NationStates Jolt Archive

Of course the purpose isn't to determine who would be better for America; if that were the case, Obama wouldn't have even won the nomination, and certainly wouldn't stand a chance. Elections are simply a poll of which candidate has more supporters willing to turn out on a given day. They signify nothing more. Thus, since none of the world community has any say whatsoever in the voting process, their opinions on who should be the American President are irrelevant.

One of the things I base my vote on is how it will affect our reputation in the GLOBAL COMMUNITY. So, this solidifies my vote. For people like me, this study was important.

Yes, it's unfortunate that when viewing our political leaders we don't seem to care how they'll help us on the world stage.

But stop acting like this is a school election. This matters. Everything that happens isn't about whether or not it will get them in the White House. Sometimes it's about whether or not something says they SHOULD be in the White House.

The world community is entitled to their opinions; they might even be valid. What they are not is relevant, since they can have no possible bearing on the outcome.

Of course the purpose isn't to determine who would be better for America; if that were the case, Obama wouldn't have even won the nomination, and certainly wouldn't stand a chance. Elections are simply a poll of which candidate has more supporters willing to turn out on a given day. They signify nothing more. Thus, since none of the world community has any say whatsoever in the voting process, their opinions on who should be the American President are irrelevant.

Yes, clearly, the best thing to do is to give the Republicans another crack. They're doing a bang-up job after all.

Obama was chosen SPECIFICALLY because people actually believe he will be good for America. His VP was chose not to help him win but because it would help him get things done. He campaigns for Dems to get them into office to help him get things done. While McCain is campaigning to be the most popular, Obama is working to be most effective.

One of the things I base my vote on is how it will affect our reputation in the GLOBAL COMMUNITY. So, this solidifies my vote. For people like me, this study was important.

Allow me to rephrase: no statistically significant relevance. Although, from everything I've read from you, I begin to suspect you were in the tank for Obama since he began forming his cult of personality in preparation for his messianic emergence into the race for the nomination.

The world community is entitled to their opinions; they might even be valid. What they are not is relevant, since they can have no possible bearing on the outcome.

Except, as I have been saying, it might get him more votes. You dont know it wont. Many people do vote based on how it will help us on the world stage.

You are not one to decide what is important to voters.

The world community is entitled to their opinions; they might even be valid. What they are not is relevant, since they can have no possible bearing on the outcome.

You keep avoiding the point. See, we're a bunch of adults who care about our country. We're not just arguing about who WILL win, but also about who SHOULD. You know how that works?

Allow me to rephrase: no statistically significant relevance. Although, from everything I've read from you, I begin to suspect you were in the tank for Obama since he began forming his cult of personality in preparation for his messianic emergence into the race for the nomination.

Actually, while I did support his bid in the US senate, Biden was my guy during the primaries till he dropped out. I flirted with the idea of voting third party. But Ive come to like and agree with Obama's methods of doing things.


Good try on the judgement call though.

Look at the people we are talking about. Listen to what they say. Look at what they do. What makes you think that suffering the apocalyptic failure of all their policies and receiving aid and support from you is going to make them realize what they did wrong? You'll be nursing a viper in your bosom, and it will bite you, eventually.

These people are not the sort who are at the end of their rope. They are still cocooned in a bubble of self assuredness. A nuclear apocalypse will shatter that bubble. It will leave them questioning, uncertain, and if enough time passes, broken.

Broken minds can be repaired, but they can be repaired so that they will never be as they were.

I would be taking advantage of their situation, I freely admit. But to ensure that the mistakes of the past will not happen again, this is the least violent method.

The only other way is to find those who still hold the ideas of old, and ensure that they will never survive to pass these ideas on.

Allow me to rephrase: no statistically significant relevance. Although, from everything I've read from you, I begin to suspect you were in the tank for Obama since he began forming his cult of personality in preparation for his messianic emergence into the race for the nomination.

Wow, there's almost a valid point there. I mean, calling him a messiah IS an argument. Seriously, don't you think you'd be more credible if you weren't treating this like he's running for class president? Why don't you claim he's also a poopy pants?

Awfully nice considering most of them wouldnt do the same to you.

Id just say how I thought that everyone had to rise and fall on their own merits and how I thought they were God's chosen and God's blessed. Then leave them to suffer the fate they created.
Well, yeah, it does sound uncharacteristically nice of me, but let's carry the raccoon analogy further -- they can come nosing around for hand-outs only so many times before I set traps around. I'd most probably leave spare goods out on the remote edge of my territory and if they came in any closer looking for more -- pop! pop! with the pellet gun.

Wow, there's almost a valid point there. I mean, calling him a messiah IS an argument. Seriously, don't you think you'd be more credible if you weren't treating this like he's running for class president? Why don't you claim he's also a poopy pants?

Id just like to see an arguement that isnt a right wing talking point or taken directly from Hanity.

Id just like to see an arguement that isnt a right wing talking point or taken directly from Hanity.

I don't know if he's spoofing or not, but one would hope that one would try being slightly creative to make the effort worth it.

Yes, clearly, the best thing to do is to give the Republicans another crack. They're doing a bang-up job after all.

Obama was chosen SPECIFICALLY because people actually believe he will be good for America. His VP was chose not to help him win but because it would help him get things done. He campaigns for Dems to get them into office to help him get things done. While McCain is campaigning to be the most popular, Obama is working to be most effective.

Obama was chosen SPECIFICALLY because he is a charismatic personality in an attractive, albeit empty, shell, capable of attracting the mindless masses with his hypnotic droning "Change.... Hope.... Change.... Chaaaaaaange...." His VP was chosen to get the demographics Obama couldn't. The things he's trying to get accomplished are the ruination of everything that makes America great. McCain is campaigning to prevent an inexperienced tyke from taking the White House on a lark.

Id just like to see an arguement that isnt a right wing talking point or taken directly from Hanity.

Ah yes, I forgot that logic and truth are anathema to the liberal mind, if such it can be called. No catchy slogans or bumper sticker opportunities to logic and truth. All facts, no heart.

The world community is entitled to their opinions; they might even be valid. What they are not is relevant, since they can have no possible bearing on the outcome.
They will have bearing on the outcome, if American voters take what they have to say into account.

If you don't want American voters to be concerned with our status in the world and look for a leader who might be able to work with our allies instead of alienating them more, then yeah, I guess I can see how you would not want the opinions of those allies to matter to us now.

Obama was chosen SPECIFICALLY because he is a charismatic personality in an attractive, albeit empty, shell, capable of attracting the mindless masses with his hypnotic droning "Change.... Hope.... Change.... Chaaaaaaange...." His VP was chosen to get the demographics Obama couldn't. The things he's trying to get accomplished are the ruination of everything that makes America great. McCain is campaigning to prevent an inexperienced tyke from taking the White House on a lark.

You know, I know this isnt the place, but I have yet to see you or anyone back this up. They just take a Hanity and Colems or Bill O'riely script and type it into a thread.


Why dont you wander over to the US general election thread and back this shit up?

Ah yes, I forgot that logic and truth are anathema to the liberal mind, if such it can be called. No catchy slogans or bumper sticker opportunities to logic and truth. All facts, no heart.

This is cute. Everything you just said and have said is basically a bumper sticker.


Also, I havent seen much logic and truth from you.


Ill ask again. Be honost. Are you going to start actually debating or do I have to expand my ignore list?

Wow, there's almost a valid point there. I mean, calling him a messiah IS an argument. Seriously, don't you think you'd be more credible if you weren't treating this like he's running for class president? Why don't you claim he's also a poopy pants?

Actually, I think the cult of personality some people built up around him has turned off voters; he's not seen as someone whose image is based on experience or leadership but rather a charismatic suit whose sole purpose is to be a mouthpiece for his backers. I don't think that assessment is true, but the truth is that his support has eroded materially and has eroded enough to cost him this election.

Truth be told, this election will likely go down in history as one that the Democrats lost rather than the Republicans won. They have so utterly squandered the momentum they built up in 2006 that it is hard to imagine them winning in November unless they can reverse the growing unity in the Republican party. I mean, you have to fuck up royally to be less popular than the Republican Congress in 2006, let alone so unpopular as to boast some of the lowest approval ratings in recent history. We're talking sub-1979, sub-oil crisis, sub-10% unemployment/8% inflation/20% interest rates unpopular and that will likely cost the Democrats dearly in 2006. People punish those that fail to live up to their promises, and they punish those that replace the failures even worse.

These people are not the sort who are at the end of their rope. They are still cocooned in a bubble of self assuredness. A nuclear apocalypse will shatter that bubble. It will leave them questioning, uncertain, and if enough time passes, broken.

Broken minds can be repaired, but they can be repaired so that they will never be as they were.

I would be taking advantage of their situation, I freely admit. But to ensure that the mistakes of the past will not happen again, this is the least violent method.

The only other way is to find those who still hold the ideas of old, and ensure that they will never survive to pass these ideas on.
Well, all I have to say is, good luck with that, and better you than me. I'll try to keep some snake bite antidote on hand for you when you need it.

Obama was chosen SPECIFICALLY because he is a charismatic personality in an attractive, albeit empty, shell, capable of attracting the mindless masses with his hypnotic droning "Change.... Hope.... Change.... Chaaaaaaange...." His VP was chosen to get the demographics Obama couldn't. The things he's trying to get accomplished are the ruination of everything that makes America great. McCain is campaigning to prevent an inexperienced tyke from taking the White House on a lark.

Really?

McCain attended St. Stephen’s, an exclusive school in Alexandria, Va., and then Episcopal High, a private boarding school in the same city, in the 1950s. The son and grandson of Navy admirals, he ended up at the Naval Academy, where, as he often reminds voters, he finished near the bottom of his graduating class.

Remind you of anyone? Someone who was gifted into Yale and came nowhere near the top of class?

Compared Barack Obama who is damn smart, far smarter than you and I combined.

In 1991, Obama graduated from Harvard Law School where he was the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review.

Seriously dude, the guy has brains, he's so much more than attractive appearance.

...and they try paint Barack Obama as elite, laughable given his background, though the 'mindless masses' will believe anything to maintain blind devotion to the Republican cause no matter how damaging it is to America.

They will have bearing on the outcome, if American voters take what they have to say into account.

If you don't want American voters to be concerned with our status in the world and look for a leader who might be able to work with our allies instead of alienating them more, then yeah, I guess I can see how you would not want the opinions of those allies to matter to us now.

They don't matter when it comes to the Presidential election. Americans have largely made up their minds about their candidate; those who are undecided often report having made up their minds at the voting booths. There is no statistically significant portion of the population that bases their vote on who the world community likes more. Ergo, the world community's opinion on who should be president is ineffectual, and thus, irrelevant.

Obama was chosen SPECIFICALLY because he is a charismatic personality in an attractive, albeit empty, shell, capable of attracting the mindless masses with his hypnotic droning "Change.... Hope.... Change.... Chaaaaaaange...." His VP was chosen to get the demographics Obama couldn't. The things he's trying to get accomplished are the ruination of everything that makes America great. McCain is campaigning to prevent an inexperienced tyke from taking the White House on a lark.

Interesting. So people didn't vote for him based on issues? What's your evidence?

His VP will be the President of the Senate. He could have chosen dozens of VPs that would have helped him in the polls more. Biden actually hurt him.

Meanwhile, the "ruination"? What is it that makes America great? The last adminstration trashed the Bill of Rights, made us an embarrassment on the world stage, made us seem like a bunch of morons who can't focus for more than two years and destroyed our economy. Which part of that is what makes America great?

Obama supports looking out for our tired, our poor, our huddled masses yearning to breathe free. I know that's totally unAmerican. How could that bastard actually act like government is FOR THE PEOPLE. If only someone would stop him.

They don't matter when it comes to the Presidential election. Americans have largely made up their minds about their candidate; those who are undecided often report having made up their minds at the voting booths. There is no statistically significant portion of the population that bases their vote on who the world community likes more. Ergo, the world community's opinion on who should be president is ineffectual, and thus, irrelevant.

Except...


SOME PEOPLE vote based on how the world will view the person elected. SOME PEOPLE dont want us to be hated.


Thus, it is relevent, because it MAY HELP.

Actually, I think the cult of personality some people built up around him has turned off voters; he's not seen as someone whose image is based on experience or leadership but rather a charismatic suit whose sole purpose is to be a mouthpiece for his backers. I don't think that assessment is true, but the truth is that his support has eroded materially and has eroded enough to cost him this election.

Truth be told, this election will likely go down in history as one that the Democrats lost rather than the Republicans won. They have so utterly squandered the momentum they built up in 2006 that it is hard to imagine them winning in November unless they can reverse the growing unity in the Republican party. I mean, you have to fuck up royally to be less popular than the Republican Congress in 2006, let alone so unpopular as to boast some of the lowest approval ratings in recent history. We're talking sub-1979, sub-oil crisis, sub-10% unemployment/8% inflation/20% interest rates unpopular and that will likely cost the Democrats dearly in 2006. People punish those that fail to live up to their promises, and they punish those that replace the failures even worse.

Have you seen the approval ratings of the current Democratic Congress?

Have you seen the approval ratings of the current Democratic Congress?

Which, when you consider all the variables in that, makes it largely untelling.

Have you seen the approval ratings of the current Democratic Congress?

Which tends to follow the approval ratings of the President.

By the by, you know who else is a part of that Congress? McCain. Did you forget?

Except...


SOME PEOPLE vote based on how the world will view the person elected. SOME PEOPLE dont want us to be hated.


Thus, it is relevent, because it MAY HELP.

You are a statistically insignificant minority, unable to make a bearing on any election. All statistically significant groups vote based on factors other than how the world might perceive them.
And, if you're really casting your vote based on your fear of ridicule by other countries, perhaps you should take a look at your own maturity. We shouldn't pick our President because it'll make us popular with the cool countries.

Seriously dude, the guy has brains, he's so much more than attractive appearance.

Yeah, but so does Bush. He's so much more than that "good ol' boy" facade he puts up and that's how he managed to not only win one election but two and completely fulfill the strategic objectives he was planning from day one. People have consistently "misunderestimated" him and it has resulted in a resounding victory in 2004 and continued passage of his policies in to law.

Truth is, Bush has been a massively effective President...as always, however that effectiveness no longer (emphasis added to remind people) seems to be in line with what Americans want.

Ah yes, I forgot that logic and truth are anathema to the liberal mind, if such it can be called. No catchy slogans or bumper sticker opportunities to logic and truth. All facts, no heart.
"Truth"? You have been asked several times to back up your assertions and have ignored every request. Screw your claim to truth until you can come up with some facts to prove what you say.

"Logic"? What logic? You're not constructing an argument here, logical or otherwise. All you're doing is making melodramatic pronouncements and peppering them up with insults against anyone who disagrees or challenges you.

"Logic and truth" in a pig's eye. What you lack in arguments you make up in tantrums.

Which tends to follow the approval ratings of the President.

By the by, you know who else is a part of that Congress? McCain. Did you forget?

HAH! And they say the Liberal Spin Machine is broken! The failures of the Democratic Congress are a result of the actions of the Republican President huh? Very funny.
Of course McCain is part of that Congress: he's fighting against the policies of the current majority of that Congress, the majority whose takeover precipitated the current abysmal approval ratings of that body.

You are a statistically insignificant minority, unable to make a bearing on any election. All statistically significant groups vote based on factors other than how the world might perceive them.

Source?

And, if you're really casting your vote based on your fear of ridicule by other countries, perhaps you should take a look at your own maturity. We shouldn't pick our President because it'll make us popular with the cool countries.

Im voting based on many things. And one of them is Id like our leader to actually stengthen our alliances rather then destroy them.

I have a feeling you dont plan on actually debating. You are just interesting in character assassination.

Have you seen the approval ratings of the current Democratic Congress?

Something like 23%, with the most recent low being an appalling 13% back in late July. The lowest for the Republicans was 16%, yet they still managed to hold on to almost 30% going in to the 2006 elections.

HAH! And they say the Liberal Spin Machine is broken! The failures of the Democratic Congress are a result of the actions of the Republican President huh? Very funny.

Apperantly you dont know what a veto is.

Why dont you go look up everything congress passed. Then look up what your Dear Leader vetoed.


I dont really think you know anything.

"Truth"? You have been asked several times to back up your assertions and have ignored every request. Screw your claim to truth until you can come up with some facts to prove what you say.

"Logic"? What logic? You're not constructing an argument here, logical or otherwise. All you're doing is making melodramatic pronouncements and peppering them up with insults against anyone who disagrees or challenges you.

"Logic and truth" in a pig's eye. What you lack in arguments you make up in tantrums.

The truth is that Barack Obama is not only utterly inexperienced and unqualified for the Presidency, he is also a close associate with at least one felon, domestic terrorist, racist and anti-Semite.
The logic is that, obviously, we should not vote into the highest office in the land one who holds such dubious connections.

But hey, it's a free country: if you want to vote for Barack Obama, friend to felons, terrorists, racists and anti-Semites, go right ahead. After all, the rest of the world seems to, and "But everybody's doing it!" is as good a rationale as any other liberal ever came up with.

You are a statistically insignificant minority, unable to make a bearing on any election. All statistically significant groups vote based on factors other than how the world might perceive them.
And, if you're really casting your vote based on your fear of ridicule by other countries, perhaps you should take a look at your own maturity. We shouldn't pick our President because it'll make us popular with the cool countries.

At this point, I wonder if you're not trying to convince yourself.

I'll tell you quite honestly, I'd reconsider any candidate that decreased our standing in the world.

There is much evidence that election of McCain will represent proof to much of the world that America has lost its way. We paved the way for a global increase in recruits to the terrorism clause, proving true the very accusations that led to the attacks on us. Instead of promoting the idea that human rights are granted by God, we promoted that they are in fact priveleges granted to citizens of the US, and only if the leadership feels like honoring them. We've voluntarily tossed away what makes America great.

Fortunately, we're in the process of electing a leader that values those ideals above all else. A leader that loved our constitution enough to learn it and then help others love the ideals it was founded on, so much that he chose to press them to understand and apply it. A leader that believes that terrorism is a complicated problem that can't be solved by tossing people into camps.

I, for one, find reason to be optimistic that we will hold aloft our ideals once again.

The truth is that Barack Obama is not only utterly inexperienced and unqualified for the Presidency, he is also a close associate with at least one felon, domestic terrorist, racist and anti-Semite.
The logic is that, obviously, we should not vote into the highest office in the land one who holds such dubious connections.

But hey, it's a free country: if you want to vote for Barack Obama, friend to felons, terrorists, racists and anti-Semites, go right ahead. After all, the rest of the world seems to, and "But everybody's doing it!" is as good a rationale as any other liberal ever came up with.

Yeah, I was right. Youre not interested in debate. Youre interested in character assassination and right wing talking points. I hate using my ignore feature Limbaugh. How about you actually debate?

They don't matter when it comes to the Presidential election. Americans have largely made up their minds about their candidate; those who are undecided often report having made up their minds at the voting booths. There is no statistically significant portion of the population that bases their vote on who the world community likes more. Ergo, the world community's opinion on who should be president is ineffectual, and thus, irrelevant.

You are a statistically insignificant minority, unable to make a bearing on any election. All statistically significant groups vote based on factors other than how the world might perceive them.
And, if you're really casting your vote based on your fear of ridicule by other countries, perhaps you should take a look at your own maturity. We shouldn't pick our President because it'll make us popular with the cool countries.

HAH! And they say the Liberal Spin Machine is broken! The failures of the Democratic Congress are a result of the actions of the Republican President huh? Very funny.
Of course McCain is part of that Congress: he's fighting against the policies of the current majority of that Congress, the majority whose takeover precipitated the current abysmal approval ratings of that body.
All three of the above quotes contain assertions of fact without any supporting references. Show us the factual foundation for your claims now, please.

If you do not, I'm going to think it's time to put you on the Do Not Feed the Trolls diet.

Yeah, but so does Bush. He's so much more than that "good ol' boy" facade he puts up and that's how he managed to not only win one election but two and completely fulfill the strategic objectives he was planning from day one. People have consistently "misunderestimated" him and it has resulted in a resounding victory in 2004 and continued passage of his policies in to law.

Truth is, Bush has been a massively effective President...as always, however that effectiveness no longer (emphasis added to remind people) seems to be in line with what Americans want.

I'd say that George Bush has a lazy intelligence over Barack Obama's applied intelligence, laziness that comes off the back of a nurtured childhood where he didn't have to try, much was given to him.

Stupid no, unwilling to use his intelligence, yes.

"Democrat Mr Obama was favoured by a four-to-one margin across the 22,500 people polled in 22 countries."

Yeah. He polls even higher among felons, domestic terrorists, racists and anti-Semites. Just ask Tony Rezko, William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan.

You do not have the authority to make such pronoun--

No, wait. That was what you said back in one of the recent religion threads.

You have all the authority you need. Just no facts.

McCain is campaigning to prevent an inexperienced tyke from taking the White House on a lark.

Is that why he chose one for his running mate?

I'd say that George Bush has a lazy intelligence over Barack Obama's applied intelligence, laziness that comes off the back of a nurtured childhood where he didn't have to try, much was given to him.

Stupid no, unwilling to use his intelligence, yes.
In my personal opinion, the bolded bit is worse than being stupid. Just mentioning.

HAH! And they say the Liberal Spin Machine is broken! The failures of the Democratic Congress are a result of the actions of the Republican President huh? Very funny.
Of course McCain is part of that Congress: he's fighting against the policies of the current majority of that Congress, the majority whose takeover precipitated the current abysmal approval ratings of that body.

And supporting the policies of the most unpopular President in history. McCain betrayed his ideals in an effort to be President. He USED to be the maverick. He used to combat politicians like GWB. Now he's busy sucking up to him in hopes of attracting the base.

"I don't want to pick another Quayle." *picks Palin*

Yeah, but you don't want to actually talk about McCain. The worry of McCain supporters is that if things shift to McCain, people will notice that he's McCain.

Well, all I have to say is, good luck with that, and better you than me. I'll try to keep some snake bite antidote on hand for you when you need it.

Perhaps, or perhaps not. If such people were still to hold on to such a strong view even with at such great cost, do you believe they would accept charity from an outsider?

I'd say that George Bush has a lazy intelligence over Barack Obama's applied intelligence, laziness that comes off the back of a nurtured childhood where he didn't have to try, much was given to him.

Stupid no, unwilling to use his intelligence, yes.

You might be interested in the fact that during his run for a Congressional seat back in the 1970's, voters were turned off by his use of complicated economic theory and intelligent language in his debates and policy speeches. Naturally, Bush filed this away quite effectively for use later on. The same things that dogged him are dogging Barack Obama. Both are highly intelligent men who have been harmed by that "elitist" moniker; Bush carefully tailored his image to appeal to his base, but I have no idea what Barack will do to overcome those barriers on his side.

The effectiveness of the Bush presidency is probably unparalleled in recent history, something that may reflect political trends in this country for a while in to the future. How many presidents have not only dealt with a rough recession (perhaps even two?), the worst terrorist attack in American history, the collapse of some of America's biggest corporations, passed the largest tax cuts, approved the largest increases in government spending (for better and for worse), biggest new entitlements, revitalize NASA, pass major (if controversial" reform bills in education and financial reporting and still had time not only to create a brand new government department but also wage two wars in two different parts of the world?

The Bush legacy is easily going to be one of the longest-lasting and most widespread in terms of its impact on this country and by extension the world in which we conduct our affairs. This guy, for better or for worse, has literally shaped the dawn of the 21st century and coping with his legacy is going to be one hell of a challenge for whoever follows. I think both Obama and McCain could do this, but the question will ultimately lie in which side you trust to move beyond the Bush era in to the future.

This has begun to ramble, but there are few times better than 9/11 to reflect on the legacy of the past eight years.

The truth is that Barack Obama is not only utterly inexperienced and unqualified for the Presidency, he is also a close associate with at least one felon, domestic terrorist, racist and anti-Semite.
The logic is that, obviously, we should not vote into the highest office in the land one who holds such dubious connections.

But hey, it's a free country: if you want to vote for Barack Obama, friend to felons, terrorists, racists and anti-Semites, go right ahead. After all, the rest of the world seems to, and "But everybody's doing it!" is as good a rationale as any other liberal ever came up with.
OK, that's it. Your bridge called. It's time for you to take a break.

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/TrollBridge.jpg

Hey, everyone! Let's all ignore Nicea Sancta! All the cool kids are doing it!

I Ignored Nicea Sancta a long while back, and I'm way cooler now than back when I heard his insane ramblings! :D

Perhaps, or perhaps not. If such people were still to hold on to such a strong view even with at such great cost, do you believe they would accept charity from an outsider?
Pfft, hell yeah. Grubbing, self-serving, back-stabbing, little beggars. When was the last time you saw such people refuse a free hand-out, even as they are denouncing the people they're taking it from? Hypocrisy is a hallmark of the kinds of people we're talking about.

Why is it, when people bring up Rezko and Wright and the like, that they never bother to mention who McCain has hung out with? Haggard, Keating, and I'm sure plenty of others. You can't be in Washington as long as he has and NOT have had dinner with a handful of felons.

I know it's a dumb question -- you don't point out someone else's ties and then own up to your man's ties...I mean, not unless you know for a fact that your man's ties aren't anywhere near as politically damaging as your opponent's. I know I'd be living in a true dream world if that ever happened, but still, the question remains: McCain doesn't have the same kind of skeletons in his political closet? Really?

Hey, everyone! Let's all ignore Nicea Sancta! All the cool kids are doing it!

I Ignored Nicea Sancta a long while back, and I'm way cooler now than back when I heard his insane ramblings! :D
But you're missing out on the fun that is his insane - and inane - ramblings!
It's like having a weird senile old uncle in the room babbling nonsense. Every so often you turn to listen just for the amusement value. When bored with his babblements you up and leave, safe in the knowledge that whenever you want to return he'll still be spouting all sorts of irrational garbage.

You might be interested in the fact that during his run for a Congressional seat back in the 1970's, voters were turned off by his use of complicated economic theory and intelligent language in his debates and policy speeches. Naturally, Bush filed this away quite effectively for use later on. The same things that dogged him are dogging Barack Obama. Both are highly intelligent men who have been harmed by that "elitist" moniker; Bush carefully tailored his image to appeal to his base, but I have no idea what Barack will do to overcome those barriers on his side.

The effectiveness of the Bush presidency is probably unparalleled in recent history, something that may reflect political trends in this country for a while in to the future. How many presidents have not only dealt with a rough recession (perhaps even two?), the worst terrorist attack in American history, the collapse of some of America's biggest corporations, passed the largest tax cuts, approved the largest increases in government spending (for better and for worse), biggest new entitlements, revitalize NASA, pass major (if controversial" reform bills in education and financial reporting and still had time not only to create a brand new government department but also wage two wars in two different parts of the world?

The Bush legacy is easily going to be one of the longest-lasting and most widespread in terms of its impact on this country and by extension the world in which we conduct our affairs. This guy, for better or for worse, has literally shaped the dawn of the 21st century and coping with his legacy is going to be one hell of a challenge for whoever follows. I think both Obama and McCain could do this, but the question will ultimately lie in which side you trust to move beyond the Bush era in to the future.

This has begun to ramble, but there are few times better than 9/11 to reflect on the legacy of the past eight years.

I'm not sure as to wither the wisdom of many of these or his part in either conceiving or managing them.

One can hardly say that this current recession is being well-managed, unemployment figures alone.

Your post is very much appreciated though, I wish the level of debate was generally at this standard, I need some time to consider each point.

EDIT: Hmm, I was going to change the mistyping of 'either' from 'wither', but I prefer 'wither' now even though it's probably spelled 'whither'.

But you're missing out on the fun that is his insane - and inane - ramblings!
It's like having a weird senile old uncle in the room babbling nonsense. Every so often you turn to listen just for the amusement value. When bored with his babblements you up and leave, safe in the knowledge that whenever you want to return he'll still be spouting all sorts of irrational garbage.

He can be put on the Endangered Species List someday as one of the last Busheviks in existence someday. Well, assuming it's not 4 More Years of Bushevism and the U.S. ends up a third world nation where everyone else sets up their factories to make brand name sporting goods for a pittance a day.

Why is it, when people bring up Rezko and Wright and the like, that they never bother to mention who McCain has hung out with? Haggard, Keating, and I'm sure plenty of others. You can't be in Washington as long as he has and NOT have had dinner with a handful of felons.


Yeah, but Ted Haggard wasn't McCain's pastor for two decades and the Keating Five incidents happened 21 years ago. Since Obama's strength lies in his message of change and reform, being tarred with things like this erodes that image and hurts him far more than McCain's past ever could. I don't think it's fair to attack Obama on these grounds, but rest assured it is a possibility.

snip.
This has begun to ramble, but there are few times better than 9/11 to reflect on the legacy of the past eight years.
Why is that people keep saying we must do everything we can to prevent another 9/11 and yet every year there's another one? I've just looked up a 2009 calendar and, sure enough, there's another 9/11 there as well. When will they ever learn?


Good post btw. Well worth the time to read it. There was a vid on youtube a while back comparing governer Bush of the early 90s to president Bush. The difference in his style and pronunciations was so huge that people were claiming he must either be back on the sauce now, or in the early stages of dementia. I think he's just a bloody good actor. Though I'm not discounting the off-the-wagon just yet.

Why is that people keep saying we must do everything we can to prevent another 9/11 and yet every year there's another one? I've just looked up a 2009 calendar and, sure enough, there's another 9/11 there as well. When will they ever learn?


Good post btw. Well worth the time to read it. There was a vid on youtube a while back comparing governer Bush of the early 90s to president Bush. The difference in his style and pronunciations was so huge that people were claiming he must either be back on the sauce now, or in the early stages of dementia. I think he's just a bloody good actor. Though I'm not discounting the off-the-wagon just yet.

Bush has learned what every Reality Television producer has since discovered. The American populace in general like their information in oversimplified black-and-white bits that can actually fit inside their self-absorbed short attention span.

Where else but the United States can there be a viable game show that's centered on the premise of fully grown adults trying to see if they're more intelligent than fifth graders?

Bush has learned what every Reality Television producer has since discovered. The American populace in general like their information in oversimplified black-and-white bits that can actually fit inside their self-absorbed short attention span.

Where else but the United States can there be a viable game show that's centered on the premise of fully grown adults trying to see if they're more intelligent than fifth graders?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Are_You_Smarter_Than_a_5th_Grader%3F#International_versions

Sorry. Had to be done.

Pfft, hell yeah. Grubbing, self-serving, back-stabbing, little beggars. When was the last time you saw such people refuse a free hand-out, even as they are denouncing the people they're taking it from? Hypocrisy is a hallmark of the kinds of people we're talking about.

That is unfortunate for them then, if such were to come to pass. For with charity, comes knowledge. The mistakes of before, and the lessons from them, I intend to pass on as well. Those who would still cling to the beliefs of old, and do so loudly, may very well do themselves one last disservice.

I'm not sure as to wither the wisdom of many of these or his part in either conceiving or managing them.

One can hardly say that this current recession is being well-managed, unemployment figures alone.

Your post is very much appreciated though, I wish the level of debate was generally at this standard, I need some time to consider each point.

Take all the time you need...this stuff is just stream-of-consciousness right now.

It just amazes me to see what Bush has done and what his successors will have to deal with quite literally for the foreseeable future. Although I doubt his legacy is something that will ever be viewed in a truly positive light, it is certain it will take decades to truly have all of it finally played out and visible in hindsight. We don't know where Iraq and Afghanistan are going, or where the war against terrorism will lead us, or where his domestic initiatives and fiscal policies will play out...this uncertainly is something truly new and I think it reflects the kind of subtle realization that the future of American power will no longer be the Dominate but rather the Principate, from the supreme ruler to first among equals, and from there we can't even begin to speculate.

These times will be viewed in the future as some of the defining moments of the post-American, or even more accurately post-hyperpower era. I doubt there will ever be a repeat for another nation of the various factors that enabled American dominance in the 20th century, and again this is something that will define the future of this country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Are_You_Smarter_Than_a_5th_Grader%3F#International_versions

Sorry. Had to be done.

And then we have the audacity to ask, "Why do they hate us?"

Take all the time you need...this stuff is just stream-of-consciousness right now.

It just amazes me to see what Bush has done and what his successors will have to deal with quite literally for the foreseeable future. Although I doubt his legacy is something that will ever be viewed in a truly positive light, it is certain it will take decades to truly have all of it finally played out and visible in hindsight. We don't know where Iraq and Afghanistan are going, or where the war against terrorism will lead us, or where his domestic initiatives and fiscal policies will play out...this uncertainly is something truly new and I think it reflects the kind of subtle realization that the future of American power will no longer be the Dominate but rather the Principate, from the supreme ruler to first among equals, and from there we can't even begin to speculate.

These times will be viewed in the future as some of the defining moments of the post-American, or even more accurately post-hyperpower era. I doubt there will ever be a repeat for another nation of the various factors that enabled American dominance in the 20th century, and again this is something that will define the future of this country.

Yet one might say, with some justification, that the defining moment of his tenure was 9/11, it overshadows everything and completely changed his presidency.

We forget that prior to 9/11, he'd taken more vacation time than any other president, seemingly more interested in playing golf and fixing his ranch than running the country. One might say that if he'd spent a little more time at the desk, intelligence reports on Osama Bin Laden may have been taken a little more seriously.

Even then, his reaction to was squander enormous goodwill towards America - was it Le Figaro that headlined 'We are all Americans now', albeit a little presumptuous - and then being moved to lying to defend the plan to invade Iraq.

Any president would have a momentous effect on the future merely by being in office during such an event. It's not necessarily due to him, perhaps in spite of him.

This may be a silly question, but, since we don't elect French, German, Russian, British etc. officials in the US and since they don't really care what we think about who they elect, why do they think we should care what they think?

This may be a silly question, but, since we don't elect French, German, Russian, British etc. officials in the US and since they don't really care what we think about who they elect, why do they think we should care what they think?

Yeah. It's not like we have to interact with them in any important ways. We shouldn't care what the citizens of 22 countries think.

Yeah. It's not like we have to interact with them in any important ways. We shouldn't care what the citizens of 22 countries think.

Any more than they care what we think. It does go both ways.

This may be a silly question, but, since we don't elect French, German, Russian, British etc. officials in the US and since they don't really care what we think about who they elect, why do they think we should care what they think?

Because the leadership of one the few remaining superpower nations in the world is a big deal, especially because the U.S. has shown capability and interest in meddling in the affairs of other nations. I hope I don't need to list all the dictatorial coups that have been made possible with direct or indirect American assistance as the worst examples.

If Great Britain was still the number one superpower in today's world you bet your ass we'd be making our opinion on who should be Prime Minister heard all over the world.

This may be a silly question, but, since we don't elect French, German, Russian, British etc. officials in the US and since they don't really care what we think about who they elect, why do they think we should care what they think?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13999098&postcount=82

This is why in my opinion, it's a shame we have multiple threads on this subject but then I don't read all posts and certainly don't expect others to, hence I'm just chucking this in here as well.

I do love the wormholes on NSG, I feel one could take a white rabbit tour through threads given sigs and pastes.

By the by...

Any more than they care what we think. It does go both ways.

They do care what we think. It's in their interest to great a mutually beneficial relationship with the US as well. That's kind of what "mutually beneficial" means.

However, "but Johnny did it first" didn't work when we were 6. Why would it work now?

The fact is that we rely on the global economy and our standing in it has tanked. We NEED, not want, NEED to get people buying our goods and telling them to get bent isn't the best way to accomplish that goal.

Similarly, we NEED, not want, NEED to address the very real threat of terrorism. We don't do that but justifying every fear that has ever been used as a reason to make us a target. We were attacked for what they viewed as American willingness to involve ourselves in their affairs and we decided to help them recruit by proudly claim we can force democracy on a country if we feel like and then prove it.

Any more than they care what we think. It does go both ways.

Except that it doesn't. When the US sneezes, the world catches the cold (culturally, politically, militarily, etc.). My government has already shown that it not only doesn't care if the world sneezes, it doesn't care if it gets lung cancer. We might catch the occasional fever for foreign cultural items (usually food, you know how we are about food), but it is definitely not a full-on, two-way thing.

This may be a silly question, but, since we don't elect French, German, Russian, British etc. officials in the US and since they don't really care what we think about who they elect, why do they think we should care what they think?

If you're willing to bet your right arm on the US NEVER interfering with the affairs of any other country ever again, I might forgive you this question. Back in '64, you "voted" in OUR "elections". I see no reason why we shouldn't collect now, with the added benefit that we'd steer you AWAY from the president that tramples the constitution, tortures and disappears people, unlike what YOU did to US.

If you're willing to bet your right arm on the US NEVER interfering with the affairs of any other country ever again, I might forgive you this question. Back in '64, you "voted" in OUR "elections". I see no reason why we shouldn't collect now, with the added benefit that we'd steer you AWAY from the president that tramples the constitution, tortures and disappears people, unlike what YOU did to US.

I'll plead ignorance in the case of Brazil. In '64 I was a high school junior and my political awareness was limited to who was running for class president.

Yes, I am aware of US "involvement" in the politics of other countries. I am equally aware of the involvement of other countries in our politics. Since, apparently, it can't be avoided, can you all, try to be at least as informed as the average American voter about our alternatives? The choice between Obama and McCain is a choice between bad and worse and I'm not sure which is which. At this point the only thing keeping me from voting for McCain is Palin - I doubt he will live the full term and the thought of that hyper-Christian, hypocrite as my President evokes nausea.

As an aside, $20 said that if McCain one the right wingers would be tootin a different horn.

I would like to take that bet but I don't understand it.

I would like to take that bet but I don't understand it.

"20 dollars say that the Right Wingers'll be tooting a different horn if McCain wins."

Why is it, when people bring up Rezko and Wright and the like, that they never bother to mention who McCain has hung out with? Haggard, Keating, and I'm sure plenty of others. You can't be in Washington as long as he has and NOT have had dinner with a handful of felons.

Why does it matter what either candidate had a few dinners with? To use that as a point of argument is a fallacy. Now if you could prove that Obama had Anti Semite feelings than that might be reason to not elect him, if you could prove McCain was apart of the felons crime than that too might be a reason to not vote for him. Why do people get so riled up because someone once shook hands with an undesirable character.

Why is that people keep saying we must do everything we can to prevent another 9/11 and yet every year there's another one? I've just looked up a 2009 calendar and, sure enough, there's another 9/11 there as well. When will they ever learn?

You should catch up with the rest of the world and start placing the day first followed by the month and then cut off the last two months in the year. Call it the Bush Calender or something.

Where else but the United States can there be a viable game show that's centered on the premise of fully grown adults trying to see if they're more intelligent than fifth graders?

Australia unfortuatly :(

Though it is on channel 10 along with most of the rest of reality carp that has come from overseas, though I would like to point out Channel 10 is partly owned by a North American company. Of course the premise is wrong anyway it is fully grown adults trying to see if they know the same stuff as 5th graders. Not to mention we don't call them grades over here we call them years but channel 10 along with the unfunny man who hosts the damn thing decided to keep graders at least the UK said 10 year old, but I will stop before I continue to rant.

Australia unfortuatly :(

Though it is on channel 10 along with most of the rest of reality carp that has come from overseas, though I would like to point out Channel 10 is partly owned by a North American company. Of course the premise is wrong anyway it is fully grown adults trying to see if they know the same stuff as 5th graders. Not to mention we don't call them grades over here we call them years but channel 10 along with the unfunny man who hosts the damn thing decided to keep graders at least the UK said 10 year old, but I will stop before I continue to rant.

It was another crap American reality tv show, so of course channel 10 had to get their hands on it.

Neither is Bush. So does someone have the right to remove him?
I think there's a matter of magnitude involved here as well. Bush may be an idiot, and may have caused a whole lot of trouble, but Allende was undoubtedly worse for the citizens of Chile than Bush is for those of the US.

At any rate, if you really want a debate on Allende and the CIA, you can make a thread to that effect. Suffice to say that I think there was not insignificant support for Allende being removed among Chileans (though certainly more in some parts of society than others), that the coup was ultimately carried out by Chileans for Chile rather than under direct orders from Washington and that, yes, I consider some failures of government grave enough to warrant the relevant individuals being held accountable before mankind, whether by their own people if possible, or by people from abroad.

Why do people get so riled up because someone once shook hands with an undesirable character.

The republican attack machine seems to get so riled up exactly because of that. Why not ask them?

Where else but the United States can there be a viable game show that's centered on the premise of fully grown adults trying to see if they're more intelligent than fifth graders?They have those in Europe too. But I think you meant "more knowledgeable" and not "more intelligent".

The republican attack machine seems to get so riled up exactly because of that. Why not ask them?

Sorry I keep forgetting that the Democrats are pure. It doesn't matter what party it is I am asking why it matters, a poster on here attempted to say well McCain has mixed with dirty people as well, I was early asking why it matters.

They have those in Europe too. But I think you meant "more knowledgeable" and not "more intelligent".

Knowledge should be what the show states not intelligence but what they should mean is "Do you have the same knowledge as a 5th grader?"

Sorry I keep forgetting that the Democrats are pure. It doesn't matter what party it is I am asking why it matters, a poster on here attempted to say well McCain has mixed with dirty people as well, I was early asking why it matters.

It matters because to the American voting populace at large, who cannot be bothered to digest information that doesn't arrive in two second sound bites, who hate intelligence and reason, it matters.

Because you were like a child and we obviously knew what was best for you.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you Exhibit A; Why The World Hates America.

I had to chip in on this one because this may be the most telling quote I have ever seen on this forum.

If you're willing to bet your right arm on the US NEVER interfering with the affairs of any other country ever again, I might forgive you this question. Back in '64, you "voted" in OUR "elections". I see no reason why we shouldn't collect now, with the added benefit that we'd steer you AWAY from the president that tramples the constitution, tortures and disappears people, unlike what YOU did to US.

You see know reason why you shouldn't do to them what they did to you? I don't know mate maybe because it is wrong.

Knowledge should be what the show states not intelligence but what they should mean is "Do you have the same knowledge as a 5th grader?"Over in Germany it's called "Every Child knows that", which is a common phrase for "that's common knowledge". I went to a quiz show once, though I didn't make it past the casting stage, but they made sure to tell us that it's not an intelligence test, but a knowledge test that they subjected us to. "Intelligence" is a tricky thing to define, but quiz shows are more about knowledge than intelligence.

This may be a silly question, but, since we don't elect French, German, Russian, British etc. officials in the US and since they don't really care what we think about who they elect, why do they think we should care what they think?
Here's another question: Why do some people ask questions like this without reading the thread first? Do they really think that, after 20+ pages they're the first to think of it, or that nobody has answered it already?

You see know reason why you shouldn't do to them what they did to you? I don't know mate maybe because it is wrong.

Wrong or not, they're still doing that sort of thing. There is no ethical ground to protest turnabout until the US shows a willingness to prosecute and punish those of its own who would blatantly inflict harm on the people of other nations through forced governmental change.

So far, the US has not even bothered to bring even one of it's own up on charges.

I'll plead ignorance in the case of Brazil. In '64 I was a high school junior and my political awareness was limited to who was running for class president.
And your excuse for not learning about it since is...? I was a high school junior in 1978, and I learned about Chile. Apparently, it's not a secret.

Yes, I am aware of US "involvement" in the politics of other countries. I am equally aware of the involvement of other countries in our politics.
Yes, it is true. Other countries have been deposing our elected leaders and installing puppet governments that subordinated us to foreign interests for decades.

What? They haven't, actually, they've just been lending us shitloads of money, buying commercial real estate, and playing tit-for-tat with unequal trade agreements? Oh...

Since, apparently, it can't be avoided, can you all, try to be at least as informed as the average American voter about our alternatives?
No, actually, what the US did to Chile (and many other countries) actually can be avoided. Rather easily, in fact. Just look at all the other countries that have either never done it or somehow managed to stop doing it.

The choice between Obama and McCain is a choice between bad and worse and I'm not sure which is which.
Haha, that's funny. First you scold our non-US brethren for not being informed about the candidates, and in the very next sentence you admit that you don't know anything about them, either, at least not enough to choose. Not surprising, I guess, since over 20 years later (since you were in high school), you're somehow still apologizing for being ignorant about the US's involvement in Chile. Just for the novelty, why don't you try practicing what you preach and learn about another country before you make comments about it? Teach by example.

At this point the only thing keeping me from voting for McCain is Palin - I doubt he will live the full term and the thought of that hyper-Christian, hypocrite as my President evokes nausea.
Excellent. That makes me happy, because at this point, any vote against those bastards is a good vote.

I would like to take that bet but I don't understand it.

"20 dollars say that the Right Wingers'll be tooting a different horn if McCain wins."

Actually, I read it as, "If McCain had won [been the top choice] in the survey of foreign opinion, then the rightwingers would be tooting a different horn now [they'd be talking about how our foreign allies support McCain, and so all Americans should vote for him because he'd help our standing in the world]."

No, not all that much unless you have some information that has not been in the US media to back up what you are trying to imply about this.
Wut?

You're disagreeing with me actually agreeing with you?

The economy was fine - yes
There were plenty of diplomatic missions - yes

Where are we disagreeing?

That the US did actually engage in a lot of bad things around the world under Clinton?

Because if you think that Clinton was doing The Right Thing organising several cruise missile strikes on Iraqi targets, raising sanctions on Iran, essentially installing the leader of Haiti and getting overinvolved in Somalia before running away completely and letting hundreds of thousands of people die in Rwanda as a consequence (although he did admittedly say it was his worst mistake) then I can't say I agree with you on that.
I could not disagree with you more. This sounds like someone who has absolutely no idea what they are talking about unless you have some information that has not been in the US media to back up what you are trying to imply about this.
The The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 certainly madea lot of PATRIOT easier and also showed that, if motivated by fear, politicians will pass almost anything.
So, apparently, you do not have any information that I don't also have. You are just choosing to interpret the same information differently. Since this is nothing, then, but your personal opinion and there is no new information that could cause me to change my personal opinion, I'm just going to dismiss your personal opinion on the basis that there is no reason to think you're more right about it than me -- and since I am me, I'm going to choose to agree with me and my interpretations of the facts, instead of you and yours.
Well that's fair enough, we are essentially arguing about our own interpretations, aye.
So, in conclusion and bringing this back to the topic:

1) US politicians may all be corrupt and spineless to varying degrees, but they do NOT all brazenly violate US and international law every chance they get, nor play brutal games of military brinksmanship, nor start wars of aggression on false pretenses and then flat-out refuse to end those wars while simultaneously fomenting more wars, nor do they all seek to eliminate the separation of church and state and strip women and gays of fundamental rights. I reject your suggestion to the contrary. You tried to argue that all US presidents have done these things and, therefore, any future president will also do them.
No, I didn't.
2) Bush II, however, most certainly did do all the things I listed, and if McCain is elected, then he will also do them, and I feel confident predicting that because he has presented his proposed policies and they are virtually identical to Bush's. I am not basing it on US history. I am basing it on what McCain himself has said during his campaign.
I agree with this.

I think there's a matter of magnitude involved here as well. Bush may be an idiot, and may have caused a whole lot of trouble, but Allende was undoubtedly worse for the citizens of Chile than Bush is for those of the US.

At any rate, if you really want a debate on Allende and the CIA, you can make a thread to that effect. Suffice to say that I think there was not insignificant support for Allende being removed among Chileans (though certainly more in some parts of society than others), that the coup was ultimately carried out by Chileans for Chile rather than under direct orders from Washington and that, yes, I consider some failures of government grave enough to warrant the relevant individuals being held accountable before mankind, whether by their own people if possible, or by people from abroad.

And Pinochet was worse than Allende, by fucking MILES, even assuming Allende was worse than Bush, which I doubt, never minding the fact that Allende was the CHILEAN PEOPLE'S CHOICE, and that ALONE was enough reason to respect it. And João Goulart, the President you helped depose HERE, was actually a pretty decent guy. Plus the fact remains that if YOU have the right to interfere in OUR governments, WE have the right to interfere in YOURS!

Wrong or not, they're still doing that sort of thing. There is no ethical ground to protest turnabout until the US shows a willingness to prosecute and punish those of its own who would blatantly inflict harm on the people of other nations through forced governmental change.

So far, the US has not even bothered to bring even one of it's own up on charges.

Exhibit A:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger

I hope he dies a slow and painful death, and goes to Hell to spend eternity suffering the worst fate possible.

Wut?

You're disagreeing with me actually agreeing with you?

The economy was fine - yes
There were plenty of diplomatic missions - yes

Where are we disagreeing?

That the US did actually engage in a lot of bad things around the world under Clinton?
No, that Clinton's bad things have been on the same level and of the same nature as Bush's bad things.

Because if you think that Clinton was doing The Right Thing organising several cruise missile strikes on Iraqi targets, raising sanctions on Iran, essentially installing the leader of Haiti and getting overinvolved in Somalia before running away completely and letting hundreds of thousands of people die in Rwanda as a consequence (although he did admittedly say it was his worst mistake) then I can't say I agree with you on that.
Did I say Clinton did nothing but good things? Or did I characterize his administration as dishonest and corrupt? His actions and inactions had bad effects. None of them left multiple countries teetering on the brink of international war the way Bush's deliberate actions have done.

The The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 certainly madea lot of PATRIOT easier and also showed that, if motivated by fear, politicians will pass almost anything.
Sigh, I notice you are still lacking FACTS. Where are the quotes from the texts of the two acts to prove what you are saying about them? Hm? Because I say you're blowing smoke and that the 1996 Act is not a precursor to the PATRIOT Act. You're the one who started out by insisting that it is, so the onus is on you to prove your point by showing how one leads to the other. We are now into multiple days of you not providing facts after being asked for them. This supports my belief that you don't have any.

Well that's fair enough, we are essentially arguing about our own interpretations, aye.
Except that I'm not pretending to know things I don't.

No, I didn't.
Yes, you did.

I agree with this.
That's nice.

You see know reason why you shouldn't do to them what they did to you? I don't know mate maybe because it is wrong.

If they can, we can.

If they can, we can.

Ok so there was nothing wrong with what they did then. I noticed your reply to Leon you said if they have the right than we have the right, the question is did they have the right.

Ok so there was nothing wrong with what they did then.

Oh, but I didn't say that. I said there was nothing wrong with collecting...

Adapting a quote by a person some people in the US still somehow respect:

"I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go fascist because of the irresponsibility of its own people. The issues are much too important for the American voters to be left to decide for themselves."

It was good for the ganders here in South America. I'm pretty sure it's good for the gooses in the North.

Oh, but I didn't say that. I said there was nothing wrong with collecting...

Adapting a quote by a person some people in the US still somehow respect:

"I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go fascist because of the irresponsibility of its own people. The issues are much too important for the American voters to be left to decide for themselves."

It was good for the ganders here in South America. I'm pretty sure it's good for the gooses in the North.

So two wrongs do a make a right then. A for your last sentance you should go into stand up or something very witty, no I thought it was midly amusing.

So two wrongs do a make a right then.

Not necessarily, but three lefts do. Which is why Bush = three communists. :p

At any rate, mathematically, it can be argued that yes: -1 * -1 = 1.

Not necessarily, but three lefts do. Which is why Bush = three communists. :p

At any rate, mathematically, it can be argued that yes: -1 * -1 = 1.It can also be argued that -1 + (-1) = -2.

But only a fool would use simple math to prove an ethical point...

It can also be argued that -1 + (-1) = -2.

But only a fool would use simple math to prove an ethical point...

Yeah, I was wondering if/when someone would catch up on these facts.

And Pinochet was worse than Allende, by fucking MILES, even assuming Allende was worse than Bush, which I doubt, never minding the fact that Allende was the CHILEAN PEOPLE'S CHOICE, and that ALONE was enough reason to respect it. And João Goulart, the President you helped depose HERE, was actually a pretty decent guy. Plus the fact remains that if YOU have the right to interfere in OUR governments, WE have the right to interfere in YOURS!
You should probably read the article that Neu Leostein linked you to. Maybe you'll learn a thing or two instead of just shouting off your emotions.

The Economist sums up the reality fairly well:

The end of Allende
Sep 15th 1973
From The Economist print edition

The temporary death of democracy in Chile will be regrettable, but the blame lies clearly with Dr Allende and those of his followers who persistently overrode the constitution


President Allende did not become a martyr, even if it is true that he took his own life on Tuesday. The bombing and storming of his presidential palace and the seizure of power by the commanders of Chile’s armed forces put a bitter end to the first freely-elected marxist government in the west. And the fighting may have barely begun. With most of Chile’s links with the outside world still severed, it was difficult to take the full measure of the apparently continuing violence. But if a bloody civil war does ensue, or if the generals who have now seized power decide not to hold new elections, there must be no confusion about where the responsibility for Chile’s tragedy lies. It lies with Dr Allende and those in the marxist parties who pursued a strategy for the seizure of total power to the point at which the opposition despaired of being able to restrain them by constitutional means.

What happened in Santiago is not an everyday Latin American coup. The armed forces had tolerated Dr Allende for nearly three years. In that time, he managed to plunge the country into the worst social and economic crisis in its modern history. The confiscation of private farms and factories caused an alarming slump in production, and the losses in state-run industries were officially admitted to have exceeded $1 billion last year. Inflation rose to 350 per cent over the past twelve months. Small businessmen were bankrupted; civil servants and skilled workers saw their salaries whittled away by inflation; housewives had to queue endlessly for basic foods, when they were available at all. The mounting desperation caused the major strike movement that the truck-drivers started six weeks ago.

But the Allende government did more than wreck the economy. It violated both the letter and the spirit of the constitution. The way it rode roughshod over congress and the courts eroded faith in the country’s democratic institutions. A resolution passed by the opposition majority in congress last month declared that “the government is not merely responsible for isolated violations of the law and the constitution; it has made them into a permanent system of conduct”. The feeling that parliament had been made irrelevant was increased by violence in the streets (almost on a Belfast scale) and by the way the government tolerated the growth of armed groups on the far left that were openly preparing for civil war.

The armed forces moved only when it had long been clear that there was a popular mandate for military intervention. They had to move in the end because all constitutional means had failed to restrain a government that was behaving unconstitutionally. The trigger for the coup was provided by the efforts of left-wing extremists to promote subversion within the armed forces. Two leaders of Dr Allende’s Popular Unity coalition, Sr Carlos Altamirano, the former Socialist party secretary-general, and Sr Oscar Garretón of the Movement of United Popular Action, were named by the navy as the “intellectual authors” of plans for mutiny among the sailors at Valparaiso. The Valparaiso naval commanders were the first to move this week.

But the rapid success of the coup and the participation in it of all the armed services (including the paramilitary carabineros) suggest that the plans for it had been carefully laid. It remains to be seen whether the armed forces are now solid in their opposition to the ousted government. The disappearance of two commanders, Admiral Raul Montero and General Sepulveda, the carabineros’ chief, who were replaced by their anti-marxist subordinates on the day of the coup, shows that not all senior officers were in favour of it. The real danger of bloodshed will come if the armed forces split, or if there are serious mutinies among the lower ranks. That could produce a messy civil war. Strong resistance can be expected from the workers’ committees and paramilitary brigades that the Socialist party and the Movement of the Revolutionary Left are running in Santiago and from guerrilla groups in the south. But if they fail to get significant military backing, they can probably be contained.

No return to the old ways

Whatever government emerges from the coup cannot expect an easy time. There will also be a temptation now for those who have suffered from the Allende government to settle their accounts with the defeated side. Few people believe that Chile can now return to its old ways of doing things. The work of reconstruction will involve considerable sacrifice, just as it did in Brazil when Senhor Roberto Campos was responsible for economic planning in the years after the 1964 coup. This does not mean that Chile will become another Brazil; for one thing, it is probably a less violent place even now, and for another, its soldiers have a rather different conception of their role from the soldiers behind Senhor Campos. They accept that it is too late to reverse many of the changes brought about by Dr Allende; in trying to rebuild the private sector, for instance, they will lay more stress on coaxing back foreign investors and on creating new industries than on handing back what was taken away.


General Pinochet and his fellow officers are no one’s pawns. Their coup was home-grown, and attempts to make out that the Americans were involved are absurd to those who know how wary they have been in their recent dealings with Chile. The military-technocratic government that is apparently emerging will try to knit together the social fabric that the Allende government tore apart. It will mean the temporary death of democracy in Chile, and that is to be deplored. But it must not be forgotten who made it inevitable.

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=8496869

Exhibit A:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger

I hope he dies a slow and painful death, and goes to Hell to spend eternity suffering the worst fate possible.
A brilliant man who's foreign policy expertise should be studied. I have taken an interest in reading up on him and his work.
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you Exhibit A; Why The World Hates America.

I had to chip in on this one because this may be the most telling quote I have ever seen on this forum.
I'm simply believing in what Kissinger said.

Okay, I'm going to be bitchy enough to say outright -- as if he doesn't know it already -- that the bolded phrase is a delusion I do not suffer from.
The feeling is mutual. No harm done.
Huh. You learn something new everday.
Indeed. Infact, Estonia is one of the ones that has grown the most and taken advantage of all the freedom to invest in technology that was restricted to them when they were under Communist occupation. Estonia has been in the first country in the world to have internet voting.
Heikoku, I think the point that TAI and others are trying to make is that either the Russians would have had influence over Chile as a satellite state, or the Americans would.

Basically it was a game of powerball being played between the two superpowers ever since the end of World War II. Each one was trying to keep the other from expanding influence in certain areas.

In terms of the standpoint as that powerball game was concerned, then the United States couldn't afford to let the Soviet Union gain more influence in the United States' area of the world.

In terms of ethics, however, you're right. It was disgusting. The whole game was, and neither side had any true right to do it.
Indeed. You may have your opinions about what is right and what is wrong, but to deny what IS and what WAS is lunacy.

PS: And another thing: When it comes to Chile, the only reason Heikoku may be "losing the debate" is because he is outnumbered by liars. He may be hysterical, but he is right. And his opponents are not only wrong, they are dishonest, and their arguments are immoral.

EDIT: And if anyone has any issues with anything I've said, let them prove their sincerity by laying out the reasoning behind their remarks. Let them cite real sources for their assertions of fact. Enough already of these vanity acts which are all attitude and no substance.
Have you changed the definition of "lying" to help your 'arguement'?

I have not lied. I have backed up my claims with this source. Heikoku is the one who has failed to list a single source, but rather make pleas to emotion and raise his voice.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article568154.ece

I think..... *SNIPPED*
....that you didn't read the source he linked you to and instead resorted to your emotional outcries.

....that you didn't read the source he linked you to and instead resorted to your emotional outcries.

Your link to the economist doesn't really work because it ignores just about every other possible factor, an action very much similar to what you did with the Russian argument some time back.

But since you want to argue that Chile's coup was solely because of Allende's actions, then you must clearly also argue that the 9/11 attacks were solely because of America's meddling in foreign affairs where it wasn't wanted.

But you're not likely to argue that are you, Mr "Manifest Destiny"?

I took that article seriously until it said that the US had nothing to do with the coup, which everyone knows we did.

<snip>

Have you changed the definition of "lying" to help your 'arguement'?

I have not lied. I have backed up my claims with this source. Heikoku is the one who has failed to list a single source, but rather make pleas to emotion and raise his voice.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article568154.ece
No, I didn't change the definition. I used the word according to its dictionary meaning, and I meant what I said. I didn't expect you to do anything but claim you're telling the truth, but that changes nothing. Everything you say on this side-topic is a lie.

Indeed. You may have your opinions about what is right and what is wrong, but to deny what IS and what WAS is lunacy.


And why we should never let it go to that level again. Regardless of the powerball game, the simple fact is, thousands of PEOPLE suffered and died in Chile. People suffered and died all over South America.

Look at it from Heikoku's point of view. He basically saw a bully take his country and do whatever it wanted to with it just because it was strong enough to do so and it didn't want the other big bully to do it. And then said bully had the gall to say it was to protect freedom and democracy, by handing out the exact opposite.

It was disgusting. The history of the United States is filled with an enormous number of mistakes, and I truly believe we ought to start rectifying them instead of continuing along the same idiotic path.

I took that article seriously until it said that the US had nothing to do with the coup, which everyone knows we did.
No. It meant that the US didn't order the coup/do the coup.

Everyone knows the CIA was backing the forces against Allende and was trying to create a situation in Chile where Allende could not prosper, but what the article meant and what everyone today knows as fact is that the coup was not a CIA/American coup, but rather a legit Chilean coup led by Chilean people.

Sources show that the CIA wanted to create a coup directly after Allende assumed power, in 1970...but a coup didn't happen until 1973, when Chilean forces overthew Allende.

Here, check this out:

After General Pinochet assumed power, U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger told U.S. President Richard Nixon that the U.S. "didn't do it," but "we helped them...created the conditions as great as possible." (referring to the coup itself)[40]. Recent documents declassified under the Clinton administration's Chile Declassification Project show that the United States government and the CIA had sought the overthrow of Allende in 1970 immediately before he took office ("Project FUBELT"), but claims of their direct involvement in the 1973 coup are not proven by publicly available documentary evidence, but many documents still remain classified.

No. It meant that the US didn't order the coup/do the coup.

Everyone knows the CIA was backing the forces against Allende and was trying to create a situation in Chile where Allende could not prosper, but what the article meant and what everyone today knows as fact is that the coup was not a CIA/American coup, but rather a legit Chilean coup led by Chilean people.

Then the article is lying by putting the blame solely on Allende.

And why we should never let it go to that level again. Regardless of the powerball game, the simple fact is, thousands of PEOPLE suffered and died in Chile. People suffered and died all over South America.

Look at it from Heikoku's point of view. He basically saw a bully take his country and do whatever it wanted to with it just because it was strong enough to do so and it didn't want the other big bully to do it. And then said bully had the gall to say it was to protect freedom and democracy, by handing out the exact opposite.

It was disgusting. The history of the United States is filled with an enormous number of mistakes, and I truly believe we ought to start rectifying them instead of continuing along the same idiotic path.

No, see I think that's incorrect. I think that throughout all of Latin-America many dictators came to power for various reasons, and conflict, killings, civil war and coups plauged the region. I think that Pinochet's Chile was the only one that turned out to be good for the country.

Pinochet, upon assuming power, said he was doing 2 things.

1. Preserving the democracy until it was safe from Communists and had a stable enviornment to thrive in, at which time he would return it.

2. Re-establishing the market economy that was destroyed under Allende.

Once both things were done, he kept his word by returning democracy to Chileans and letting his people vote him out of power (even though almost half voted to have him continue his rule!). His legacy is Latin America's arguably most sucessful and least corrupt nation and Latin America's most thriving and open free-market.

Yes horrible things were done but that's the same with almost every nation in Latin-America and, hell, in most of the devolping world. The difference, is, in this case, the results of said experiment produced a miracle. Does the end justify the means, is the question. Almost half of Chilean voters agreed yes, it did. Surely that's enough to atleast THINK about this regime logically and not flame anyone who thinks the way this quite large minority does....

Not necessarily, but three lefts do. Which is why Bush = three communists. :p

At any rate, mathematically, it can be argued that yes: -1 * -1 = 1.

:) I once said that to my mum once when she said "two wrongs don't make a right", I replied with "well two negatives make a positive", yeah that didn't go over to well. But do you see my point Heikoku?

No, I didn't change the definition. I used the word according to its dictionary meaning, and I meant what I said. I didn't expect you to do anything but claim you're telling the truth, but that changes nothing. Everything you say on this side-topic is a lie.
What? Enough with your blabbering. How can I be lying when I'm quite obviously not...and I'm backing up my statements with sourced facts?

That is not the defintion of a lie. It is, perhaps, a definiton of an opposing viewpoint with a different interpretation of the facts.

Then the article is lying by putting the blame solely on Allende.
No. The Economist claims the coup was home grown, instead of sponsored by CIA militants or CIA trained fighters in CIA camps or something...like, for example, the Mujihadeem or something....which is still debatable.

The US claims to have been bashing heads with Chile, economically, but that is no different with what we were doing with any other Communist nation....

The Economist is right here. If you'll read the article it will state the Chilean government's failings under Allende, his support of Extreme Left Wing para-militaries that were preparing for civil war, and his destroying of Chilean faith in their democracy by his abuse of power.

So for example:

The armed forces moved only when it had long been clear that there was a popular mandate for military intervention. They had to move in the end because all constitutional means had failed to restrain a government that was behaving unconstitutionally. The trigger for the coup was provided by the efforts of left-wing extremists to promote subversion within the armed forces. Two leaders of Dr Allende’s Popular Unity coalition, Sr Carlos Altamirano, the former Socialist party secretary-general, and Sr Oscar Garretón of the Movement of United Popular Action, were named by the navy as the “intellectual authors” of plans for mutiny among the sailors at Valparaiso. The Valparaiso naval commanders were the first to move this week.

That's what The Economist means by Home Grown.

No. The Economist claims the coup was home grown, instead of sponsored by CIA militants or CIA trained fighters in CIA camps or something...like, for example, the Mujihadeem or something....which is still debatable.

As others have pointed out, that article was written in 1973, before any classified documents came out, and there's many documents still classified. It means that it's quite irrelevant.

Second, you very selectively quote the Wiki article:

Professor Gareau, writes on the subject: "Washington's training of thousands of military personnel from Chile who later committed state terrorism again makes Washington eligible for the charge of accessory before the fact to state terrorism. The CIA's close relationship during the height of the terror to Contreras, Chile's chief terrorist (with the possible exception of Pinochet himself), lays Washington open to the charge of accessory during the fact." Gareau argues that the fuller extend involved the US taking charge of coordinating counterinsurgency efforts between all Latin American countries. He writes, "Washington's service as the overall coordinator of state terrorism in Latin America demonstrates the enthusiasm with which Washington played its role as an accomplice to state terrorism in the region. It was not a reluctant player. Rather it not only trained Latin American governments in terrorism and financed the means to commit terrorism; it also encouraged them to apply the lessons learned to put down what it called “the communist threat.” Its enthusiasm extended to coordinating efforts to apprehend those wanted by terrorist states who had fled to other countries in the region....The evidence available leads to the conclusion that Washington's influence over the decision to commit these acts was considerable." "Given that they knew about the terrorism of this regime, what did the elites in Washington during the Nixon and Ford administrations do about it? The elites in Washington reacted by increasing U.S. military assistance and sales to the state terrorists, by covering up their terrorism, by urging U.S. diplomats to do so also, and by assuring the terrorists of their support, thereby becoming accessories to state terrorism before, during, and after the fact."

Scholars have written on Chile as an example of State Terrorism of a very open kind that did not attempt a façade of civilian governance, and that had a "September 11th effect" through the hemisphere. Professor of History Thomas Wright, argues that "unlike their Brazilian counterparts, they did not embrace state terrorism as a last recourse; they launched a wave of terrorism on the day of the coup. In contrast to the Brazilians and Uruguayans, the Chileans were very public about their objectives and their methods; there was nothing subtle about rounding up thousands of prisoners, the extensive use of torture, executions following sham court-marshal, and shootings in cold blood. After the initial wave of open terrorism, the Chilean armed forces constructed a sophisticated apparatus for the secret application of state terrorism that lasted until the dictatorship’s end...The impact of the Chilean coup reached far beyond the country’s borders. Through their aid in the overthrow of Allende and their support of the Pinochet dictatorship, President Richard Nixon and his national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, sent a clear signal to all of Latin America that anti-revolutionary regimes employing repression, even state terrorism, could count on the support of the United States. The U.S. government in effect, gave a green light to Latin America’s right wing and its armed forces to eradicate the left and use repression to erase the advances that workers - and in some countries, campesinos - had made through decades of struggle. This “September 11 effect” was soon felt around the hemisphere.” [37]
Prof. Gareau concludes, "The message for the populations of Latin American nations and particularly the Left opposition was clear: the United States would not permit the continuation of a Socialist government, even if it came to power in a democratic election and continued to uphold the basic democratic structure of that society."

Quotes

"I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves." — Henry Kissinger
"Not a nut or bolt shall reach Chile under Allende. Once Allende comes to power we shall do all within our power to condemn Chile and all Chileans to utmost deprivation and poverty." — Edward M. Korry, U.S. Ambassador to Chile, upon hearing of Allende's election.
"Make the economy scream [in Chile to] prevent Allende from coming to power or to unseat him" — Richard Nixon, orders to CIA director Richard Helms on September 15, 1970
"It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup. It would be much preferable to have this transpire prior to October 24 [1970] but efforts in this regard will continue vigorously beyond this date. We are to continue to generate maximum pressure toward this end, utilizing every appropriate resource. It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the USG and American hand be well hidden..." — A communique to the CIA base in Chile, issued on October 16, 1970
"[Military rule aims] to make Chile not a nation of proletarians, but a nation of entrepreneurs." — Augusto Pinochet
"We didn't do it. I mean we helped them. [Garbled] created the conditions as great as possible. — Henry Kissinger conversing with President Nixon about the coup. Telephone call from Kissinger to Nixon

But since you want to argue that Chile's coup was solely because of Allende's actions, then you must clearly also argue that the 9/11 attacks were solely because of America's meddling in foreign affairs where it wasn't wanted.
The 9/11 attacks were brought against us for a few reasons.

1. America presence in the middle east, notably in Saudi Arabia, their holy land.

2. American support of Israel.

3. The American training of the Mujihadeem, leaving them heavily armed but then uneducated and letting the country radicalised against us taken over instead of educated and helped when we were "allies" with them back in the 80's.

4. Cultural Imperialism. Islamic Fundamentalists flailing back against American cultural ideas of political freedom, economics, religious freedom and social freedom, which they feel was (and is) like oil and water with their way of life and encroaching a bit too much into their area of the world.
Mr "Manifest Destiny"
I quite like that.

No, see I think that's incorrect.

Reality was lived by my country.

My people. Not yours.

I am a South American. You are not.

I AM REALITY, AND I DON'T GIVE A DAMN WHAT YOU THINK!

As others have pointed out, that article was written in 1973, before any classified documents came out, and there's many documents still classified. It means that it's quite irrelevant.
No doubt. But most of that stuff is talking about the CIA involvement in Chile (and Latin-America) once Pinochet had assumed power. There is no doubt that the countries of America, Great Britain and France all coordinated and supported (on different levels) Chile and worked with other Right Wing dictatorships in South America.

I was talking about the Coup itself being home grown and the work of Chileans, a backlash against Allende. (and a good thing)

I am a South American. You are not.
Everybody is a South American on the internet. :wink:

(and a good thing)

If the coup was a good thing, so was the attack on the twin towers. I don't believe they were. Do you?

Everybody is a South American on the internet. :wink:

Mods, could you release the first two numbers of my IP?

Just so you know... If you EVER complain in NSG about a robbery or battery happening to you or even your sister getting raped, expect from me the same reaction you have to the coups here. If you don't think I'm human enough to make my own decisions, expect the same treatment from me.

What? Enough with your blabbering. How can I be lying when I'm quite obviously not...and I'm backing up my statements with sourced facts?
You most obviously are. Your "facts" are cherrypicked for your purposes, and a few of them are lies, too. A lie cobbled together out of bits and pieces of the truth is still a lie.

That is not the defintion of a lie. It is, perhaps, a definiton of an opposing viewpoint with a different interpretation of the facts.
Your "interpretation" is factually false and clearly slanted to support your bigoted attitudes (I refer you to your earliest comments on the subject in which you spoke insultingly and condescendingly about South Americans).

You can twist and deflect and make appeals to your sources all you like. I have stated my opinion. None of your denials amounts to a reason for me to change my opinion, so I won't. Don't waste your breath/typing energy on me.

No. The Economist claims the coup was home grown, instead of sponsored by CIA militants or CIA trained fighters in CIA camps or something...like, for example, the Mujihadeem or something....which is still debatable.

US involvement with Chile included, in the very articles you used, training and arming of local insurgents. They made the coup possible, and fomented the conditions that would have led to the coup itself. Claiming that the US was not involved in the coup is nothing but a lie.

Supposing I shot you in the stomach with a 7.62mm frangible round, leaving you to bleed to death from what was left of your stomach, does that mean I didn't kill you then?

Furthermore, the Mujaheedin did not sprout Stinger missiles and other US manufactured arms out of thin air. They certainly did not magically acquire the knowledge in its use and operation either. There is no debate there.

US involvement with Chile*SNIP*
But we are talking about the actual Coup itself. It is already been accepted that the US wanted to get rid of Allende before, indeed as Kissinger points out. However, as Kissinger also points out, the actual Coup was created, lead and carried out by Chilean people themselves.

It's like this.

Suppose we are both CEO's. (hypothetically, please...just in the form of an analogy) You are the CEO of a rival company to me. You want to kill me. You work to hurt my company economically. Perhaps you even talk of training an assasin to kill me. But I am actually killed by my employees and a few of my co-workers because they are fed up with me, my vision for the company and my lack of leadership.

Furthermore, the Mujaheedin did not sprout Stinger missiles and other US manufactured arms out of thin air. They certainly did not magically acquire the knowledge in its use and operation either. There is no debate there.
Oh of course. I wasn't arguing that. I meant that the Mujahideen were already fighting against the Soviets and we came along to help them win and arm them to the teeth, but we weren't the one's causing them to fight in the first place.

(I refer you to your earliest comments on the subject in which you spoke insultingly and condescendingly about South Americans)

Well, of course, I can also make the claim that his family is "like children" who "don't know what's best for them" and so on. Which is why, should TAI get in the business end of a bullet, well, the killer knew what was best for him.

But we are talking about the actual Coup itself. It is already been accepted that the US wanted to get rid of Allende before, indeed as Kissinger points out. However, as Kissinger also points out, the actual Coup was created, lead and carried out by Chilean people themselves.

Where does he point this out?

The quote I assume you're referring to is...

"We didn't do it. I mean we helped them. [Garbled] created the conditions as great as possible. — Henry Kissinger conversing with President Nixon about the coup. Telephone call from Kissinger to Nixon

That's very open to interpretation, US personel may not have been actively part of the coup itself but those who were had been funded, armed and trained by the US.

It's like this.

Suppose we are both CEO's. (hypothetically, please...just in the form of an analogy) You are the CEO of a rival company to me. You want to kill me. You work to hurt my company economically. Perhaps you even talk of training an assasin to kill me. But I am actually killed by my employees and a few of my co-workers because they are fed up with me, my vision for the company and my lack of leadership.

...which makes this analogy very much to one side.

It could perhaps better be put that I provide living costs and more to the assassin, I give him a gun, I train him how to use it, I give him the location of who to assassin and more.

...but hey, I didn't pull the trigger.

Innocent me.

But we are talking about the actual Coup itself. It is already been accepted that the US wanted to get rid of Allende before, indeed as Kissinger points out. However, as Kissinger also points out, the actual Coup was created, lead and carried out by Chilean people themselves.

While getting lots of weapons, training and encouragement from the US. Maybe it wasn't US operatives actually doing the coup itself, but the coup would not have existed in the form we saw without US involvement.


Suppose we are both CEO's. (hypothetically, please...just in the form of an analogy) You are the CEO of a rival company to me. You want to kill me. You work to hurt my company economically. Perhaps you even talk of training an assasin to kill me. But I am actually killed by my employees and a few of my co-workers because they are fed up with me, my vision for the company and my lack of leadership.

Except I'm arming your employees and telling them where and when best to find you when you are secluded and beat you to death with your sawn off family jewels.

It's like this.

Suppose we are both CEO's. (hypothetically, please...just in the form of an analogy) You are the CEO of a rival company to me. You want to kill me. You work to hurt my company economically. Perhaps you even talk of training an assasin to kill me. But I am actually killed by my employees and a few of my co-workers because they are fed up with me, my vision for the company and my lack of leadership.

you forgot to add, "While I'm training the assasin, I'm also paying some of your employees to create dissent and havoc amongst the rest of the staff making the overthrow much easier"
But hey, I didn't do it personally so I'm blameless!

I'm not even sure why you're debating the point anyway, as far as I can read, you believe it was entirely justifiable even if US personnel themselves carried out the coup.

In your opinion, America is justified in going into other countries and removing people they don't like under any circumstances, whether they present a clear and present threat or whether they just don't like them.

When Kissinger goes back to Hell, I'll be the first to make a thread celebrating it.

I'm not even sure why you're debating the point anyway, as far as I can read, you believe it was entirely justifiable even if US personnel themselves carried out the coup.

In your opinion, America is justified in going into other countries and removing people they don't like under any circumstances, whether they present a clear and present threat or whether they just don't like them.
The reason he has to "debate" it is because people who hold views like his know those views are despicable and low, and they don't like to be called by the kinds of labels that appropriately apply to them. So they go to enormous trouble to try to justify their views while trying to intimidate their critics into silence.

I suppose it's understandable. Nobody likes being called a lying, self-serving, murder-condoning, bigoted imperialist. Sad, though that it never occurs to these people that they could avoid such labels by not acting like such characters. Rather, they want to do and say all the stuff those words suggest, but they want to be praised for it somehow.

Where does he point this out?

The quote I assume you're referring to is...



That's very open to interpretation, US personel may not have been actively part of the coup itself but those who were had been funded, armed and trained by the US.

Well, as far as we know, from what the CIA as stated and what has been uncovered (that they havn't publicly state), we wanted to set up a coup in 1970, didn't do so and were alerted by our Chilean contacts that the military was staging a coup.

I was also referring to this:
"The United States has acknowledged having played a role in Chilean politics prior to the coup, but its degree of involvement in the coup itself is debated. The CIA was notified by its Chilean contacts of the impending coup two days in advance, but contends it "played no direct role in" the coup."

The coup was carried out by the Chilean military who were funded, armed and trained by themselves as they were the military of the nation of Chile. It's not like these were some terrorists hiding out in the jungles. This was a military coup by the armed forces of Chile. Remember that.



...which makes this analogy very much to one side.

It could perhaps better be put that I provide living costs and more to the assassin, I give him a gun, I train him how to use it, I give him the location of who to assassin and more.

...but hey, I didn't pull the trigger.

Innocent me.

But it was the Chilean Armed forces who turned on Allende and killed/him took over the country. This was the Chilean military who themselves were trained and armed.

You are downplaying the Chilean military's role in this. This was their coup:

Initially, there were four leaders of the junta: In addition to General Augusto Pinochet, from the Army, there were General Gustavo Leigh Guzmán, of the Air Force; Admiral José Toribio Merino Castro, of the Navy (who replaced Constitutionalist Admiral Raúl Montero); and General Director César Mendoza Durán, of the National Police (Carabineros de Chile) (who replaced Constitutionalist General Director José María Sepúlveda). Coup leaders soon decided against a rotating presidency and named General Pinochet permanent head of the junta[31]

While getting lots of weapons, training and encouragement from the US. Maybe it wasn't US operatives actually doing the coup itself, but the coup would not have existed in the form we saw without US involvement.
That's where you're wrong. Almost the entire Armed Forces of Chile was in opposition against Allende. Allende recieved almost zero support and defense from the military during the coup and indeed, only a few socialist fighters defended him in the palace where he finally rid the world of the communist burden that was himself.

Well, as far as we know, from what the CIA as stated and what has been uncovered (that they havn't publicly state), we wanted to set up a coup in 1970, didn't do so and were alerted by our Chilean contacts that the military was staging a coup.

I was also referring to this:


The coup was carried out by the Chilean military who were funded, armed and trained by themselves as they were the military of the nation of Chile. It's not like these were some terrorists hiding out in the jungles. This was a military coup by the armed forces of Chile. Remember that.





But it was the Chilean Armed forces who turned on Allende and killed/him took over the country. This was the Chilean military who themselves were trained and armed.

You are downplaying the Chilean military's role in this. This was their coup:

Cherrypick away...

In contrast to the Brazilians and Uruguayans, the Chileans were very public about their objectives and their methods; there was nothing subtle about rounding up thousands of prisoners, the extensive use of torture, executions following sham court-marshal, and shootings in cold blood. After the initial wave of open terrorism, the Chilean armed forces constructed a sophisticated apparatus for the secret application of state terrorism that lasted until the dictatorship’s end...The impact of the Chilean coup reached far beyond the country’s borders. Through their aid in the overthrow of Allende and their support of the Pinochet dictatorship, President Richard Nixon and his national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, sent a clear signal to all of Latin America that anti-revolutionary regimes employing repression, even state terrorism, could count on the support of the United States.

Again, why do you care to defend this when your main point is that it's all justifiable.

Many brutal regime leaders didn't necessarily carry out the killings themselves, who wants to get their hands dirty, they sanctioned it, supported it and provided the means to accomplish it.

Yet this is by the by since, for you, it was all justified anyway, how they did it remains moot.

Cherrypick away...

In contrast to the Brazilians and Uruguayans, the Chileans were very public about their objectives and their methods; there was nothing subtle about rounding up thousands of prisoners, the extensive use of torture, executions following sham court-marshal, and shootings in cold blood. After the initial wave of open terrorism, the Chilean armed forces constructed a sophisticated apparatus for the secret application of state terrorism that lasted until the dictatorship’s end...The impact of the Chilean coup reached far beyond the country’s borders. Through their aid in the overthrow of Allende and their support of the Pinochet dictatorship, President Richard Nixon and his national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, sent a clear signal to all of Latin America that anti-revolutionary regimes employing repression, even state terrorism, could count on the support of the United States.

Again, why do you care to defend this when your main point is that it's all justifiable.

Many brutal regime leaders didn't necessarily carry out the killings themselves, who wants to get their hands dirty, they sanctioned it, supported it and provided the means to accomplish it.

Yet this is by the by since, for you, it was all justified anyway, how they did it remains moot.

To this I link my previous post. The last paragraph is what I would write again to you anyway.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14004457&postcount=356

No, see I think that's incorrect. I think that throughout all of Latin-America many dictators came to power for various reasons, and conflict, killings, civil war and coups plauged the region. I think that Pinochet's Chile was the only one that turned out to be good for the country.

Pinochet, upon assuming power, said he was doing 2 things.

1. Preserving the democracy until it was safe from Communists and had a stable enviornment to thrive in, at which time he would return it.

2. Re-establishing the market economy that was destroyed under Allende.

Once both things were done, he kept his word by returning democracy to Chileans and letting his people vote him out of power (even though almost half voted to have him continue his rule!). His legacy is Latin America's arguably most sucessful and least corrupt nation and Latin America's most thriving and open free-market.

Yes horrible things were done but that's the same with almost every nation in Latin-America and, hell, in most of the devolping world. The difference, is, in this case, the results of said experiment produced a miracle. Does the end justify the means, is the question. Almost half of Chilean voters agreed yes, it did. Surely that's enough to atleast THINK about this regime logically and not flame anyone who thinks the way this quite large minority does....

1. Preserving the democracy until it was safe from Communists and had a stable enviornment to thrive in, at which time he would return it.

Allende was voted in, he was removed by a coup, what are you talking about?

2. Re-establishing the market economy that was destroyed under Allende.

However, the first year of Allende's presidency saw economic improvement. The GDP increased by 8.6%, inflation decreased from 34.9% in 1970 to 22.1%, while industrial production increased by 12%. However, President Allende's Socialist political agenda brought opposition from wealthy sectors of Chilean society as well as the United States, which placed diplomatic, economic, and covert pressure on the government.

The economy tanked because vested interests ensured it would? Again, what are you talking about.

Given you're also from the wealthy sector, it's hardly surprising which position you'd take because you're all about protecting you to the detriment of everyone else. You're not a patriot unless your own position is safe.

Anyway, I'm off, hardly likely to change an ingrained mindset.

"1. Preserving the democracy until it was safe from Communists and had a stable enviornment to thrive in, at which time he would return it. "

Tell me:
1. How can a military dictator 'preserve' democracy? dictator =/= democracy.

2. How can there be democracy if one cannot vote for the party (Communist) one wishes to? Hard to 'preserve' democracy when the dictator tells his subjugated that they can only vote for the parties he agrees with, along with the added threat that if they don't he'll reclaim power.

"1. Preserving the democracy until it was safe from Communists and had a stable enviornment to thrive in, at which time he would return it. "

Tell me:
1. How can a military dictator 'preserve' democracy? dictator =/= democracy.
Simple:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilean_transition_to_democracy

2. How can there be democracy if one cannot vote for the party (Communist) one wishes to? Hard to 'preserve' democracy when the dictator tells his subjugated that they can only vote for the parties he agrees with, along with the added threat that if they don't he'll reclaim power.
Oh there are loads of historical and present day examples when groups who are deemed dangerous to the establishment and to society have been outlawed. For example. Al Qaida in many countries. Communist political parties in Western Europe in the early days of the cold war were once illegal. Nazi parties in various European countries to this day remain illegal. ect ect ect

That's where you're wrong. Almost the entire Armed Forces of Chile was in opposition against Allende. Allende recieved almost zero support and defense from the military during the coup and indeed, only a few socialist fighters defended him in the palace where he finally rid the world of the communist burden that was himself.

So you're saying that thousands of weapons and technical assistance provided by the United States of America had absolutely nothing to do with the coup's effectiveness?

The economy tanked because vested interests ensured it would? Again, what are you talking about.

Given you're also from the wealthy sector, it's hardly surprising which position you'd take because you're all about protecting you to the detriment of everyone else. You're not a patriot unless your own position is safe.

Anyway, I'm off, hardly likely to change an ingrained mindset.

The Economist covered this pretty well, I thought:

What happened in Santiago is not an everyday Latin American coup. The armed forces had tolerated Dr Allende for nearly three years. In that time, he managed to plunge the country into the worst social and economic crisis in its modern history.

The confiscation of private farms and factories caused an alarming slump in production, and the losses in state-run industries were officially admitted to have exceeded $1 billion last year. Inflation rose to 350 per cent over the past twelve months. Small businessmen were bankrupted; civil servants and skilled workers saw their salaries whittled away by inflation; housewives had to queue endlessly for basic foods, when they were available at all. The mounting desperation caused the major strike movement that the truck-drivers started six weeks ago.

So you're saying that thousands of weapons and technical assistance provided by the United States of America had absolutely nothing to do with the coup's effectiveness?

No, because there were no Americans actually involved in the coup, holding rifles and such, therefore the Americans had nothing to do with it. Nuh uh. :rolleyes:

What I don't understand is why TAI equates the rebellion of the Chilean military = the uprising of the entire Chilean population. Actually, wait, that's not really a question.

No, because there were no Americans actually involved in the coup, holding rifles and such, therefore the Americans had nothing to do with it. Nuh uh. :rolleyes:

What I don't understand is why TAI equates the rebellion of the Chilean military = the uprising of the entire Chilean population. Actually, wait, that's not really a question.

Because only people in the military have opinions worth considering, of course. Anyone else clearly doesn't care enough about the country to have an opinion that matters.

Because only people in the military have opinions worth considering, of course. Anyone else clearly doesn't care enough about the country to have an opinion that matters.

Yeah, if those Chileans didn't want a coup, they should've joined the military and then NOT rebelled! Damn slackers.

Because only people in the military have opinions worth considering, of course. Anyone else clearly doesn't care enough about the country to have an opinion that matters.

Or they're Leftists. Can't forget about those Damn Dirty Leftists.

I'll plead ignorance in the case of Brazil. In '64 I was a high school junior and my political awareness was limited to who was running for class president.

Yes, I am aware of US "involvement" in the politics of other countries. I am equally aware of the involvement of other countries in our politics. Since, apparently, it can't be avoided, can you all, try to be at least as informed as the average American voter about our alternatives? The choice between Obama and McCain is a choice between bad and worse and I'm not sure which is which. At this point the only thing keeping me from voting for McCain is Palin - I doubt he will live the full term and the thought of that hyper-Christian, hypocrite as my President evokes nausea.

In 1964, I was -9. :eek:

Reality was lived by my country.

My people. Not yours.

I am a South American. You are not.

I AM REALITY, AND I DON'T GIVE A DAMN WHAT YOU THINK!

You know, yelling (typing in all caps and/or large font) doesn't really help, unless TAI is vision impaired.

If he upsets you that much, just ignore him.

You know, yelling (typing in all caps and/or large font) doesn't really help, unless TAI is vision impaired.

If he upsets you that much, just ignore him.

Unfortunately it looks like the pressure's been too much for Heikoku and he's manifesting early symptoms of fassitis.

Or they're Leftists. Can't forget about those Damn Dirty Leftists.

I wonder what TAI makes of left-wingers in the military.

For all of the non-Americans here, how about this?
You agree to let our president to be in charge of your countries, and we will let you vote in our election. Fair?

For all of the non-Americans here, how about this?
You agree to let our president to be in charge of your countries, and we will let you vote in our election. Fair?

Only if you allow us to fund and equip insurgencies amongst the American populace with the express purpose of economic sabotage, destabilizing the region and eventually toppling the American government, while committing atrocities against the civilian populace.

Well no you see Obama will not allow any regular citizens to defend themselves, so that won't work out.

When you actually have some facts to back up your claim, we might not call you a liar. And that was a very poor dodge of the point. I would have expected better.

He has voted against concealed carry for citizens.
He has voted for banning semi-automatic firearms.
He has voted against the right to self-defense in towns where guns are banned.
He has voted for imposing one handgun a month restrictions.
He has voted against repealing the Washington, DC gun ban.
He refused to sign a statement affirming gun ownership was an individual right.

Proof you have not brought
Your points like autumn leaves
Fall quickly they have

Dodge points instead
From matters you run
This poster ponders

Obama's voting record is easily accessible by anyone with a computer and an internet connection. Since you appear to possess both you can go ahead and look it up yourself.

Proof you will not bring
Accusations you do fling
Debate you do not

I don't see a reason to debate you if you going to act like that.

I don't see a reason to debate you if you going to act like that.

In a debate, if you put forward an argument, then you must also provide evidence or sources to corroborate that argument. There is no reason why your opponent should do it for you.

The facts that I presented are well known by anyone who has been following the election with any semblance of seriousness. I'm not offering any original research, only publicly available facts. I'm also not going to keep responding to someone posting in haiku.

For all of the non-Americans here, how about this?
You agree to let our president to be in charge of your countries, and we will let you vote in our election. Fair?But the Iraqis don't get to vote in American elections.

There wasn't any point in giving a serious reply to someone, like oh, you TPM, who throws up red herrings when faced with the question of turnabout being fair play to your stances.

But the Iraqis don't get to vote in American elections.

Or the Afghanis, although it's questionable if anyone is in charge there right now.

The facts that I presented are well known by anyone who has been following the election with any semblance of seriousness. I'm not offering any original research, only publicly available facts. I'm also not going to keep responding to someone posting in haiku.

Here's the thing: publicly available or not, you still need to source them, because you are the one stating them. We're not going to research your argument for you, and if you are unwilling to support your argument, then your only other choice is to admit defeat.

Or the Afghanis, although it's questionable if anyone is in charge there right now.Afghanistan gets to make its own decisions. The US still maintains sovereignity over Iraq, for instance reserving the right to give or deny permission as to the right to fly over the country. Likewise, a couple decisions by the Iraqi government got revoked when the White House protested. It's kind of obvious that Bush is allowed to run Iraq, so at the very least, according to Phoenix Militia, they should be allowed to vote in the election.

You must give over control of your country to get the vote. If we had to take your country you don't get it. Not for a few dozen years at least.

You must give over control of your country to get the vote. If we had to take your country you don't get it. Not for a few dozen years at least.

Look, no one here is actually saying that other countries deserve to vote in the elections of the United States.

But their opinions SHOULD be considered, in so much as they should be weighed along with all of the other reasons for choosing between the various candidates, because like it or not, the United States's politics are rather important to the rest of the world due to our massive size and influence.

You must give over control of your country to get the vote. If we had to take your country you don't get it. Not for a few dozen years at least.
Keep shifting those goalposts.

You must give over control of your country to get the vote. If we had to take your country you don't get it. Not for a few dozen years at least.

I remeber Britain tried that with some place called America. Didn't work out so well.

You must give over control of your country to get the vote. If we had to take your country you don't get it. Not for a few dozen years at least.

Changing the parameters again to avoid those sticky situations are we? The act of the dishonest and those without integrity. Unsurprising, for it often comes from the mouths of those who so closely clings to the ideas of "justice" and "sacred days" when talking about their dead as a means to justify all manner of atrocity.

Truly a modern day corpse eater.

Unfortunately it looks like the pressure's been too much for Heikoku and he's manifesting early symptoms of fassitis.

No, I'm reacting in the proper way to someone claiming my country has no right to self-determination.

The facts that I presented are well known by anyone who has been following the election with any semblance of seriousness. I'm not offering any original research, only publicly available facts. I'm also not going to keep responding to someone posting in haiku.

Yeah, that's actually not how a debate works. You present a claim; you back it up with documented proof. Until you do, your claim can be easily dismissed because it is not supported. If you don't like the informal rules here, I'd suggest you find a new forum to frequent, because you're not very likely to find many threads that allow you to make unsupported claims without calling you on it.

Keep shifting those goalposts.
Amazing how, no matter where he moves them, he still can't score a goal, ain't it?

People not from the US LISTEN TO ME. If you want Obama to win do not discuss presidential politics with Americans we are the type of ass holes come away and do the opposite. case and point french revolutionary wars. Before the extreme governments came to power in France the French came to us and asked us to help them resist the powers of Europe. The people in the US were enthusiastic about it since the French had helped us get independence. However when American politicians drug their feet about getting in to the war the French tried to recruit Americans directly. The Americans chose not to help

People not from the US LISTEN TO ME. If you want Obama to win do not discuss presidential politics with Americans we are the type of ass holes come away and do the opposite. case and point french revolutionary wars. Before the extreme governments came to power in France the French came to us and asked us to help them resist the powers of Europe. The people in the US were enthusiastic about it since the French had helped us get independence. However when American politicians drug their feet about getting in to the war the French tried to recruit Americans directly. The Americans chose not to help
Ano raw? :confused:

Because you were like a child and we obviously knew what was best for you.



Better us than the Soviets.

There was no justification for us overthrowing Allende. None at all. Even if he had Soviet support...so fucking what? It's not our place to decide who is fit to govern in other countries and who is not. If the Chilean people wanted regime change, the next presidential election would have proven it. We should have neither supported nor opposed Allende, but continued to trade and maintain diplomatic relations with Chile.

The facts that I presented are well known by anyone who has been following the election with any semblance of seriousness. I'm not offering any original research, only publicly available facts. I'm also not going to keep responding to someone posting in haiku.

Then you fail. Thing is, everyone else here knew that pages ago.

It's that attitude that allows people like you to do things like craft alternate realities and justify crass abuses of those things you claim to hold so dear.

The facts that I presented are well known by anyone who has been following the election with any semblance of seriousness. I'm not offering any original research, only publicly available facts. I'm also not going to keep responding to someone posting in haiku.

If its so easy to find the souces, why dont you?

Because it is a dodge, and I won't play into it. Rather than argue that even though Obama has this voting record on gun issues, he still supports the right to self defense for whatever reason, the poster decides to call the voting record into question. A petty tactic. If you can't understand why I would rather spend 30 seconds posting this, than perform the 0.58 second google search to get the link and put it to rest, I don't think you understand what principles are.
If you don't want to be called to present your facts, don't make assertions of fact.

And I understand very well indeed why you'd rather spend 30 seconds attacking us and posting your excuses for not supporting your assertions rather than just go ahead and support your assertions. Yep, it's clear as day why you'd make that choice.

unfortunately it looks like the pressure's been too much for heikoku and he's manifesting early symptoms of fassitis.

lol!






:D

Because it is a dodge, and I won't play into it. Rather than argue...If you don't want to be called to present your facts, don't make assertions of fact...
As an alternative to three pages of, "you post our sources", "no, you post your sources", perhaps this (http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm) link would deflate the current nonsense.



I AM REALITY, AND I DON'T GIVE A DAMN WHAT YOU THINK!
This is hilarious.



:d
You seem to be licking your nose...

Because it is a dodge, and I won't play into it. Rather than argue that even though Obama has this voting record on gun issues, he still supports the right to self defense for whatever reason, the poster decides to call the voting record into question. A petty tactic. If you can't understand why I would rather spend 30 seconds posting this, than perform the 0.58 second google search to get the link and put it to rest, I don't think you understand what principles are.

No, its not a dodge. Its a demand that you prove your statements.


Im going to steal a tactic from Neo Art to prove a point.

TMP, youre a child rapist. No, I wont prove it. You find the evidence yourself. But until you do, you rape kids.


See how easy it is to make claims when you dont have to back them up? Thats how debating works. You back your shit up. You dont like it, dont debate.

Because it is a dodge, and I won't play into it. Rather than argue that even though Obama has this voting record on gun issues, he still supports the right to self defense for whatever reason, the poster decides to call the voting record into question. A petty tactic. If you can't understand why I would rather spend 30 seconds posting this, than perform the 0.58 second google search to get the link and put it to rest, I don't think you understand what principles are.

Then expect everything you post to be dismissed as unsupported. You make a claim, you back it up. If you don't want to operate under these critera, don't expect any of us to do anything with your posts except call them bullshit and walk away.

By the way, a "dodge" would be making a claim and then refusing to support it, saying it's "public knowledge."

Because it is a dodge, and I won't play into it. Rather than argue that even though Obama has this voting record on gun issues, he still supports the right to self defense for whatever reason, the poster decides to call the voting record into question. A petty tactic. If you can't understand why I would rather spend 30 seconds posting this, than perform the 0.58 second google search to get the link and put it to rest, I don't think you understand what principles are.

Oh, but you do? I'm pretty certain that principles aren't a convenient shield to hide behind when your facts are not present or don't bear out your assertions.

This is hilarious.

And given that I'm a citizen of one of the countries the US helped rape in the '60s, nonetheless true.

As an alternative to three pages of, "you post our sources", "no, you post your sources", perhaps this (http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm) link would deflate the current nonsense.


Thank you, but you do realize that you only encourage his laziness by doing his work for him, right? He won't learn that way.

And... nonetheless true.
That you are reality?

Wow.

Dude, you need to calm down. This is a discussion forum, and most people are able to discuss emotional and difficult subjects without blowing their top, bolding their text and making bizarre statements.

Your doing yourself no favours by going mental.



Thank you, but you do realize that you only encourage his laziness by doing his work for him, right? He won't learn that way.
One doubts he was learning anything except further stubbornness anyways.

That you are reality?

Wow.

Dude, you need to calm down. This is a discussion forum, and most people are able to discuss emotional and difficult subjects without blowing their top, bolding their text and making bizarre statements.

Your doing yourself no favours by going mental.

That was my way of stating that, as a native of one of the countries the US helped rape, I am more qualified to judge the coups than TAI is.

And spend 20 pages talking to a guy who essentially believes you have less right to self-determination than he does and let's see how you get after it.

If you don't want to be called to present your facts, don't make assertions of fact.

And I understand very well indeed why you'd rather spend 30 seconds attacking us and posting your excuses for not supporting your assertions rather than just go ahead and support your assertions. Yep, it's clear as day why you'd make that choice.

Here's some support for TPM's assertations.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/barack_obama_gun_control.htm

Still looking for a source for the rest, that people will accept (aka, no blogs, NRA-ILA, etc).

This is my claim.




This is my support.



I don't need to support my support. If someone wants to argue my support doesn't effectively cover my claim, game on, but I am not going to encourage a link war.




AND:

That is exactly why I didn't post a link for Non Aligned States. :)
So, your support is that you think it because you think it?

You give us no reason WHY you think those things that would enable us to either agree with you or find the flaws in your reasoning. If all you are doing is announcing your opinion, then job accomplished, you can get a coffee now. You're entitled to your opinion. That entitlement doesn't give your opinion a foundation in fact, but nevertheless, I for one wouldn't dream of attacking you just for having a different opinion than me. I'd only attack you for posting false statements.

EDIT: Also, you didn't post a link for NAS because you wished to encourage your own laziness?

As an alternative to three pages of, "you post our sources", "no, you post your sources", perhaps this (http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm) link would deflate the current nonsense.




This is hilarious.




You seem to be licking your nose...

Damn, you posted the link to that website before me. :(

Oh, and I fixed the smiley. :D

I don't need to support my support. If someone wants to argue my support doesn't effectively cover my claim, game on, but I am not going to encourage a link war.

I am arguing that your "support" is total and complete bullshit that has no basis in fact. Prove me wrong.

Here's some support for TPM's assertations.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/barack_obama_gun_control.htm

Still looking for a source for the rest, that people will accept (aka, no blogs, NRA-ILA, etc).
Thank you to you and Chumbly, but personally, I don't see anything to support TPM's assertions in the linked information.

Then how do you think Obama voted on those issues? The opposite way?

I'm not the one making any claims on Obama here, you are. You make a claim, you support it. Until you do, I call what you say bullshit.

It's just like KOL's example, regardless of whether you appreciate being called a child rapist. If you make a statement of fact, you don't tell the people you're debating against that THEY have to prove it. You prove it. That's how debate works.

Then how do you think Obama voted on those issues? The opposite way?

I do not see how any of those votes amounts to not letting ordinary citizens defend themselves, which is what you claimed about him.

I do not see how any of those votes amounts to not letting ordinary citizens defend themselves, which is what you claimed about him.

One more post and you get 10,000! :D

Look further than the first page.
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Barack_Obama.htm
Oh, NOW you want to use the link. You parasite! GM and Chumbly should charge you a fee every time you click on it.

I still don't see anything that amounts to not letting people defend themselves.

EDIT: Just read it a second time. Not one word about people defending themselves.

He has voted against concealed carry for citizens.
He has voted against the right to self-defense in towns where guns are banned.
He refused to sign a statement affirming gun ownership was an individual right.

In particular, I can't find anything in the link that someone else provided to back up your statements to support these three claims. Perhaps you could show me where I would find documented proof of those three claims?

One more post and you get 10,000! :D

OH GODS NO!!!! Now I'ma gonna asplode!!!! :eek2:

That is not the source I originally got my information from, so it doesn't matter.
I'm trying not to over-use this, but sometimes, there's no other response:

http://home.mindspring.com/~samrc/sounds/laugh.wav

So that leaves us right back where we started, calling bullshit on you.

http://www.forbes.com/prnewswire/feeds/prnewswire/2008/06/26/prnewswire200806261130PR_NEWS_USPR_____NETH050.html
That about says it all right there.

http://www.forbes.com/prnewswire/feeds/prnewswire/2008/06/26/prnewswire200806261130PR_NEWS_USPR_____NETH050.html
That about says it all right there.


"Obama is out of touch with the people on this issue. He is the most anti-gun presumptive major party presidential nominee in history. His extremist record of opposition to the right of self-defense even includes support for a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns."

Your "proof" is someone else making the claim, without supporting it? Try again.

Your claim was:


He has voted against concealed carry for citizens.
He has voted against the right to self-defense in towns where guns are banned.
He refused to sign a statement affirming gun ownership was an individual right.

I have yet to see anything where Obama voted against concealed carry laws. I saw one where he voted FOR allowing retired police officers to have concealed carry permits, but nothing against. I have yet to see anything where Obama voted against the right to self-defense in towns where guns are banned, whatever that even means. And you haven't shown me anything that says Obama refused to sign a statement affirming gun ownership is an individual right.

http://www.forbes.com/prnewswire/feeds/prnewswire/2008/06/26/prnewswire200806261130PR_NEWS_USPR_____NETH050.html
That about says it all right there.
That article only reports that some guy has an opinion about Obama. It says absolutely nothing about people not being allowed to defend themselves.

And the person it does talk about does not seem like a very reliable source to me.
from the article

A former NRA magazine editor, Snyder is Manager of Telum Associates and Public Affairs Director of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. He serves on the boards of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and the Second Amendment Foundation.

SOURCE Telum Associates, LL.C.
He is obviously a spokesperson for a particular special interest group which has a clearly stated political agenda. And what is Telum Associates, LL.C? The article mentions it several times as if it's supposed to mean something to the readers.

The entire short article reads like a press release that Forbes just printed as received.

Compare that to the other source, and yours comes up lacking. You fail to convince me that you are right.

Oh, NOW you want to use the link. You parasite! GM and Chumbly should charge you a fee every time you click on it.

I still don't see anything that amounts to not letting people defend themselves.

EDIT: Just read it a second time. Not one word about people defending themselves.

My fees are quite reasonable too. :D

He voted for certain people like retired police to be allowed to carry concealed firearms and for regular citizens not to.
He did not sign the brief in support of the individual gun right as 300+ members of the senate and house did, in relation to the Heller case.
"The Chicago Tribune reported November 20 that, "Obama believes the D.C. law is constitutional." He refused to sign an amicus brief supporting Dick Anthony Heller's challenge to the statute. Senator John McCain did sign the brief. So did over half the members of both the Senate and House of Representatives. "


Source?


Youre a child molester! I dont have to source it you dirty kiddy toucher.

Now hold off everything else and get back to the original argument.
Which is...
For all of the non-Americans here, how about this?
You agree to let our president to be in charge of your countries, and we will let you vote in our election. Fair?
Only if you allow us to fund and equip insurgencies amongst the American populace with the express purpose of economic sabotage, destabilizing the region and eventually toppling the American government, while committing atrocities against the civilian populace.

Well no you see Obama will not allow any regular citizens to defend themselves, so that won't work out.
The fact that electing Obama would not help the goal of arming U.S. citizens with weapons remains. And I win.

He voted for certain people like retired police to be allowed to carry concealed firearms and for regular citizens not to.
He did not sign the brief in support of the individual gun right as 300+ members of the senate and house did, in relation to the Heller case.
"The Chicago Tribune reported November 20 that, "Obama believes the D.C. law is constitutional." He refused to sign an amicus brief supporting Dick Anthony Heller's challenge to the statute. Senator John McCain did sign the brief. So did over half the members of both the Senate and House of Representatives. "
He supports local gun bans like the DC ban, taking away a citizens right to defend him or herself.
The bolded claim in the last sentence has yet to be established. You have offered no evidence to suggest that the DC ban led to people not being able to defend themselves, and, more particularly, you have shown no evidence that Obama's vote on that issue took away any citizen's right to self-defense.

Continually quoting the NRA guy's unsupported asssertions does not actually support your assertions.

Now hold off everything else and get back to the original argument.
Which is...




The fact that electing Obama would not help the goal of arming U.S. citizens with weapons remains. And I win.
No, it doesn't and no, you don't because (a) you have not established that electing Obama would lead to US citizens not be able to arm themselves, and (b) you have not established there is a goal of arming US citizens (I presume more than they already are).

Source?

<snip>

One use of that was a potentially valid debating technique. Continuing the joke pushed past the bounds of decency.

Red Card Infraction issued for flaming.

The bolded claim in the last sentence has yet to be established. You have offered no evidence to suggest that the DC ban led to people not being able to defend themselves, and, more particularly, you have shown no evidence that Obama's vote on that issue took away any citizen's right to self-defense.


You see that's what is called a valid argument for debate. That's what I was attempting to illicit from the start.

It is not a valid argument to dismiss out of hand Obama's support of the DC ban because I have not provided proof from a source that is to your liking, or at all.

One use of that was a potentially valid debating technique. Continuing the joke pushed past the bounds of decency.

Red Card Infraction issued for flaming.

:rolleyes:

You see that's what is called a valid argument for debate. It is not a valid argument to dismiss out of hand Obama's does support of the DC ban because I have not provided proof. And I'm not required to only find information from sources that are to your liking.



Wow, youre utterly incapable of debating. I dont even think you know what debating is.

Thats it, youre making my ignore list (you'll probably cry to the mods now).

You have been on my ignore list for a while now.

You see that's what is called a valid argument for debate. It is not a valid argument for debate to say that Obama does not support the DC ban because I have not provided proof. And I'm not required to only find information from sources that are to your liking.
A) Nobody ever said that Obama didn't vote the way he did. Some people have disputed your claims of fact as to how he voted, but his actual votes are on record, and no one has said otherwise.

B) The part of your claim that was disputed was the effect of his vote. You said he would not allow US citizens to defend themselves. That is what you were called to support, and that is what you have failed to support.

C) You can provide any sources you like, but if your sources are bullshit, then so will be your argument.

You have been on my ignore list for a while now.

So how does that explain you responding to his post JUST NOW?

:rolleyes:

You have been on my ignore list for a while now.

Really now? I wonder how you saw that to reply to it then...

I pressed view post to see what was said. I usually do that in the thread which brought about the ignore, but not outside of it. It is also so I remember not to waste my time with that poster in the future.

The point of Ignore is that you don't want to read their posts and don't want to dignify them with a reply.

Like I said, it will keep me from having to do that in the future.

So this is a new policy which came into effect immediatly after you replied to said post?

Otherwise there is logical inconsistency

If you must know this is how I have used the ignore feature since the move to jolt, I really don't see any need to continue talking about my ignore habits.

Except you're paradoxically declaring to the world you put someone on Ignore and replied to him. That makes you a liar. There's also a specific term for self-absorbed grandstanding that applies to you in this instance, except the guy it was named after whined to the mods and thus it's a cardable offense.

:rolleyes:

And what is Telum Associates, LL.C? The article mentions it several times as if it's supposed to mean something to the readers.

The entire short article reads like a press release that Forbes just printed as received.

The host is Forbes, the source is PR Newswire, so it is a press release, which explains the multiple references to an LLC I've never heard of and that doesn't appear to have a web presence. As far as I can tell this John Snyder founded the St. Gabriel Possenti Society (http://www.gunsaint.com/support.asp), which is in favor of making said saint the official Patron Saint of Handgunners, and he created Telum Associates LLC to publish the society's book (http://74.125.95.104/search?q=cache:ClZRs_LOEqEJ:www.gunsaint.com/ad.asp+telum+associates&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a).

Not that it's necessarily a debating faux pas to quote press releases, but it's usually not useful unless debating what an organization has said about itself.

You should be remember when we had to ignore posters without the handy forum feature provided by Jolt. I treat it more like a flag anyway, as I have tried to explain. I have always and will continue to reply to those on my Ignore list in special circumstances, for example, in the thread where the ignore originated. Like I'm doing now.

The fact that electing Obama would not help the goal of arming U.S. citizens with weapons remains. And I win.

It's supposed to be a goal? I thought people were supposed to be FREE to want or not weapons. Silly me.

It was the goal of Non Aligned States. That poster agreed to my proposal stating other countries could vote for the US president if they were willing to give control over their countries to the US, and he or she said that would be fine as long as they could arm insurgents in the US with weapons to overthrow the US govt and wreck the economy. That is the only reason I brought up anything to do with Obama's record on guns.
If you were following.
That was the basis of the discussion.

It's supposed to be a goal? I thought people were supposed to be FREE to want or not weapons. Silly me.

No no, he was just responding to someone earlier.

He said, "How about people from other countries can vote in our election as soon as we get to dictate what happens in their country."

Someone else said, "Okay, as long as we can arm and fund insurgency groups in your nation dedicated to overthrowing your government."

He responded, "Well, if Obama becomes president, you won't be able to, cause guns will be illegal."

I don't think he was saying it was something we ought to be doing.

Phoenix, In reference to your second-last post:
In three lines, you used the word "I" four times. There are ways to avoid this.
1. Don't keep trying to over-analyse your self. Get out of any egocentric rut if you fall into one.
2. Let the object become the subject. i.e. Instead of saying "I heard the sweet song of the swallow", you can simply say "The swallow sang sweetly" Unless you need the reader to know that you were filtering the swallow's sweet song through YOUR senses, leave yourself out. I'm sure that the swallow can sing sweetly without you being around.
3. Don't feel the need to "Defend America" (as your pseudonym suggests) every time someone posts a comment you disagree with.
4. Do you really think the world cares if you reply to their posts or not?
5. Go outside and sniff the air, smell the roses and rejoice in life - while remembering that we all have a short lease on it, so make the most of it.

It was the goal of Non Aligned States. That poster agreed to my proposal stating other countries could vote for the US president if they were willing to give control over their countries to the US, and he or she said that would be fine as long as they could arm insurgents in the US with weapons to overthrow the US govt and wreck the economy. That is the only reason I brought up anything to do with Obama's record on guns.
If you were following.
That was the basis of the discussion.
Yes, I was following it. I thought that early comment of yours was a weak attempt at being snide that you got justifiably slammed for. It seemed as if you thought you could sneak in a little anti-Obama zinger and get away with it. Apparently, you were wrong. Next time, try a zinger that's actually true.

The fact that electing Obama would not help the goal of arming U.S. citizens with weapons remains. And I win.

Who needs Obama, or McSame to arm a US insurgency in America? I'm certain the FSB is more than capable of smuggling in large quantities of weapons into America for the goal of toppling it.

You said:

For all of the non-Americans here, how about this?
You agree to let our president to be in charge of your countries, and we will let you vote in our election. Fair?

And I responded that it would be allowed IF, and only IF, you let us arm the American populace to form an insurgency to topple the American government.

Your permission or those of your leaders, is irrelevant to the matter.

You can dance around like a greased monkey trying to avoid my point, but all it does is prove how little intelligence, or integrity, or both, you have.

FAIL.

TPM? Yeah, I've got the City of Phoenix on the line. Yeah, they don't need you to defend them anymore. They'd rather you go for something more your speed -- they suggest Bisbee.

As others have pointed out, that article was written in 1973, before any classified documents came out, and there's many documents still classified. It means that it's quite irrelevant.
It's not a piece of evidence, and I didn't mean it to be. It's just an interesting piece of history, a point of view that was actually written about at the time, meaning it looks at the issue differently to how people would today.

At any rate, if it makes anything clear, then it is that this wasn't the story of peaceful, prosperous Chile suddenly being ransacked by American mercenaries. It was US involvement in a domestic Chilean issue, a fight between radical left and traditionalist right that was driven to the boil because Allende ultimately considered the traditional means of politics in Chile a hinderance to bringing about socialism, rather than a tool and measure of worth. Allende had a parliamentary majority against him, which didn't spawn out of nowhere. The weeks leading up to the coup the country basically ground to a halt because of a major trucker's strike (and you wouldn't accuse truckers of being elitist/militarist reactionaries).

The point of posting the article was to add a bit of colour to a stale debate, and open people's eyes a little bit to the climate in which these events took place. It is entirely possible that Allende's government would have collapsed without any CIA involvement whatsoever, though it would have taken longer. And the most likely faction to bring this about would still have been the military in combination with the traditional land-owning (semi-)aristocracy.

In some ways, America strikes me as a "teenager" of a nation, going through that annoying contrary phase of life in which the teenager will reflexively contradict anything said by anybody who is older or more experienced.

If older nations suggest that Obama might be a better leader, America will reflexively insist that we don't need nobody telling us what to do, and what do they know anyhow? They aren't us, they don't know us, they aren't the boss of us!!

Older nations? Last time I checked the American government has stood longer than anything in Europe.

Older nations? Last time I checked the American government has stood longer than anything in Europe.

Though technically not apart of Europe but the UK.

Older nations? Last time I checked the American government has stood longer than anything in Europe.

The Republic of San Marino actually adopted their current written constitution in the year 1600.

Though technically not apart of Europe but the UK.

What year was it when the absolute monarchy changed to it's current form? Was that before 1776? :wink:

The Republic of San Marino actually adopted their current written constitution in the year 1600.

Barely eligible but guess it still applies. :wink:

What year was it when the absolute monarchy change to it's current form? Was that before 1776? :wink:

It's essentially been one long progressive evolution since the Magna Carta in 1215, when the first Parliament was effectively created although there was no common vote.

The latest major change was under the last Labour administration over the House of Lords.

We're not set by a written constitution as such so it's hard to say we've ever been without constant change.

It's the philosopher's axe of government.

What year was it when the absolute monarchy change to it's current form? Was that before 1776? :wink:

Well first Prime Minister of Great Britain Sir Robert Walpole 1721-1741 IIRC this happened when power shifted from an absolute monarchy in 1721 when King George I seven years into his reign gave more power to ministers of parliament, who then had to also rely on parliaments support. So yes it stopped being an absolute monarchy before 1776, despite all that I think you knew what Bottle meant and she wasn't referring to the governments but to the people that comprise of a nation, while the current government in China only came about in 1949 you wouldn't call China as only being a nation since 1949.

Well first Prime Minister of Great Britain Sir Robert Walpole 1721-1741 IIRC this happened when power shifted from an absolute monarchy in 1721 when King George I seven years into his reign gave more power to ministers of parliament, who then had to also rely on parliaments support. So yes it stopped being an absolute monarchy before 1776, despite all that I think you knew what Bottle meant and she wasn't referring to the governments but to the people that comprise of a nation, while the current government in China only came about in 1949 you wouldn't call China as only being a nation since 1949.

I see the point. However people think of the US as this barren no mans land before the Europeans arrived. There were nations here before the Europeans and most Americans including myself have native blood even though I am 90% European. The particular city I currently live in was a permanent native settlement before it was a modern day American one. Anyway not to get to far out there.

I see the point. However people think of the US as this barren no mans land before the Europeans arrived. There were nations here before the Europeans and most Americans including myself have native blood even though I am 90% European. The particular city I currently live in was a permanent native settlement before it was a modern day American one. Anyway not to get to far out there.

Ah ok I see your point but the question is in regards to that how much does Native thinking and history have on the collective thought and actions of the general populace? In Australia there were people living on the continent though very few had permanent settlements, yet the history and thought has little bearing on the collective thought and culture of Australia, so I would say Australia is also a young nation as well and currently is in its teenage years as there is a growing sense of rebellion against the 'parents' of Australia; Mother England as evidenced by the republican movement, and a stronger link to our older brother the USA. But the USA as the collective thought if you understand what I am trying to say with that term, which is what I think Bottle is trying to say though I would think the USA is more in its very late teens early 20's stage of its life.

Older nations? Last time I checked the American government has stood longer than anything in Europe.

Nation =/= government.

Nation =/= government. I agree.