 |
Business Directory |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coupons |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Classifieds |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| | Author | Messages | |
jhall
Posts:1237
 | | 08/04/2007 9:08 AM |
 Alert | 1) The modern American "peace movement" is responsible for the deaths of far more people than the U.S.-involved wars its members have protested over the past half century. Why then are so many Americans still convinced that going to war is the worst thing our country can do?
2) Over the course of its existence, our planet has been much colder and much warmer than it is today, having endured periodic ice ages and various cataclysmic natural events. That being the case, why would anyone choose to believe that human beings are responsible for the earth's most recent, and relatively mild, climatic shift?
3) The Bush doctrine of preemptive warfare would - in all likelihood - have saved tens of millions of lives had it been implemented against Nazi Germany prior to Hitler's invasion of Poland in 1939. So why do human rights activists today insist that stopping Islamofascists from acquiring nuclear weapons isn't worth the cost in human life?
4) Monetary transactions between private citizens are what fuel our economy. The government taxes private citizens, thereby removing money from the economy. Since economic growth is dependent upon increased monetary transactions within the private sector, why do Democrat lawmakers routinely propose raising taxes, especially on those citizens who invest the most money in our economy?
5) The word viable - as it applies to human beings - means capable of life or normal growth and development. An unborn human being during every stage of gestation is clearly alive and capable of normal development, unless he or she is genetically predisposed to abnormal growth or is hindered in some way from developing naturally by an external force. That being the case, why do some people argue that unborn human beings are non-viable during the earliest stages of their development, and therefore, appropriate candidates for abortion?
6) The Geneva Conventions' protocols relative to the treatment of prisoners of war, were created for the purpose of holding the signatories of the various treaties which make up those Conventions to a certain moral standard of behavior during times of war. Any entity, be it a nation, group, or individual, that does not adhere to the standards set forth therein, is not subject to the Conventions' protections under international law. How then can one justify affording such protections to terrorists, who ignore all of the aforementioned behavioral standards?
Oh, and one last thing...
7) If George W. Bush is as stupid as so many liberals claim, how did he manage to steal an election, mastermind 9/11, cover up his administration's involvement in that event after the fact, con practically every Congressional Democrat into going to war with Iraq just so he could further enrich his cronies in the oil industry, single-handedly destroy every American's civil rights via the Patriot Act, and then steal a second election on top of all that? And if he's really an evil genius, which he'd surely have to be to get away with even half of those things, why aren't his primary political adversaries in prison on trumped-up criminal charges right now... or dead? | |
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
--Edmund Burke | |
| | Reagan
Posts:737
| | 08/04/2007 4:54 PM |
Alert | Popcorn currently in the microwave. Sitting back and waiting, this should be entertaining | |
Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence.
Reagan, Los Angeles Times, January 7, 1970 | |
|
| | HiggsBoson
Posts:641
| | 08/04/2007 5:49 PM |
Alert | There are a lot more people that just "liberals" that disagree with the policies of GW Bush and the Neocon world view.
Thanks,
Higgs | |
Liberalism and capitalism address themselves to the cool, well-balanced mind. They proceed by strict logic, eliminating any appeal to the emotions. Socialism, on the contrary, works on the emotions, tries to violate logical considerations by rousing a sense of personal interest and to stifle the voice of reason by awakening primitive instincts.
-- Ludwig Von Mises | |
|
| | jhall
Posts:1237
| | 08/04/2007 6:46 PM |
Alert | What is the "other" way.... Cut and run... white flags...the French way?  | |
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
--Edmund Burke | |
|
| | rex
Posts:295
| | 08/04/2007 11:00 PM |
Alert | What's wrong with cut and run? Ronald Reagan cut and run after over 200 marines were slaughtered in their barracks in Lebanon. Why didn't Ronald Reagan nuke Lebanon? The Democrats weren't afraid to use the A-bomb in WWII. Why are Republicans too whimpy to use the nuke? GW could have saved a lot of American lives by nuking Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan. Why can't Republicans get 'er done. Why don't Republicans get it?
"I call upon the scientific community in our country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace: to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete." quote from Ronald Reagan
Souds like a white flag to me.
"The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas-a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated." quote from Ronald Reagan
Forget wills and ideas, nuke 'em.
Stop talkin, start nukin.
BTW, Bill Clinton cheated on Hillary. They stayed married. Ronald Reagan vowed "till death do us part" to Jane Wyman, divorced her, then married Nancy Davis. Also, Ronald Reagan was President of the Screen Actors Guild. He is in the same company as Alec Baldwin, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Babbs, etc. Wait, there's more. He was also a Democrat before he flip flopped and became a Republican. | | | |
|
| | regancolston1214
Posts:180
| | 08/05/2007 8:57 PM |
Alert | "Ronald Reagan vowed "till death do us part" to Jane Wyman, divorced her, then married Nancy Davis. Also, Ronald Reagan was President of the Screen Actors Guild. He is in the same company as Alec Baldwin, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Babbs, etc. Wait, there's more. He was also a Democrat before he flip flopped and became a Republican."
He flipped when he realized the truth!!! | | | |
|
|  | drummer72
Posts:3605
| | 08/05/2007 11:24 PM |
Alert | One word: Puppet
He who controls the strings, controls the country. | |
"Everything for everyone and nothing for ourselves" | |
|
| | Reagan
Posts:737
| | 08/06/2007 9:26 AM |
Alert | Rex, you ceretainly have a lot of hatred for Reagan! What is your problem with him? Are you upset that he was the most popular President in his century? Are you upset that he cut the defeciet, brought the economy back, lowered interest rates, and put our country back on track, ALL WHILE LOWERING TAXES????
Oh wait, I forgot, #57 out of the liberal playbook. "When someone brings up a valid and proveable point that you have no response for, change the subject and accuse others of horrible things. If you say it enough, people will start to believe it!" | |
Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence.
Reagan, Los Angeles Times, January 7, 1970 | |
|
| | rex
Posts:295
| | 08/06/2007 8:17 PM |
Alert | Reagan, I love Ronald Reagan. He is my favorite President. Here is my problem: Bill Clinton is my second favorite President. Every time I post something about TODAYS national or world affairs (GW Bush) someone always comes up with "well, Bill Clinton did it". "Sandy Berger did it". "The Democrats are Dumbicrats". "Liberalism is a mental disorder". I get a little tired of hearing how bad Bill Clinton was. I thought I'd go on the offensive against Republicans and Ronald Reagan to balance things out a bit. If you don't like the bad stuff said about Ronald Reagan, welcome to my world. I hear bad stuff about Bill Clinton all the time. When it's bad about Clinton it's OK, but when it's bad about Ronald Reagan it's not OK?
When did Ronald Reagan cut the deficit?
Ronald Reagan deficit added to national debt
1981 $99 billion
1982 $168
1983 $214
1984 $252
1985 $283
1986 $179
1987 $225
1988 $252 = $1.672 trillion
George Herbert Walker Bush deficit added to national debt
1989 $255 billion
1990 $376
1991 $432
1992 $399 = $1.462 trillion
Bill Clinton deficit added to national debt
1993 $347 billion
1994 $281
1995 $281
1996 $251
1997 $188
1998 $113
1999 $130
2000 $18 = $1.609 trillion
Ronald Reagan cut the deficit ONCE in his 8 years in office. Bill Clinton cut the deficit SEVEN times in his 8 years in office. In just 4 years, George Herbert Walker Bush added nearly as much to the national debt as both Reagan's and Clinton's 8 years. Thanks for getting me to look that PROOF up. It's all good.
Why do you hate Clinton/Democrats/Liberals so much? Do you hate them more than the terrorists? Who would you rather live next door to?
Did you watch CBS News 60 Minutes yesterday? They ran a story of the huge successes the Kurds are having in Northern Iraq. They're building cultural centers among tons of other successes. The 60 Minutes dude was walking down the crowded market street with no security, no kevlar vest, no body guards, talking English and no one killed him. I think he said there were 60 US soldiers in that region because there was no violence. CBS News ran this story. They are part of the so-called "Liberal Media". I've seen success stories on CNN as well. Fox News doesn't do this stuff. They send Geraldo out to draw a map in the sand of the troops exact position on Live TV. | | | |
|
| | jhall
Posts:1237
| | 08/07/2007 7:24 AM |
Alert | They now are posting because they realize we are winning and it is devastating to them. Due to the fact that they have had nothing to say but bad things about Iraq.
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party’s efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.
Clyburn, in an interview with the washingtonpost.com video program PostTalk, said Democrats might be wise to wait for the Petraeus report, scheduled to be delivered in September, before charting next steps in their year-long struggle with President Bush over the direction of U.S. strategy.
Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.
…
Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be “a real big problem for us.”
Here is the whole article if you care to read it
http://crushliberalism.com/2007/07/31/dem-whip-admits-what-weve-always-known-good-news-for-america-bad-news-for-dems/ | |
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
--Edmund Burke | |
|
| | movinonup
Posts:127
| | 08/07/2007 11:37 AM |
Alert | Just like the middle East, you guys are not going to resolve this because you're not willing to see the other guy's point because you're too busy defending your point and not be "wrong". You are both right. Get over it.
"First seek to understand, then to be understood." | | | |
|
| | AmyG
Posts:3
| | 08/08/2007 7:56 AM |
Alert | A few questions about plagiarism for the original poster:
1. What makes you feel it's justifiable to claim the work of others as you're own?
2. Being that you did not write ONE word of the statement you posted, how could anyone take you seriously from this point forward, when you come across as an intellectual thief?
3. Are most non-liberals plagiarists?
4. Did you graduate from 8th grade?
5. Do you know the definition of plagiarism? Let me provide some resource on this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism "thank you wiki"
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/plagiarizing "thank you m-w.com"
6. Am I completely wrong? Does this biography accurately describe you?
"Edward Daley was born to American parents on a U.S. military base in Stephenville, Newfoundland, Canada, and moved to the United States as an infant. He became active in politics in 1984--the first year he was old enough to vote for the President of the United States. Currently he is the full-time caregiver to his elderly father and a landlord of rental property. Edward has been a salesman, bar doorman, typesetter, and security guard. He is a college graduate with a number of hobbies and interests, including reading, writing poetry and short stories, web designing, watching professional football, and drinking 12-year-old single malt scotch. He currently lives in Thomaston, Maine." -source: www.renewamerica.us
7. How's the 12 year old single malt, good enough?
8. Have you ever had and original thought? Did it start with an onomatopoeia, like, "duh"?
9. Someone in this thread called you a puppet. How do you respond? In YOUR OWN words please.
10. Will you use the weakest excuse and say you forgot to quote your source?
My personal note:
Plagiarism is low brow. It's often deployed by those who don't have the inherent ability to organize thoughts, create meaningful statements or show integrity... or as others mentioned, puppets. In my opinion, you're post should be deleted, you should be banned. But this is just my personal disgust speaking, take it for what it's worth.
Oh, and credit where it's due: http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/daley/070803
Hugs and Kisses baby doll,
Amygdala
xoxoxoxox
| |
"Smile out your one face, but with the other, stare like a junkie, into the t.v."
-Maynard J. Keenan | |
|
| | CF Splash Pad Police
Posts:102
| | 08/08/2007 7:59 AM |
Alert | | Tee hee.....another conservative busted! | |
When only cops have guns, it’s called a “police state”. --Claire Wolfe | |
|
| | jhall
Posts:1237
| | 08/08/2007 8:24 AM |
Alert | | No I didn't know the source. I received it from a friend on another site. O and way to, Rather than stay on subject, do the typical liberal thing and dart off into some tangent that has nothing to do with the subject other that siting the source. Thank you for tracking that down for me. But if you insist on insulting my intelligence, you had better rest assured that 1. You don't know me 2. To make any statement claiming that you do is extremely arrogant 3. Yes someone did call me a puppet......because they had nothing more intelligent to say, which I ignored because of it. The only reason I am responding to your post is because it seems that you must have a lot of spare time to go through the trouble or dragging this post so far off topic in some accusation name calling game that 5 year olds wouldn't stoop to. Is it that hard to answer a question? With all that spare time..... next time maybe do some of that research on siting sources to answer the original post. Or was it that you felt so small after reading a post written by a, "12 year old single malt Scotch drinker" that you failed to write a response that effectively voiced your views and answered/defended your beliefs. | |
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
--Edmund Burke | |
|
| | Reagan
Posts:737
| | 08/08/2007 8:37 AM |
Alert | AmyG, thank you for citing the source. I don't think JHall was claiming it as his own, but nevertheless, that question is answered. Now maybe you can answer the original questions? Oh wait, back to that liberal playbook. #31 & # 74. "Always change the subject because it is easier to do than answer their questions-they will have the answers and truth, and we just can't compete," & "If you find yourself in a debate which you can never win, personally attack your opponent. If you attack them enough, everyone will start to believe it."
Thanks AMyB | |
Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence.
Reagan, Los Angeles Times, January 7, 1970 | |
|
| | Reagan
Posts:737
| | 08/08/2007 8:38 AM |
Alert | Posted By CF Splash Pad Police on 08/08/2007 7:59 AM
Tee hee.....another conservative busted!
Try reading it again. He was asking some easy questions and for some proof. I would say another liberal busted personally attacking and changing the subject. | |
Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence.
Reagan, Los Angeles Times, January 7, 1970 | |
|
| | HiggsBoson
Posts:641
| | 08/08/2007 12:48 PM |
Alert | To reply:
1. I have no idea what you are talking about, can you site some examples of the people killed by the "peace movement".
2. I think at this point there is enough evidence to show that humans have had some effect. The real question is how much is natural and how much is from human activity. Also, we really need to question our ability to predict global weather patterns and trends. Does anyone really believe that we can accurately predict small increases in temperature and see levels in the year 2100? If so you are not being honest with yourself, or your stupid. The other problem with "global climate change" is that it has been so politicized and now its big business, so there are a lot of people involved with their own motives at play that the average person probably isnt aware of when the media reports this as fact.
Speaking of the media and global warming proponents, what is often used as the source for the "global consensus of scientists" is the IPCC. What is interesting about the IPCC reports is that you see lots of worlds like "probably", "likely" some predictions only at a 66% confidence level. Also this about climate models:
Confidence in the ability of models to project future climate has increased (Complex physically based climate models are required to provide detailed estimates of feedback and of regional features. Such models cannot yet simulate all aspects of climate (e.g., they still cannot account fully for the observed trend in the surface-troposphere temperature difference since 1979) and there are particular uncertainties associated with clouds and their interaction with radiation and aerosols. The reality is we are in the infancy when it comes to computer models that can accurate simulate our incredibly complex global climate. Here is something else interesting in the IPCC reports from 2001 to 2007. In 2001 they said sea levels were likely to rise to a max of 35.4 inches, but in 2007 this has changed to a max of 35.4 inches. In the context of what we are talking about this is an enormously huge difference. What will it be when the next report comes out? It seems to me market forces (high cost of oil) are already moving us in the direction of cleaner renewable energy sources without the government having to create more legislation and regulation. Enough on this topic.
3. This is pointless as there is no comparison between Nazi Germany and Iraq of today. Also, hindsight is 20/20. Its interesting how the neocons were able to convince many stupid Americans that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11 and was working with AQ to help them get WMD. We know know even at the time that the "intelligence" regarding Iraq trying to nuclear materials was suspect, and that was disregarded by the neocons in the Bush administration to justify the war. Basically they knew it was poor info but used it anyway for marketing material for the war. The truth is there are far more Islamic terrorists in Iraq now then before the war. Its interesting how the reasons for war changed from Saddam is going to give WMD to terrorists to Saddam was a brutal dictator and had to be removed to free the Iraqi people.
We helped create many of the problems in the middle east by our horrendously bad decisions influenced by the neocons. We have supported, propped up, funded, and turned the other way on brutal dictators like Saddam, puppet governments like the Shaw of Iran, and we support oppressive regimes like the Saudi Royal family (women in Iran have more freedom than SA) and military dictators like "President" Musharraf of Pakistan who took over in a coup. Don't forget that a majority of the foreign fighters in Iraq today are Saudis, and don't forget where the 9/11 terrorists came from. Lets not forget that Pakistan is where Osama is hiding, and Pakistan is where many of the religious "schools" are that indoctrinate children with the radical hate filled version of Islam. Where did Saddam get the gas he used on the kurds? Thats right, the USA. You know Pakistan has nukes and a lot of radical Muslims right? Maybe we should be invading them too. Invading Iran will do nothing to stop terrorists from getting a nuke if they so desire, and would probably increase recruiting and funding for Islamic terrorist organizations.
Our middle east foreign policy has been a complete disaster and our best option is to return to a traditional foreign policy of non-interventionism.
4. This is true but neocons don't really believe in small government or free markets. What is worse, vastly increasing government dept and spending but providing small tax cuts; or increasing taxes and increasing government spending? Both are horrible options in my opinion. Unfortunately today there are very few politicians on the left or right who really believe in reducing the size and spending of government. Republicans pay lip service to this idea, but look at their voting records, sure they are better than democrats, but bad is still bad.
Smaller government means more than just tax cuts and government regulation. Its about all government spending and also just as important is the size and scope of government. Neocons are for big government, it just takes a different form from the democrats. The moves by the Bush administration to increase the scope of what the government can do and his power grabs for the executive branch should be disturbing to any true patriotic American. We need smaller government in all aspects, less taxes and regulation, smaller size, and just as important less involvement in our lives. I think republicans had controlled the white house and congress for 6 years under Bush, and what do we have to show for it; the government is larger in size, in terms of number of people employed (or contracted), large (and costly) new programs and departments were added, and government spending increased (even when you remove Iraq war spending). And of course there are the attacks on our civil liberties tossed in as a bonus! Fiscal conservatives my @#%^$.
5. Pass on this one.
6. We are better than terrorist and third world dictators and should act as such. How do we show the world our position of moral superiority if we stoop to the same level as the people we are fighting? Nobody is suggesting that we treat enemy's captured on the battlefield or suspected terrorists like we do celebrities that get busted for drunk driving, but come on, how can anyone in their right mind justify torturing prisoners? Its ironic to see people so concerned about human life when you are talking about an egg that was just fertilized, but then has such disregard for human life when its some scary foreigner in some far off country. Even more disgusting is those that don't seem to mind stripping a US Citizen of their rights, holding them indefinitely, denning them access to legal representation, etc. I know the typical neocon response is that "if your not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about", but history has proven over and over government will abuse powers granted to them. Besides, this goes against the whole intention of government by our founders who had the idea that government was a necessary evil that should have the absolute smallest amount of power to serve its limited functions and nothing more. I don't care if I'm not doing anything wrong, its not the governments business to record everything I do.
7. I would say Bush has been a very bad president, but I do agree that the conspiracy theories about 9/11 and how we are only in Iraq to make Bush's buddies rich are so stupid its painful. The real riddle of Bush is how can a guy who graduated from Yale sound so damn uneducated when he talks? Did they accept made up words on papers back then?
I would remind the author that I am not a liberal, but in the narrow black/white world view of the neocon anyone who isn't one of them is a liberal, So its pointless I guess.
Thanks,
Higgs | |
Liberalism and capitalism address themselves to the cool, well-balanced mind. They proceed by strict logic, eliminating any appeal to the emotions. Socialism, on the contrary, works on the emotions, tries to violate logical considerations by rousing a sense of personal interest and to stifle the voice of reason by awakening primitive instincts.
-- Ludwig Von Mises | |
|
| | jhall
Posts:1237
| | 08/08/2007 4:19 PM |
Alert | In response to your first answer Read this
Have you forgotten what the "peace movement" in the 70's did when we left Vietnam..... GENOCIDE!!!!!!
http://www.penraker.com/archives/009394.html
This is how John Kerry sleeps at night: he pretends nothing much happened in South Vietnam after we left.
Here is what Kerry said today on CSPAN:
KERRY: Let me just say to the first part of your question with respect to boat people and killing, everybody predicted a massive bloodbath in Vietnam. There was not a massive bloodbath in Vietnam. There were reeducation camps, and they weren't pretty and, you know, nobody, you know, likes that kind of outcome. But on the other hand, I've met lot of people today who were in those education camps, who are thriving in the Vietnam of today.
It all just didn't happen.
It just did not happen.
Sen. John Kerry said during a C-Span appearance that fears of a bloodbath after the US withdrawal from Vietnam never materialized. He says he’s met survivors of the “reeducation camps” who are thriving in modern Vietnam. An award-winning investigation by the Orange County Register concludes that at least 165,000 people perished in the camps.
So - here's what you do. If your stupidity and lust for political advancement lead you to make massive mistakes that result in the death of millions of people, just faggedabodit.
Pretend that everything turned our relatively well. Pretend that you and your friends did not cause the death of millions. That would be unbearable. Instead, pretend that people are actually doing quite well now.
Let's count the cost:
1 Million were sent to re-education camps. In other words, concentration camps.
An estimated 1 million people were imprisoned without formal charges or trials.Ώ] 165,000 people died in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam's re-education camps, according to published academic studies in the United States and Europe.Ώ] Thousands were abused or tortured: their hands and legs shackled in painful positions for months, their skin slashed by bamboo canes studded with thorns, their veins injected with poisonous chemicals, their spirits broken with stories about relatives being killed.Ώ] These factors, coupled with poverty, caused millions of Vietnamese to flee the country. In 1979, Vietnam was at war (Sino-Vietnamese War) with the People's Republic of China (PRC), and many ethnic Chinese living in Vietnam, who felt that the government's policies directly targeted them also became "boat people." On the open seas, the boat people had to confront forces of nature, and elude pirates.
Add in another 1 million refugees
John Kerry thought the "graduates" from the re-education camps were doing quite well today. Yes. Yes. An award winning series talked to the survivors:
"I'm sorry, so sorry," he says. "Soldiers don't cry."
But his shoulders contort, his body racks with sobs. His hands try to wipe away the tears.
"Please forgive me," murmurs the former lieutenant colonel, shaken by memories of nearly 13 years in a prison camp. "This is what re-education does to you."
Hung Huy Nguyen, 71, along with an estimated 1 million South Vietnamese, is a man who came to know death and torture in the years following a war that tore apart families, countries, generations.
His was a world where friends died suddenly. Violently. Where others slowly wasted away from malnutrition and disease. Where stealing a grain of rice led to lashes on the back, down bony legs. Where men and women silently endured, night after night, grasping at hope that someday they might see their children again.
Sure, John, it was a tea party. Kerry believes exactly what the communist government he helped install says. Here is their official comment:
"After the southern part of Vietnam was liberated, those people who had worked for and cooperated with the former government presented themselves to the new government. Thanks to the policy of humanity, clemency and national reconciliation of the State of Vietnam, these people were not punished.
Except for being in a concentration camp for 17 years.
Kerry's statement is only a little harsher; basically he seems to echo their sentiment. Move along folks, nothing much happened here. Move along.
Our media averted its gaze, for the most part. TV anchors mumbled a quick story about all the death and destruction and moved on. They sort of pretended it just was not happening. And if it was, we had nothing to do with it. They played up the Boat people for a while, but they didn't talk about the other horror brought on by John Kerry and friends - the Cambodian nightmare.
The Killing Fields were a number of sites in Cambodia where large numbers of people were killed and buried by the Khmer Rouge radical communist regime which ruled the country, as Democratic Kampuchea, from 1975 to 1979. Estimates of the number of dead range from 1.7 to 2.3 million out of a population of around 7 million.
The Khmer Rouge judicial process, for minor or political crimes, began with a warning from the Angkar, the government of Cambodia under the regime. People receiving more than two warnings were sent for "re-education", which meant near-certain death. People were often encouraged to confess to Angkar their "pre-revolutionary lifestyles and crimes" (which usually included some kind of free-market activity, or having had contact with a foreign source, such as a US missionary, or international relief or government agency, or contact with any foreigner or with the outside world at all), being told that Angkar would forgive them and "wipe the slate clean". This meant being taken away to a place such as Tuol Sleng or Choeung Ek for torture and/or execution.
The executed were buried in mass graves. In order to save ammunition, executions were often carried out using hammers, axe handles, spades or sharpened bamboo sticks. Some victims were required to dig their own graves; their weakness often meant that they were unable to dig very deep. The soldiers who carried out the executions were mostly young men or women from peasant families.
The Khmer Rouge regime arrested and eventually executed almost everyone suspected of connections with the former government or with foreign governments, as well as professionals and intellectuals. Ethnic Vietnamese, homosexuals, ethnic Chams (Muslim Cambodians), Cambodian Christians, and the Buddhist monkhood were the demographic targets of persecution.
So - millions killed because we bugged out. The media - to this day - congratulates itself on "ending" the Vietnamese war. They did not "end" it, as in "bring peace" - they only allowed the most vicious party to prevail, and the bloodshed and slaughter ensued. After the murderers were allowed to rampage unopposed, and after their political bloodlust was slaked, only then was there an absence of armed conflict. There was only the peace of the grave; there was only the peace of the slave.
But hey; a few Pulitzer prizes were won along the way, so I guess it was worth it.
And now they stand ready to do the same thing, all over again. Iraq stands poised, head being guided gently led into the media's information-blackout fueled guillotine.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I will answer your others later after work. But thank you for taking the time to respond in an intelligent manor without getting frustrated and resorting to name calling and pulling away from the original topic. | |
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
--Edmund Burke | |
|
| | Jason
Posts:3378
| | 08/09/2007 10:53 AM |
Alert | Posted By jhall on 08/04/2007 9:08 AM
2) Over the course of its existence, our planet has been much colder and much warmer than it is today, having endured periodic ice ages and various cataclysmic natural events. That being the case, why would anyone choose to believe that human beings are responsible for the earth's most recent, and relatively mild, climatic shift?
Let's put things this way: Our planet operates within a fairly narrow margin for temperature. Increase things slightly and you get more hurricanes, for example. Did you know that we're currently in the worst drought in the last 5,000 years? Are these really relatively minor? It is only recently that we have altered our planet's scale on such a level and we are seeing changes. We do see more intense and more frequent weather disasters. Is it prudent to ignore these changes? Is it wise to ignore the fact that we do have an impact? I have a hard time believing that we don't have an impact.
The government taxes private citizens, thereby removing money from the economy.
The money just magically disappears? 
How then can one justify affording such protections to terrorists, who ignore all of the aforementioned behavioral standards?
It really comes down to this: How do we decide when to lower our moral standards? Why should we lower them? Aren't we above that? If you chose to lower your standards, are you any better than the person you're torturing? How about when you torture your own citizens (which we have done)? | |
Joined: Jul 2005 | |
|
| |
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.6 |
|
|
|