banning gay rights" entails...

[Hababi]

Missionaries are there first and foremost to impose their religion upon others. Don't kid yourself. That's the whole point of missionaries.

There is not a Christian missionary group in the world that is imperious, nor has there been for centuries. Christian missionary groups, more than anything else, have been doing humanitarian projects, and demonstrating their religion through their actions.

[ringworm]

yeah im too lazy to fix it. :I
but many, not totally directed at you, LOVE to toss complaints and, but hate to try and fix or constructively discuss them

but i guess the youth can only repeat what is being said at home, the tv & internet, so its not totally your fault

the entire country is split, and we continue to tear it by saying stuff like that

and i mean no argument, but i feel like im on a fence and watching the hilarity from both sides, but also i see that nothing is being done but making things more spiteful and partisan, which is NOT what we need

[Iskandar]

There is not a Christian missionary group in the world that is imperious, nor has there been for centuries. Christian missionary groups, more than anything else, have been doing humanitarian projects, and demonstrating their religion through their actions.Yeah, imposing their religion upon others. They do this by their very presence.

[Mr. Ron]

So, how many members of the house are saying that slavery was a good thing? Heck, find some state reps.

You can't :\

And you still haven't said what "banning gay rights" entails...

I didnt say that they would reinstate slavery or anything, but there are a few that I think would lean towards light segregation. This would become more apparent of states were given more power with human rights.




Treating gays as equals. You KNOW that would go out the window in a lot of southern areas.

[Mr. Ron]

but many, not totally directed at you, LOVE to toss complaints and, but hate to try and fix or constructively discuss them

but i guess the youth can only repeat what is being said at home, the tv & internet, so its not totally your fault

the entire country is split, and we continue to tear it by saying stuff like that

and i mean no argument, but i feel like im on a fence and watching the hilarity from both sides, but also i see that nothing is being done but making things more spiteful and partisan, which is NOT what we need

Actually my parents are neo-cons

[Hababi]

Yeah, imposing their religion upon others. They do this by their very presence.

:lol: Sooooooooooo religious imperialism by osmosis? Wow you're really getting into Tway territory there :\

"Bad Christians! You're hurting Africans by being there helping them!"

I didnt say that they would reinstate slavery or anything, but there are a few that I think would lean towards light segregation.

A few? Well, a few doesn't constitute a majority. Or anything close to it. There are a few leftists who would like to ban religion and set up concentration camps for Christians.

See what distorting the presence of a few does?



Treating gays as equals. You KNOW that would go out the window in a lot of southern areas.

What do you mean "treating gays as equals"?

[ringworm]

Treating gays as equals. You KNOW that would go out the window in a lot fo southern areas.
they are equals on every level except for marriage, at the moment

beleive me, areas that are known for more conservative beliefs have been scared to treat people a certain way, but how does that really change someone to feel differently about a group of people/lifestyle they dont agree with?

Actually my parents are neo-cons
so where does most of your babble come from then?

and dont take that too seriously, i like you, but sometimes your comments are a tad like a Fox listener talking about terrorists

[Mr. Ron]

:lol: Sooooooooooo religious imperialism by osmosis? Wow you're really getting into Tway territory there :\

"Bad Christians! You're hurting Africans by being there helping them!"



A few? Well, a few doesn't constitute a majority. Or anything close to it. There are a few leftists who would like to ban religion and set up concentration camps for Christians.

See what distorting the presence of a few does?




What do you mean "treating gays as equals"?


Did I even suggest that this would happen on a large scale? Nope.


Oh and I would love to see you list any well known leftists in America that would send x-tians to camps.



You know, treating gays as human beings and not something to be feared and rejected in society, which is still happening.

[Mr. Ron]

they are equals on every level except for marriage, at the moment

beleive me, areas that are known for more conservative beliefs have been scared to treat people a certain way, but how does that really change someone to feel differently about a group of people/lifestyle they dont agree with?


so where does most of your babble come from then?

and dont take that too seriously, i like you, but sometimes your comments are a tad like a Fox listener talking about terrorists

Nothing I said here is over the top by any means.

[Danish]

Missionary work, when tied to colonialism in the 1800s and earlier, was all about domination and indocrination.

Missionary work, at least for the most part, is different today. There's less emphasis on "converting the savages", though of course there are still clear Orientalist attitudes.

I think humanitarian work shouldn't be tied to religion as a matter of principle, just as I think it's crucially important to keep humanitarian work as far away from the military as possible.

[Hababi]

Did I even suggest that this would happen on a large scale? Nope.

Backtracking ITT. If nothing like that would happen, then your initial objection wasn't worth registering.


Oh and I would love to see you list any well known leftists in America that would send x-tians to camps.


List any well known Christians that want to bring back slavery.


You know, treating gays as human beings and not something to be feared and rejected in society, which is still happening.

Well I'd love to know who wants that.

Missionary work, when tied to colonialism in the 1800s and earlier, was all about domination and indocrination.

To an extent, I agree with you. But missionary work that served only to further colonialism often wasn't missionary work to begin with; Leopold II and Stanley had absolutely no personal agenda to convert the people of the Congo; they just wanted a colony. People like Livingstone, on the other hand, were genuinely committed to virtuous ideals.

Missionary work, at least for the most part, is different today.

This is the first time in a while that I've agreed with you on something :p


just as I think it's crucially important to keep humanitarian work as far away from the military as possible.

For the most part, I agree, but I've been pondering the benefits of a multinational military commitment to the Congo, to strengthen Kabila's government, route the insane guerrillas and establish the infrastructure that begins to tap into the potential of the land. The Congo river has 1/6 of the hydroelectric potential power in the world. If it could be successfully set up, it could provide power for all of Africa.

[Iskandar]

:lol: Sooooooooooo religious imperialism by osmosis? Wow you're really getting into Tway territory there :\

"Bad Christians! You're hurting Africans by being there helping them!"When a religious group sends missionaries abroad, they do so with the intent of spreading their religion among the heathens. That's what missionaries do.

I don't deny that they do help people, but their motives are ultimately to do with religion.

[ringworm]

Nothing I said here is over the top by any means.
eh, it was close, it just depends on what side we stand on, like i said, i usually agree w/most you say, and maybe i am too defensive sometimes, that could be as well

but i wish more could be done to mend the great split between in our country and how quick we are thrown into opposing corners that we dont want to be in, depending on what particular issue we debate

[Amit]

no, what you're doing is what is wrong with the country right now, and you sound a little like Amit, tbo, one of the biggest racists in here who loves to associate an entire region with one false lable that really should be used to describe the entire country

pretty soon, we'll get tired of being called these terms and just start implementing them, since everyone thinks we act a certain way anyway

hahahahah

i love white people like you

[ringworm]

and people like al sharpton & j jackson love people like you, keeping racism alive ftw!!!



:)


hahahahah

i love white people like you
pls tell me why though :p

[Amit]

no really

you don't get it do you

i don't care about being called a racist

asians, blacks, and indians don't care about being called a racist

while white people like you are absolutely horrified by it

that's why it's so much fun to antagonize people like you :]

seriously though

who else blubbers out excuses like "bbubbbbbbbut iii i i i have black friends!"

[Iskandar]

I don't have any racial minorities as friends, but then I live in a very white city.

[Danish]

To an extent, I agree with you. But missionary work that served only to further colonialism often wasn't missionary work to begin with; Leopold II and Stanley had absolutely no personal agenda to convert the people of the Congo; they just wanted a colony. People like Livingstone, on the other hand, were genuinely committed to virtuous ideals.

Right. The main function of tying missionary work to colonialism, I would argue, was to create domestic consent for colonial domination. The White Man's Burden almost universal.


This is the first time in a while that I've agreed with you on something :p

Well, it's true. Missionary work isn't tied to the state anymore. It's usually private churches and religious organizations. Like, I have absolutely no problem with people helping people in need. I have problems with treating people like they are lesser than one's self for whatever reason, be it gender, class, race, or religion.

The same sort of humanitarian outreach work is done by trade unions as well. The Canadian Auto Workers' Union has a major campaign to help people rebuild their houses in New Orleans, for instance. I mean, there's not much difference today.

Mormon missionaries, on the other hand...

For the most part, I agree, but I've been pondering the benefits of a multinational military commitment to the Congo, to strengthen Kabila's government, route the insane guerrillas and establish the infrastructure that begins to tap into the potential of the land. The Congo river has 1/6 of the hydroelectric potential power in the world. If it could be successfully set up, it could provide power for all of Africa.

What I'm referring to is the disturbing trend toward melding international development aid in with the military (ie. uniformed armed soldiers delivering aid, etc.). This is happening, for instance, in Afghanistan with Canadian Forces and CIDA.

[ringworm]

while white people like you are absolutely horrified by it

that's why it's so much fun to antagonize people like you :]
I think you just explained why we dont like to be called that right there ^^^^

because we are constantly antagonized, reminded, beaten up by things that happened years ago by other people, we are constantly held responsible for something we didnt do

we really could care less if people like you didnt always bring out the race card for every incident that happens

you're at fault as much as anyone else, if people would quit reliving racism, it would go away

who else blubbers out excuses like "bbubbbbbbbut iii i i i have black friends!"
remember, you asked ME :/
otherwise, who i knew wouldnt have been neccassary :/

that line is getting as old as when you constantly said you stoled teh white womenz in about every thread years ago :rolleyes:

[Danish]

no really

you don't get it do you

i don't care about being called a racist

asians, blacks, and indians don't care about being called a racist

while white people like you are absolutely horrified by it

that's why it's so much fun to antagonize people like you :]

seriously though

who else blubbers out excuses like "bbubbbbbbbut iii i i i have black friends!"

This seems fairly true to me. I wonder why? Is it because most white people think they have no race?

[Iskandar]

It has to do with white guilt, I always thought.

[Danish]

It has to do with white guilt, I always thought.

I don't think so. If white people felt so guilty, there would be considerably less institutional (and just plain ole) racism.

[Iskandar]

I always thought institutional racism was a vestige of the past. We've made a lot of progress on racial issues but still haven't solved them, that sort of thing.

[Amit]

I think you just explained why we dont like to be called that right there ^^^^

because we are constantly antagonized, reminded, beaten up by things that happened years ago by other people, we are constantly held responsible for something we didnt do

we really could care less if people like you didnt always bring out the race card for every incident that happens

you're at fault as much as anyone else, if people would quit reliving racism, it would go away


remember, you asked ME :/
otherwise, who i knew wouldnt have been neccassary :/

that line is getting as old as when you constantly said you stoled teh white womenz in about every thread years ago :rolleyes:

ringworm i think you missed the point by quite a bit

[ringworm]

It has to do with white guilt, I always thought.
yep, we're guily of it before it even happens in most cases
*see Duke Lacross Raoe for one instance

I always thought institutional racism was a vestige of the past. We've made a lot of progress on racial issues but still haven't solved them, that sort of thing.
this

there will always be pockets spread across the globe of racism, but to generalize and focus on the south is retarded. even though slavery seems to be only remembered in the south, many forget how vast it was nationally, and globally
ringworm i think you missed the point by quite a bit
i need to give up that you even make points, you just antogonize
its just frustrating to be the opposite of what many in the country view you to be

[Amit]

wait how many people in the country know me

am i a superstar

[Hababi]

Right. The main function of tying missionary work to colonialism, I would argue, was to create domestic consent for colonial domination. The White Man's Burden almost universal.

I think this is pretty valid; I'd add, though, that a great many missionaries were there out of genuine moral convictions; it was only the folks bringing them there, the heads of the colonializing forces, who had those underlying motivations and goals.

Mormon missionaries, on the other hand...


What, not a fan of Mormon missionaries?


What I'm referring to is the disturbing trend toward melding international development aid in with the military (ie. uniformed armed soldiers delivering aid, etc.). This is happening, for instance, in Afghanistan with Canadian Forces and CIDA.

Some of the reasoning behind this, at least in some places, is due to the danger it'd pose for non military folks to deliver the aid.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Human rights shouldn't be state issues.

There are some issues, I believe, that should be left to the states. And those are some of them.

Can you imagine what it would be like in the bible belt if human rights were left to the state?

Didn't you just lump all human rights together like zero did earlier?

[lfantwister]

There are some issues, I believe, that should be left to the states. And those are some of them.
theoretically would states' rights supersede say geneva conventions?

[WhoDidTheElf]

That's null point. It would be the Constitution long before the geneva conventions.

[lfantwister]

oh yeah forgot about those amendments

[Reaganista]

Ummmm yes it does. To accuse Christians of racism shows ignorance. Prove it or recant
is america a christian nation

[Hababi]

is america a christian nation

Christianity isn't a "Christian nation" in the sense that Iran is an Islamic nation.

[Mr. Ron]

There are some issues, I believe, that should be left to the states. And those are some of them.



Didn't you just lump all human rights together like zero did earlier?

nope. he compared abortion to the death penalty like they were the same thing.

[Smokey D]

(some) Human rights are also subjective. Opinion on the matter contrasts sharply state by state; I see no reason for the federal government to mandate a position one way or the other.

Human rights shouldn't be treated as subjective.

Right now, the fed government says the death penalty is ok; should all the states that ban the death penalty overturn the ban, then?

No, the Federal government should condemn and ban capital punishment.

Since when is the fed government the best voice on this matter?

Since you got all those whackos invoking the doctrines of state rights and reserve powers to limit human rights.

[Mr. Ron]

Backtracking ITT. If nothing like that would happen, then your initial objection wasn't worth registering.



List any well known Christians that want to bring back slavery.



Well I'd love to know who wants that.



To an extent, I agree with you. But missionary work that served only to further colonialism often wasn't missionary work to begin with; Leopold II and Stanley had absolutely no personal agenda to convert the people of the Congo; they just wanted a colony. People like Livingstone, on the other hand, were genuinely committed to virtuous ideals.


This is the first time in a while that I've agreed with you on something :p



For the most part, I agree, but I've been pondering the benefits of a multinational military commitment to the Congo, to strengthen Kabila's government, route the insane guerrillas and establish the infrastructure that begins to tap into the potential of the land. The Congo river has 1/6 of the hydroelectric potential power in the world. If it could be successfully set up, it could provide power for all of Africa.

I'm not talking about Christians you dense pillock.

[Hababi]

No, the Federal government should condemn and ban capital punishment.


Until they do (hopefully never), is it then wrong for the individual states that have banned capital punishment to do so?


Human rights shouldn't be treated as subjective.


Why not?

[Smokey D]

Until they do (hopefully never), is it then wrong for the individual states that have banned capital punishment to do so?

No, because the federal government's rights should also be subordinate to individual rights.

Why not?

Because then you can justify anything.

[Mr. Ron]

Ugh, that just reminds me of an argument I had on another board about the death penalty, where the only justification people there that supported it was "the killer took away the rights of the victim, so why should the killer have rights after he took theirs away!!!"


ughhhh

[Hababi]

No, because the federal government's rights should also be subordinate to individual rights.

Due process denies people basic rights, it's part of the justice system.



Because then you can justify anything.

That's done anyway.

[Smokey D]

Due process denies people basic rights, it's part of the justice system.

Due process, by definition, gives people rights.

That's done anyway.

But it shouldn't be.

[Hababi]

Due process, by definition, gives people rights.

A conviction under due process leads to a loss of basic rights.



But it shouldn't be.

You support war under some circumstances, right? Well, that involves killing people. It involves undertaking action that inevitably leads to the loss of innocent life.

[Smokey D]

A conviction under due process leads to a loss of basic rights.

But comes under due process, so it's fine.

I'm not arguing against the state completely.


You support war under some circumstances, right? Well, that involves killing people. It involves undertaking action that inevitably leads to the loss of innocent life.

The only time I support war is when to do otherwise would lead to a greater loss of rights.

[Hababi]

But comes under due process, so it's fine.

So does the death penalty.


The only time I support war is when to do otherwise would lead to a greater loss of rights.

But that introduces subjectivity.

[Smokey D]

So does the death penalty.

Taking a human life can never be mitigated. Suspending someone's liberty can.


But that introduces subjectivity.

Not at all.

[Hababi]

Taking a human life can never be mitigated. Suspending someone's liberty can.

So?


Not at all.

Sure it does. How much less? And how do you know, for certain? It's subjective.

[Smokey D]

So?

So I'm good with that.

Not that I really see what this has to do with the rights of the state being subordinate to the rights of the person.


Sure it does. How much less? And how do you know, for certain? It's subjective.

Yeah, but if you're gonna argue like that you get stuck in a black hole of existential skepticism that stops you from doing anything at all.

By the way, I said rights shouldn't be subjective, not that they can't be compromised.

[RNR]

Hilary Clinton! She's the smart version of John F. Kennedy ('cept wit boobz)

[ok lateralus]

They all suck balls.

[HNLzero]

Go Gravel! The only one who won't compromise.

[RNR]

They all suck balls.

Compared to...?

[The Sludge]

nope. he compared abortion to the death penalty like they were the same thing.

Well the only difference is the unborn child didn't do anything wrong.

[Smokey D]

And, potentially, the fact that's it's not a person.

[Hababi]

So I'm good with that.

Why? You can't give back someone the years taken from them any more than you can give back a person's life.


Yeah, but if you're gonna argue like that you get stuck in a black hole of existential skepticism that stops you from doing anything at all.
By the way, I said rights shouldn't be subjective, not that they can't be compromised.

But if they can be compromised, then they're not objective.

[Smokey D]

Why? You can't give back someone the years taken from them any more than you can give back a person's life.

But you can set them free, so it's a stupid comparison.

But if they can be compromised, then they're not objective.

Why on earth not?

[Hababi]

But you can set them free, so it's a stupid comparison.

After you've taken away the better part of their lives in many cases. You're willing to take away some human rights, clearly, even when it might be incorrect; you're just picking and choosing which human rights you're willing to compromise.



Why on earth not?

Because when something is objective, there can be no compromise.

[Smokey D]

After you've taken away the better part of their lives in many cases. You're willing to take away some human rights, clearly, even when it might be incorrect; you're just picking and choosing which human rights you're willing to compromise.

So not all human rights are created equal.

But it's a stupid comparison because releasing someone after imprisoning them for most of their lives is still better than killing someone.

And it's not even a case of releasing falsely convicted people. It's a case of no one having the right to kill other people.

Because when something is objective, there can be no compromise.

Do you know what objective means?

[BridgeToSolace]

Do people falsely accused of crimes and then released have some sort "Get of jail free card?"

Considering that if falsely accused person is sentenced to a year in prison for robbery (AFTER BEING RELEASED), he's already served his debt to society.

Just a silly idea I heard from a comedian.

[Hababi]

So not all human rights are created equal.

But it's a stupid comparison because releasing someone after imprisoning them for most of their lives is still better than killing someone.

Better, not by much. But now we're establishing a tiered system of human rights, and this goes back to your original point lumping all 'human rights' together into one category.

And it's not even a case of releasing falsely convicted people. It's a case of no one having the right to kill other people.


So we can wrongfully imprison someone for the course of their natural life but not bring a premature end to that life?


Do you know what objective means?

How are objective rights not absolute? In terms of human rights, any objective right must be absolute. But then there really aren't any objective rights, because under acceptable circumstances, as we've established, these rights can be denied to people.

[lfantwister]

So we can wrongfully imprison someone for the course of their natural life but not bring a premature end to that life?
The death penalty bestows government with too much power. Ending a life is pretty big. And the death penalty does not leave room for mistakes. If you're released the day before you die you still have one day of freedom.

How are objective rights not absolute? In terms of human rights, any objective right must be absolute. But then there really aren't any objective rights, because under acceptable circumstances, as we've established, these rights can be denied to people. Not if you don't believe in the death penalty..the right to life seems pretty absolute.

[Reaganista]

i think the ability to hold someone for the entirety of their life is too much power alsoHow are objective rights not absolute?
because sometimes they can be compromised

[RIP Ian Curtis]

I fail to see how ending life terms in gaols is remotely intelligent. It's seriously reaching a point where I may as well steal what I want and kill anyone who pisses me off, there really isn't anything stopping me anymore (excpet of course being a middle class, young, white male, thus 1. More inclined to follow the law and 2. dealt with far more severly than other classes and races before the law)

[lfantwister]

i think the ability to hold someone for the entirety of their life is too much power also but better than taking away that life yeah?
because sometimes they can be compromised right but i'm arguing against death penalty here. W/o DP, it would be illegal to compromise those rights in a civil society

[Reaganista]

excpet of course being a middle class, young, white male, thus.. 2. dealt with far more severly than other classes and races before the law
ur country is weird here those people get found innocent
but better than taking away that life yeah?
i guess but not by a whole lot
right but i'm arguing against death penalty here. W/o DP, it would be illegal to compromise those rights in a civil society
there's more to legal and/or justifiable homicide than executions

[lfantwister]

there's more to legal and/or justifiable homicide than executions with the exception of war which is an entirely different topic what else is there?

[Reaganista]

war, self-defense, defense of another, defense of property in some places, necessity, medicine in some places, law enforcement, prison guards and executions

[Danish]

I fail to see how ending life terms in gaols is remotely intelligent. It's seriously reaching a point where I may as well steal what I want and kill anyone who pisses me off, there really isn't anything stopping me anymore (excpet of course being a middle class, young, white male, thus 1. More inclined to follow the law and 2. dealt with far more severly than other classes and races before the law)

By God! We have to do something before these monsters get our children!

You describe murder as a rational choice. People don't kill people because killing other people is wrong. People aren't purely self-interested, nor do they live in the Hobbesian state of nature. You may think you only need yourself to get by, but you're wrong.

[Hababi]

The death penalty bestows government with too much power. Ending a life is pretty big. And the death penalty does not leave room for mistakes. If you're released the day before you die you still have one day of freedom.


Functionally, removing almost the entirety (or, in some cases, literally the entire life, through life imprisonment) of a person's natural life, by stripping them of their rights, is little different than simply ending their lives.


Not if you don't believe in the death penalty..the right to life seems pretty absolute.

As I asked Smokey, though, you believe in war, right?

[Danish]

Functionally, removing almost the entirety (or, in some cases, literally the entire life, through life imprisonment) of a person's natural life, by stripping them of their rights, is little different than simply ending their lives.

Sure there is difference. If you execute someone and discover 10 years later that, indeed, a mistake was made at trial and this person wasn't guilty, you've created a major miscarriage of justice. First, the state essentially took the life of an innocent person, which no state has any right to do. Second, the actual killer has escaped detection and possibly even committed other serious offenses. Third, it calls into question the legitimacy of the entire process.

On the other hand, I'm also opposed to locking people up for the rest of their lives and throwing away the key. People aren't perfect; they **** up from time-to-time and often times face social conditions that predispose them to being "antisocial" or "deviant", as sociologists would put it.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

If they're predisposed to being antisocial deviants then why not lock them up/kill them for the protection of society?

The "I might as well go murder somone" was kinda meant to highlight that rational choice thing, glad you brought it up.

And in my state we can't elect judges, so they're all PC Socialist scum, and thus, hate the shi't out of people like me. I'd have to go to the supreme court where they're cranky old white men to have a chance.

[lfantwister]

If they're predisposed to being antisocial deviants then why not lock them up/kill them for the protection of society? predisposed doesnt mean they cant act against their impulses

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Okay, so if they act on their impulses and we're 75% - 25% they'll have another go, why not save their time and misery (and our money and lives/property) and just waste 'em?

[lfantwister]

I dont even know how to respond to that. If they havent committed a serious crime you can't just go waste em, regardless of some bullshit statistics you make up. We do have a justice system for a reason

[RIP Ian Curtis]

And if they have commited a serious crime you're still not in favour of harsh sentencing/capital punishment?

Way I figure it is that most criminals don't reoffend. Those who do reoffend after their first conviction are more and more likely to keep going as the convictions pile up. So why not have a 3-strikes policy? And especialy a death penalty for crimes of habit (i.e. pretty much all sexual crime, arson)

[lfantwister]

And if they have commited a serious crime you're still not in favour of harsh sentencing/capital punishment?not capital punishment, no. I dont think the state should have enough power to extinguish the lives theyre sworn to protect. Locking them up is another story though and I'm all for it.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Fairy nuff, I can't be bothered having a capital punishment argument today, I got drunk and laid this weekend, so no need to ruin it with that bollocks.

Well argued good sir.

[lfantwister]

thanks but thats maam to you

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Oh no shi't. My apologies madam.

See I figured that you were on the internet, ergo you were a dude.

[Hababi]

On the other hand, I'm also opposed to locking people up for the rest of their lives and throwing away the key. People aren't perfect; they **** up from time-to-time and often times face social conditions that predispose them to being "antisocial" or "deviant", as sociologists would put it.

With some people, there is a criminal mindset. They will never change. Like the two thugs who I posted an article about; they were career criminals. They went through various rehabilitation programs and every time they got out of prison, they ended up right back in. Some people are not rehabilitatable, and by releasing these beasts into the general population, you do a disservice to society, putting everyone at risk.

[Mr. Ron]

With some people, there is a criminal mindset. They will never change. Like the two thugs who I posted an article about; they were career criminals. They went through various rehabilitation programs and every time they got out of prison, they ended up right back in. Some people are not rehabilitatable, and by releasing these beasts into the general population, you do a disservice to society, putting everyone at risk.

Thats because the rehabilitation programs we have now are crap, and once they are over they just give the prison the boot and not even do anything to help them outside of prison.

[lunchforthesky]

Zero has never been able to understand that our failure to rehabilitate does not neccessarily indicate that some people cannot be helped but that we may suck at helping.

[Hababi]

Thats because the rehabilitation programs we have now are crap, and once they are over they just give the prison the boot and not even do anything to help them outside of prison.

The problem is that no matter what, you will always say that it's the fault of the rehabilitation program, and not that rehabilitation is beyond some people. This is a rather dogmatic position that exists outside of facts and figures :\

[Mr. Ron]

The problem is that no matter what, you will always say that it's the fault of the rehabilitation program, and not that rehabilitation is beyond some people. This is a rather dogmatic position that exists outside of facts and figures :\

I do think there are utter nut cases out there with severe mental shortcomings that may be out of hope, but I think the majority can be rehabilitated.

[Hababi]

I do think there are utter nut cases out there with severe mental shortcomings that may be out of hope, but I think the majority can be rehabilitated.

Oh, I agree with you. The majority of all people who enter the criminal system can be rehabilitated. But when you get people entering time and time again, committing the same crimes, going through various rehabilitation programs, and continuing to be a criminal menace, then you have to keep them away from society, for good.

[Mr. Ron]

Oh, I agree with you. The majority of all people who enter the criminal system can be rehabilitated. But when you get people entering time and time again, committing the same crimes, going through various rehabilitation programs, and continuing to be a criminal menace, then you have to keep them away from society, for good.

Well, a sane person can get arrested multiple times.

[Hababi]

Well, a sane person can get arrested multiple times.

For small stuff. Posession of marijuana, yadda yadda. But outside of that, it's not worth taking the risk. Particularly with sex offenders--if they repeat once, that shows you they need put away for good.

[Mr. Ron]

For small stuff. Posession of marijuana, yadda yadda. But outside of that, it's not worth taking the risk. Particularly with sex offenders--if they repeat once, that shows you they need put away for good.

I always saw locking someone up for life as a waste...even though they may be threats, I think some,e sort of working program would be better than them just sitting around on our tax money.

[Hababi]

I always saw locking someone up for life as a waste...even though they may be threats, I think some,e sort of working program would be better than them just sitting around on our tax money.

Let them work in prison ;)

[BridgeToSolace]

Let them work in prison ;)

Prison labor is a hugely untapped resource.

[Mr. Ron]

as long as they are treated with respect.

[Hababi]

as long as they are treated with respect.

They are. If you want to see a glaring lack of respect, read King Leopold's Ghost. I'm about half way through and it's sad and horrifying :\

[Mr. Ron]

They are. If you want to see a glaring lack of respect, read King Leopold's Ghost. I'm about half way through and it's sad and horrifying :\

I am not familiar with that book. Whats it about?

[BridgeToSolace]

I am not familiar with that book. Whats it about?

Imperialism.

It's about what europe did to the congo.

[Hababi]

I am not familiar with that book. Whats it about?

Imperialism.

It's about what europe did to the congo.

Yeah, this basically. The whole Congo Free State history. It's very well written.

[Mr. Ron]

I'll look into that when I make my weekly border's book run. :^p

[sweboy]

The white man call himself civilized
Cause he know how to take over
The white man come to pillage my village
Now he tell me I have to bend over

[Danish]

With some people, there is a criminal mindset. They will never change. Like the two thugs who I posted an article about; they were career criminals. They went through various rehabilitation programs and every time they got out of prison, they ended up right back in. Some people are not rehabilitatable, and by releasing these beasts into the general population, you do a disservice to society, putting everyone at risk.

"Various rehabilitation programs"? You are an intellectual lightweight, aren't you!

[Hababi]

:confused:

[DesolationRow]

Kucinich.

[ok lateralus]

Vote for Kucinich! Die America Great Satan!

[Reaganista]

"Various rehabilitation programs"? You are an intellectual lightweight, aren't you!

im anti-intellectual