OT: Presidential Debate [Archive]

PeOfEo

10-03-2004, 01:13 AM

http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/tshirt.php?sku=a301 <--- I was going to buy this.

Kerry won that debate. I am sad to admit it, but that Kerry is a sneaky bastard. Hes better at thinking on his feet and went after Bush on everything. There are tons of things I wish bush went after Kerry one. One of them is when Kerry said he would hunt down and kill the terrorists wherever they are. Bush should have said something like

"So Saddam didn't sponsor terrorism? Tell that to Israel. Saddam paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers off. Also what do you think about those terrorist camps we found in Iraq? Just because there is no crystal clear link to al-quida does not mean that Iraq did not have clear links to terrorist in general."

But no, he just said "its hard work" over and over. I wish Bush thought on his feet better and were a better speaker in general. If he were he would have his victory sealed :(. At least Bush came off as being truthful. Kerry was bsing all over the place, and thankfully (as polls show) the people of America see that.

rhsunderground

10-03-2004, 01:25 AM

i would merge this with the politics thread but i'm too lazy :rolleyes:

http://www.webdeveloper.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=255344#post255344

PeOfEo

10-03-2004, 01:26 AM

Originally posted by rhsunderground
i would merge this with the politics thread but i'm too lazy :rolleyes:

http://www.webdeveloper.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=255344#post255344 This thread is not the same as the politics thread though. This is the debate thread. We are talking about the last presidential debate.

rhsunderground

10-03-2004, 01:32 AM

i know, but it's a political topic, obviously. did you check out that video?

PeOfEo

10-03-2004, 01:44 AM

Wow, they make bush look like Kerry when they quote him out of context!

PeOfEo

10-03-2004, 01:53 AM

Originally posted by rhsunderground
i know, but it's a political topic, obviously. Entertainment topic clearly. This debate thing is going to become the next reality tv show... just you wait.

Stephen Philbin

10-03-2004, 03:07 AM

Originally posted by PeOfEo
I wish Bush thought on his feet better...

That simpleton couldn't think his way out of a wet paper bag with Bush-sized holes in it. He seems to have an IQ equal to that of a fart in the wind and very little (if any) knowledge about what is going on in the country that he's supposed to be ruling. It's beyond me how anyone can take such a blithering idiot seriously.

Jeff Mott

10-03-2004, 04:22 AM

There seems to be so many Bush supporters here. Do people realize that at least half of Bush's policies are either 1) short-sighted, 2) not well thought out, or 3) blatantly stupid.

Conor

10-03-2004, 09:10 AM

^^ does one realize that theres no way Kerry can bring everything he's promising. He's somehow allocated 2.2 trillion dollars if hes elected.

PeOfEo

10-03-2004, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by Jeff Mott
There seems to be so many Bush supporters here. Do people realize that at least half of Bush's policies are either 1) short-sighted, 2) not well thought out, or 3) blatantly stupid. Kerry's aren't? His policies will lead to taxing the living daylights out of everyone. Dropping the "rich man's" tax cut is in no way shape or form going to cover them.

Which policies are stupid, not well thought out, or short sighted in your opinion?

edit: spoke incoherently

PeOfEo

10-03-2004, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by Mr Herer
That simpleton couldn't think his way out of a wet paper bag with Bush-sized holes in it. He seems to have an IQ equal to that of a fart in the wind and very little (if any) knowledge about what is going on in the country that he's supposed to be ruling. It's beyond me how anyone can take such a blithering idiot seriously. Quit it with the bush is stupid bull. Just because he is not a good speaker does not make him an idiot. The media jumped all over that during the last election and has not let that little bit of bs go. If you had watched some of his interviews you would see that the guy has quite a nice intellect. If you are going to hate bush hate him for a good reason. Some actual issue, not a media portrayal or lie.

Stephen Philbin

10-03-2004, 09:43 AM

I haven't seen Bush answer a series of questions yet without cringing at his stupidity. My own opinion, not the medias'. Yes the media want to portray him as an idiot, it's just a coincedence that for once what the media what you to think is at least half truthful. Don't get me wrong though, I don't think Kerry is any better as a candidate. I kinda feel sorry for you guys actually. No matter what the outcome, you're still not gonna get the leader you need.

Someone should clone an army of Clintons. At least that guy actually looked at what was going on in his own country once in a while and could do a bit of maths.

PeOfEo

10-03-2004, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by Mr Herer
I haven't seen Bush answer a series of questions yet without cringing at his stupidity. Then you don't really follow the politics here and watch candidates in interviews.

Someone should clone an army of Clintons. At least that guy actually looked at what was going on in his own country once in a while and could do a bit of maths. He did not do what he needed to do. He built up our economy then it dropped like a rock. He could not control it. He was also an embarrassment to our country. The guy not only got busy with another woman in the oval office (which is not illegal but embarrassing), but he lied about it under oath (which is both illegal and embarrassing!). If the president breaks the law its pretty embarrassing. Clinton had issues with Iraq during his administration too, but rather then actually do something worth while to fix the Iraqi problem the guy launches a few cruise missiles (and gives it a fancy name: desert fox) and arms a few rebels in Iraq who have no chance of taking over, but he does it anyway. He did not want to go to war, not because he felt it was unnecessary, but because thought it was too much of a republican thing.

Jeff Mott

10-03-2004, 11:14 AM

The people over at SparkNotes put together a series of tables that states what Bush and Kerry's policies are in various topics. I think it is well worth a look. (Of course, if you disagree with any of the information in the tables feel free to say so.)

http://www.sparknotes.com/election/2004/page10.html

steelersfan88

10-03-2004, 12:02 PM

PeOfEo

10-03-2004, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by Jeff Mott
The people over at SparkNotes put together a series of tables that states what Bush and Kerry's policies are in various topics. I think it is well worth a look. (Of course, if you disagree with any of the information in the tables feel free to say so.)

http://www.sparknotes.com/election/2004/page10.html I looked at their economy tables, and spark notes is saying Kerry will spend this and that. The only way he is going to pay for it (without making the deficit massive, which is one thing he criticized the pres over) is by taxing the living daylights out of us. Especially since he is dropping the corporate income tax. Raising taxes slows the economy, it does not stimulate it. How can you criticize bush and his policies when you look at Kerry's track record and what he plans to do? I have not gone through all of the tables yet, but Kerry will not be good for our economy if he tries to go through with his lofty promises.

steelersfan88

10-03-2004, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by PeOfEo
I looked at their economy tables, and spark notes is saying Kerry will spend this and that but the only way he is going to pay for it is through raising taxes on you and me. Especially since he is dropping the corporate income tax. Raising taxes slows the economy, it does not stimulate it. I also see evidence of Kerry's wavering all over the place. How can you criticize bush and his policies when you look at Kerry's track record and what he plans to do? Raising taxes kicks you out of office. Had ther ebeen no 9/11, with Bush's great tax cuts, the country would love him. He is the right guy for the next four years.

PeOfEo

10-03-2004, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by steelersfan88
Raising taxes kicks you out of office. Had ther ebeen no 9/11, with Bush's great tax cuts, the country would love him. He is the right guy for the next four years. The country would have loved him if the Democrats in congress did not stall his tax cuts and trim them down to a much smaller size. Those tax cuts were altered so much from what Bush originally intended them to be. They would have created a lot more waves in the economy if the liberals in the legislature did not screw with them. I love the common claim that the tax cuts only benefit the rich when it was all based on the tax bracket. The more you pay in taxes the more you get back, it makes sence. This tax cut was not designed to be welfare, so why give the lowest bracket back more then they paid in?

steelersfan88

10-03-2004, 09:04 PM

PeOfEo

10-03-2004, 09:57 PM

I think he will. Edwards was played up to be some big lawyer and a real brainiac, but from what I have seen he looks like a bit of a pretty boy dullard. Also Cheney, unlike Bush, is a good speaker and can really think on his feet. Cheney also seems to have a great attention to detail. I think Cheneye can take him.

rhsunderground

10-04-2004, 01:22 AM

i'd like to see cheney tell somebody to f*ck off. THAT would be awesome.

steelersfan88

10-04-2004, 03:38 PM

I'd love to see a politician do that. Very highly unlikely, but funny at that.

rhsunderground

10-04-2004, 03:43 PM

well he did drop the f-bomb on the floor of congress...

PhillMc

10-04-2004, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by PeOfEo
The country would have loved him if the Democrats in congress did not stall his tax cuts and trim them down to a much smaller size. Those tax cuts were altered so much from what Bush originally intended them to be. They would have created a lot more waves in the economy if the liberals in the legislature did not screw with them. I love the common claim that the tax cuts only benefit the rich when it was all based on the tax bracket. The more you pay in taxes the more you get back, it makes sence. This tax cut was not designed to be welfare, so why give the lowest bracket back more then they paid in?

I have to completely agree! The current tax code pretty much dictates that 20% of the nation (people making 100K + yearly) pay 80% of the nation's taxes. How the hell is that fair!!? Those tax cuts SAVED the economy! You know what happens when you cut the taxes on business owners? They expand. You know what that means? More jobs. More jobs turns into more people making money and that turns into a more thriving economy.

I haven't seen Bush answer a series of questions yet without cringing at his stupidity..... Don't get me wrong though, I don't think Kerry is any better as a candidate. I kinda feel sorry for you guys actually. No matter what the outcome, you're still not gonna get the leader you need.

Someone should clone an army of Clintons. At least that guy actually looked at what was going on in his own country once in a while and could do a bit of maths.

Just because the man is from Texas and does not use proper grammer all of the time does not make him an idiot. Ettiquite(sp?) is not a presidential requirement; making a stand and doing what you (not a poll) think is the right course of action and sticking with it is!

We don't need another Clinton. Bin Laden and Saddam were a threat during his administration and he did nothing about it. So what if the economy was good; I'd rather be a little poorer and safe than a little richer and looking over my shoulder. Big deal, gas prices are up. You pay more for a gallon of milk or bottled water than you do for one gallon of gas! Remember, it was one of the Clinton administration advisor 'hold-overs' that failed to let Bush know what was going on with Iraq and Al-Quida; this is well documented.

There seems to be so many Bush supporters here. Do people realize that at least half of Bush's policies are either 1) short-sighted, 2) not well thought out, or 3) blatantly stupid.
Name ONE.

Yeah, both men have their downfalls. Bush was the better man in 2000, and he's the better man in 2004. Kerry might have been a decent candidate if he could make up his mind! If anyone ever doughted his 'flip-flops' had proof positive in the debate. I'll name only one of SEVERAL. Kerry mentioned that Bush should not have sent troops over there without new, advanced body armour. KERRY VOTED AGAINST GIVING THE TROOPS THIS ARMOUR! I'll say this to anyone who supports Kerry; you are more of a moron than you think Bush is.

rhsunderground

10-04-2004, 04:05 PM

i don't like kerry, i just hate bush :DOriginally posted by PhillMc
Name ONE. No Child Left Behind. find 5 teachers that actually like that policy.

PhillMc

10-04-2004, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by rhsunderground
i don't like kerry, i just hate bush :D No Child Left Behind. find 5 teachers that actually like that policy.

Hmm, so ignoring children that are not getting a proper education is the right thing to do??

steelersfan88

10-04-2004, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by rhsunderground
i don't like kerry, i just hate bush :D No Child Left Behind [Act]. find 5 teachers that actually like that policy. 'Twas a great act enabled by Bush's persistency to push it, but it was halted. Teachers don't count. Most students want them dead anyway, no offense.

rhsunderground

10-04-2004, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by PhillMc
Hmm, so ignoring children that are not getting a proper education is the right thing to do?? no, but punishing schools that don't perform by not giving them money that they could use to boost performance is just stupid. and for schools that teach differently (which is every school) to comply to ONE standard is a nice idea but not practical.

rhsunderground

10-04-2004, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by steelersfan88
Teachers don't count. why not? they're the ones that it depends on!

PhillMc

10-04-2004, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by rhsunderground
no, but punishing schools that don't perform by not giving them money that they could use to boost performance is just stupid. and for schools that teach differently (which is every school) to comply to ONE standard is a nice idea but not practical.

They weren't performing with the money in the first place; what makes you think they would change their tune by giving them more?

There should be only one standard; it's the only way to ensure that every child in this nation gets the education they deserve.

rhsunderground

10-04-2004, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by PhillMc
They weren't performing with the money in the first place; what makes you think they would change their tune by giving them more? some inner city schools just can't offer the things that suburban schools can, like academic enrichment programs, so they should be punished by losing funding that will go to make the school situation even more polar by making the good better and the poor worse?

PhillMc

10-04-2004, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by rhsunderground
some inner city schools just can't offer the things that suburban schools can, like academic enrichment programs, so they should be punished by losing funding that will go to make the school situation even more polar by making the good better and the poor worse?

Why can't they? They receive the same funding per student as the suburban schools. That means the problem lies somewhere in that school, not with the ACT.

PeOfEo

10-04-2004, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by rhsunderground
well he did drop the f-bomb on the floor of congress... He also said in an interview that he did not regret doing it. They guy deserved it, he was basically heckling Cheney.

rhsunderground

10-04-2004, 04:28 PM

it's not ACT i'm worried about. it's the standardized tests that are being given. last year it was english, next social studies, i think. and school systems are given money per student and some can handle what they're given by the feds, others not.

PeOfEo

10-04-2004, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by rhsunderground
i don't like kerry, i just hate bush :D No Child Left Behind. find 5 teachers that actually like that policy. No child left behind sucks not, but I could see it paying off substantially in several years when we have more teachers and higher trained teachers. It is going to be an economic burdon for a bit of course. I think the voucher programs are great though.

PhillMc

10-04-2004, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by rhsunderground
it's not ACT i'm worried about. it's the standardized tests that are being given. last year it was english, next social studies, i think. and school systems are given money per student and some can handle what they're given by the feds, others not.

If the schools are getting the same funding per student, then they should all be able to handle it. The one's that are un-able to handle have to be mis-managing the funds in one way or another.

PeOfEo

10-04-2004, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by rhsunderground
it's not ACT i'm worried about. it's the standardized tests that are being given. last year it was english, next social studies, i think. and school systems are given money per student and some can handle what they're given by the feds, others not. If they can't perform then they wont get money. It holds them accountable. Why just let the schools not perform? This puts pressure on school administration which ramps up the pressure on the teachers. This is only a problem at failing schools. It benefits the kids because if the school is not shaping up the kids can go to a school that will perform.

PhillMc

10-04-2004, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by PeOfEo
If they can't perform then they wont get money. It holds them accountabl. Why just let the schools not perform? This puts pressure on school administration who ramps up the pressure on the teachers. This is only a problem at failing schools. It benefits the kids because if the school is not skapping up the kids can go to a school that will perform.

Exactly. :)

rhsunderground

10-04-2004, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by PhillMc
If the schools are getting the same funding per student, then they should all be able to handle it. The one's that are un-able to handle have to be mis-managing the funds in one way or another. the school SYSTEM gets the money. some schools use busses, some don't. money spent. some schools import fast food, some make it themselves. money spent by those that make, money made by those that sell their students to restaurants.

PhillMc

10-04-2004, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by rhsunderground
the school SYSTEM gets the money. some schools use busses, some don't. money spent. some schools import fast food, some make it themselves. money spent by those that make, money made by those that sell their students to restaurants.

My point exactly. Funding does take into account transportation, but silly things like importing McDonalds the gov't is not going to pay for. It's not like fast food is nutricious enough to feed to children daily. That in itself is mis-managment of funds. Funds should be going towards text-books and better teachers, not Big Macs.

rhsunderground

10-04-2004, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by PhillMc
\Funds should be going towards text-books and better teachers, not Big Macs. how true it is:D better for the kids mentally and physically.

PeOfEo

10-04-2004, 04:46 PM

Our county contracts with a company called aramark that supplies food to our cafeterias that is lovingly prepared by our lunch ladies for us. The school system subcontracts because it is more efficient to let a company handle the food situation and make a little profit off of it and not worry about it themselves. The govt does not touch food at all. That is why people pay for lunch.

If the county has no busses then they probably do not have many schools and are not going to get a ton of money to begin with. But there are other grants that the government will give to different areas to pay for things like buses.

rhsunderground

10-04-2004, 04:48 PM

so the crappier schools lose money that could be used to increase results. :rolleyes:

PeOfEo

10-04-2004, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by rhsunderground
so the crappier schools lose money that could be used to increase results. :rolleyes: They loose money because they are not doing their jobs. It is saving the students. It is not providing for the administration and teachers at the school that cant do their job. Letting the school go on as it has been is not going to increase its performance.

rhsunderground

10-04-2004, 04:51 PM

it ISN'T helping the students. the crappier schools need to get more money DIRECTLY to academic enrichment. the other schools have been doing fine as they are.

PeOfEo

10-04-2004, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by rhsunderground
it ISN'T helping the students. the crappier schools need to get more money DIRECTLY to academic enrichment. the other schools have been doing fine as they are. It is helping the sutdents because of the voucher programs. They can go to another school and escape from the failing school. The crappier schools do not need more money, its just throwing more money at bad school administrations and taking from the schools that are performing up to par. If the schools looses a student it looses a little bit of money, but hopefully with fewer students the school would be able to loose some uneccessary teachers that are not willing to perform. Hopefully that would be neccessary due to a lack of funds to pay the dead weight.

MstrBob

10-04-2004, 04:58 PM

But, if a school isn't performing, and then recieves less money, how would they be able to improve? Explain that to me. The school now has less money, so how could they attract new teachers? New administration? Upgrade teaching facilities? Replace old textbooks? Students have crappy teachers, a decaying classroom, and twelve year old books, and the solution is to cut funds to the school? A better solution would be to give the administration a deadline and goal, and if they fail to meet that goal, replace them, other than make the school suffer because of it.

rhsunderground

10-04-2004, 04:58 PM

THANK YOU BOB!

PeOfEo

10-04-2004, 05:02 PM

MstrBob

10-04-2004, 05:16 PM

I'm glad that there are such an abundance of schools in florida that students can pick and choose the schoold of their liking. But I know for a fact in the city, that the schools struggle to fit all the students. Just last week I read an article in our paper of how one public highschool was operating at 150% capacity. In fact, a believe the smallest size on the list was operating at around 90% capacity. Where will the students go? Even private schools are crowded. So now, you have a school receiving less money, so students leave, and then go to other schools, further crowding them and reducing the overall education, and so lowering performance, and lowering their money, you see where I'm going? The administration should be responsible and should be forced by whatever means to improve the school, but cutting off or even limiting funding to underperfoming schools is inane.

rhsunderground

10-04-2004, 05:20 PM

parts of omaha are expanding so fast that we are building 2 elementary schools a year. that is not good for kids. they are shuffled around like it's nobody's business.

edit: and that's just 1 school district. there are 6, plus private schools

PeOfEo

10-04-2004, 05:21 PM

If they are that over coruded then the school would be getting more money then it needs to survive. This is another instance of cash being mismanaged. Also if the kids have no where to go then the school does no t loose its money. The school looses money when it looses attendance. If the school can't loose attendance then it can't very well loose money. Even if the school did loose attendance and some money, less students would mean less teachers required so it is not going to hurt the good teachers. I believe the government had grant programs for school construction costs as well if more public schools are needed.

PeOfEo

10-04-2004, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by rhsunderground
parts of omaha are expanding so fast that we are building 2 elementary schools a year. that is not good for kids. they are shuffled around like it's nobody's business.

edit: and that's just 1 school district. there are 6, plus private schools and what does that have to do with existing school quality? It is neccessary to build the schools, a kid getting moved can't be helped.

MstrBob

10-04-2004, 05:32 PM

More money than the school needs to survive? And where are these magical funds coming from? Schools have cut numerous programs, have huge class sizes (not enough teachers, forget about good ones) and the facilities are, well, pathetic. Funds based on student population are good. But being regressive based on school performance is bad. If schools with bad performance get less funds, like overcrowded schools, how does that help at all? The New York school system can barely afford to keep operating. The New York budget is barely being kept above the redline. There is no money, and all I see is a system like this cutting it even further. If what you say is true about less money for less performance, than the system is assinine. Why would you make the students pay for Administration mistakes?

Paul Jr

10-04-2004, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by MstrBob
But, if a school isn't performing, and then recieves less money, how would they be able to improve? Explain that to me. The school now has less money, so how could they attract new teachers? New administration? Upgrade teaching facilities? Replace old textbooks? Students have crappy teachers, a decaying classroom, and twelve year old books, and the solution is to cut funds to the school? A better solution would be to give the administration a deadline and goal, and if they fail to meet that goal, replace them, other than make the school suffer because of it.
I’m basically in agreement there. However, if schools are not performing, the last thing they should get is more money.

Originally posted by MstrBob
More money than the school needs to survive? And where are these magical funds coming from? Schools have cut numerous programs, have huge class sizes (not enough teachers, forget about good ones) and the facilities are, well, pathetic. Funds based on student population are good. But being regressive based on school performance is bad. If schools with bad performance get less funds, like overcrowded schools, how does that help at all? The New York school system can barely afford to keep operating. The New York budget is barely being kept above the redline. There is no money, and all I see is a system like this cutting it even further. If what you say is true about less money for less performance, than the system is assinine. Why would you make the students pay for Administration mistakes?
If sports players’ an actors’ saleries were cut in half, there would be a whole lot more money floating around that could be put to better use, and their standard of liiving would not be reduced by getting half of what they usually get.

This may not be a relevant point, but I think sports players and actors get over-paid by a long shot. Take some of that wasted money and put it to good use.

rhsunderground

10-04-2004, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by Paul Jr
If sports players’ an actors’ saleries were cut in half, there would be a whole lot more money floating around that could be put to better use, and their standard of liiving would not be reduced by getting half of what they usually get.

This may not be a relevant point, but I think sports players and actors get over-paid by a long shot. Take some of that wasted money and put it to good use. you damn right. :D

PeOfEo

10-04-2004, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by MstrBob
More money than the school needs to survive? And where are these magical funds coming from? Schools have cut numerous programs, have huge class sizes (not enough teachers, forget about good ones) and the facilities are, well, pathetic. Funds based on student population are good. But being regressive based on school performance is bad. If schools with bad performance get less funds, like overcrowded schools, how does that help at all? The New York school system can barely afford to keep operating. The New York budget is barely being kept above the redline. There is no money, and all I see is a system like this cutting it even further. If what you say is true about less money for less performance, than the system is assinine. Why would you make the students pay for Administration mistakes? The students are not paying for it. Why on earth do you think the kids are paying for it. NCLB is allotting more money to schools. National education grants are way up, sky high.

Basically each kid (this is how it works in my area, dunno if this is nation wide) has so much money devoted to his education. Now if he goes through the public school that much money goes to his or her school as payment. If he does not go to the school because the school is crap he can take that amount of money to a private school. This will make the amount of money the school gets less. But that is also one less kid the school has to worry about. Now if a school is really bad enough kids will leave so that the school has some extra teachers on hand but not enough funds to keep them, so it will get rid of the bad ones, if this does not work out that way, then the school is not managing its finances correctly. This system holds bad teachers and school administrations accountable for their problems. It helps the students. It is trimming the fat from the inefficient public school system. It completely benefits the kids because it gives them an option and gives the schools a dis/incentive to do a better job. That was how it was explained to me.

This talk about huge class sizes is another part of the NCLB. It mandates that class sizes be smaller. That is part of the reason why the government is passing more funds to the states for education so that more teachers can be hired and more schools can be built. If you look at education spending, you would see that it is up substantially from the Clinton administration because of NCLB.

PhillMc

10-04-2004, 10:39 PM

That's my understanding of how the act works aswell. :)

Reli4nt

10-05-2004, 02:12 AM

Money for schools usually comes from the democrats.

The idea of not putting into failing schools but in stead moving it into well performing schools is one of those logic traps. Logically it makes sense but in reality it simply does not work out. There simply arent enough schools and teachers in the country.

Try this:

Make college education free and then there will definately be a much larger pool of teachers to pick from all willing to work for modest starting salaries because they dont have loans to repay. The best ones get tenure and the better part of the money alotted to teachers and the bad ones can go home. This type of solution, this big picture mentality, is the only type of thinking that will in the end bring about the results we need. Sadly, even this idea would only be a part of the solution, cos there are plenty of issues related to education.

Jeff Mott

10-05-2004, 02:54 PM

Name ONE.(I'll highlight some of the ones that really stood out for me from the SparkNotes tables.)

Bush:
- Believes sending jobs overseas will result in more domestic jobs in the long run as companies free up resources to create new markets and technologies.

Kerry:
- Would offer tax incentives to companies that keep jobs in the U.S. and assistance to workers who lose jobs. Would also reimburse payroll taxes to employers who have been affected by job outsourcing.

Bush:
- Is against bonuses for teachers who work in low-income districts.
Opposes offering federal bonds for school repair and reconstruction.

Kerry:
- Would offer bonuses to teachers who work in high-need schools.
- Would create an Education Trust Fund to improve public education that would commit $200 billion and would be funded by repealing tax cuts for families making more than $200,000 a year.
- Would commit $30 billion to pay increases for teachers and teacher training.

Bush:
- Wants to increase domestic oil drilling, expanding coal mining, and developing more nuclear power.
- Supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as part of a self-reliant energy policy in the U.S.
- Proposes relaxing certain environmental regulations and slowing down the timetable for meeting conservation and fuel efficiency goals.
- Opposes regulating the auto industry by increasing the average number of miles per gallon cars must meet.
- Opposes stricter standards under the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts.
- Supports market-based solutions to improve air quality.
- Opposes international treaties that address global warming.

Kerry:
- Plans to reduce U.S. dependency on foreign oil in ten years by investing in alternative fuels, such as biofuels and hydrogen-based energy, and developing more fuel-efficient cars.
- Supports strict enforcement of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts.
- Has introduced legislation that would require industries to reduce air-polluting emissions.
- Opposes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, saying adverse environmental impact overshadows the six-month supply of oil estimated to be found there.
- Would work with the international community to address global warming.

Bush:
- Has examined whether or not it was necessary to abide by the rules of the Geneva Convention, which governs the treatment of prisoners of war.
- Opposes signing the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, because it does not exclude abortion from family planning.

Kerry:
- Believes the U.S. should honor the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war.
- Would sign the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

(And also, for those who tried expressing to me just how much they think Kerry will increase the national dept should take a close look at just how much damange Bush has done in that regard in just the last four years.)

PhillMc

10-05-2004, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by Jeff Mott
(I'll highlight some of the ones that really stood out for me from the SparkNotes tables.)

Kerry:
- Would offer tax incentives to companies that keep jobs in the U.S. and assistance to workers who lose jobs. Would also reimburse payroll taxes to employers who have been affected by job outsourcing.

FLIP-FLOP: He's against the Bush tax cuts that have allowed businesses to expand, thereby increasing jobs and boosting the economy.

Originally posted by Jeff Mott

Kerry:
- Would offer bonuses to teachers who work in high-need schools.
- Would create an Education Trust Fund to improve public education that would commit $200 billion and would be funded by repealing tax cuts for families making more than $200,000 a year.
- Would commit $30 billion to pay increases for teachers and teacher training.

Penalize the rich even further. I'd like to know how he plans on getting 230 billion dollars from less than 20% of the population...

Originally posted by Jeff Mott

Bush:
- Wants to increase domestic oil drilling, expanding coal mining, and developing more nuclear power.
- Supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as part of a self-reliant energy policy in the U.S.
- Proposes relaxing certain environmental regulations and slowing down the timetable for meeting conservation and fuel efficiency goals.
- Opposes regulating the auto industry by increasing the average number of miles per gallon cars must meet.
- Opposes stricter standards under the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts.
- Supports market-based solutions to improve air quality.
- Opposes international treaties that address global warming.

Kerry:
- Plans to reduce U.S. dependency on foreign oil in ten years by investing in alternative fuels, such as biofuels and hydrogen-based energy, and developing more fuel-efficient cars.
- Supports strict enforcement of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts.
- Has introduced legislation that would require industries to reduce air-polluting emissions.
- Opposes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, saying adverse environmental impact overshadows the six-month supply of oil estimated to be found there.
- Would work with the international community to address global warming.

Drilling our own oil will reduce our dependancy on other countries NOW. Kerry, if elected, will not be in office in 10 years to see his 'plan' through.

Originally posted by Jeff Mott

Bush:
- Has examined whether or not it was necessary to abide by the rules of the Geneva Convention, which governs the treatment of prisoners of war.

I guess that's why that station commander was court martialed. I also guess that's why he was appaled by what happened in Abu Garab too. </sarcasm>

Originally posted by Jeff Mott

(And also, for those who tried expressing to me just how much they think Kerry will increase the national dept should take a close look at just how much damange Bush has done in that regard in just the last four years.)
Damage? Bud, the ecomomy is on rebound. Most of the money spent during this administration went to going after the extremists that want us dead. We are at war. Don't tell me that you believe that yet another resolution was going to solve anything.

PeOfEo

10-05-2004, 11:13 PM

If we started drilling our own oil, where would we do it? In Alaska and in the gulf. Does anyone see something wrong with this picture. Wasn't Kerry one of the ones who pissed and moaned about Bush going into Anwar for its oil? How does Kerry intent to drill our oil while keeping to production costs down (the fact that it has to be pumped from the ground and rigs have to be put out to see adds plenty, and the fact that it is not as plentiful as it needs to be to fule our country for any length of time), while keeping a large group of enviromentalists within his party happy?

Kerry promises the moon and always says he has a plan, but his promises just seem empty to me. His plan seems to be non existant (he never explains it or gives us a place where we can see it explained). When he is asked how he will fund things he says he is going to fix the tax cut on the rich. At the same time he is going to be cutting corperate income tax. The numbers are still not going to add up. He is in no way going to be able to cut the deficit like he promises and fund his programs. It is simply not possible.

Reli4nt

10-05-2004, 11:49 PM

Impossible for Bush maybe...

Paul Jr

10-06-2004, 01:20 AM

So…who watched the V.P. Debate? :D

Reli4nt

10-06-2004, 01:27 AM

I missed it, lookking for a replay. How'd it go?

PeOfEo

10-06-2004, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by Reli4nt
Impossible for Bush maybe... No impossible for anyone. He is the one who is promising it. If you know basic math you know there is no way that -2 -4 + 1 = -1. By that I mean he is planning on increasing spending while actually cutting taxes, yet he still thinks he can cut the deficit. It is not going to work. Many of his promises will be broken if he gets elected.

ps: IMHO Cheneye won the vp debate. Edward's arguments seemed weak and Cheneye was challenging his facts and numbers all over the place and it made Edwards look like a fibber.

theuedimaster

10-07-2004, 12:11 AM

But Edwards got him on the major point that cheney refused to touch. The adminsitration did lie about Iraq, and when Edward pointed that out with support, Cheney couldn't say a single thing. And about this stupid flip flop thing Bush and Cheney talk about when saying Edward and Kerry voted for the war and now oppose it, they misunderstand the situation, and Edwards and Kerry for some reason have never said this: We as a people trusted the Bush administration after 9/11 to defend our nation. We TRUSTED him to deal with the situation correctly. By going into Iraq without a real game plan for winning the peace and causing more uprising in the middle east, he BROKE our trust. We had trust in you Mr.Bush, and you broke it. Thats the real point.

By the way Pe of E, I bet every penny I have that you have absolutely no idea about numbers and facts about the defecit in such detail that you can make a valid decision if what someone says they can do with the defecit is not possible. Admit it, you have no real evidence, you are just listening to the brainwashing by the Bush Administration. Really man, ask yourself, how do you REALLY know that it isn't possible?

To tell the truth, about nobody, except the experts, really know how this works. Pe of E, don't come to invalid conclusions that don't have any backing to, and that you really have no idea about.

theuedimaster

10-07-2004, 12:17 AM

About the spending, he wants to lower taxes for middle class, and make them higher for upper class. Therefore, they balance out. Seriously, if the upper class makes less money, are you telling me they are going to take huge cuts from company profits just so they make more money, and make their own company go spiraling down? No. Thats just stupid. But if it does happen, that proves the real corrupt practices of our buisness elite class in America.

You people don't understand, WE made this war. It is OUR own fault that it happened. Are you gonna tell me that Saddam Hussein was a bad man who killed thousands and deserves to die? You ignorant people don't understand what else is going on in the world. While Saddam was sitting on his ass, yes sitting, he was doing absolutely nothing, we have genocide in Africa, nuclear weapons being made in Iran and North Korea, terrorists actively bombing the Russians, Palestinians blowing up Israeli Civilians, Israelis blowing up Palestinian civilians (yes fools, using an attack helicopter to "assasinate" someone in the middle of the street in the middle of the day does cause collateral damage), hundreds dying of starvation, civil unrest in South Asia, Kim Jong threatening the SK border, thousands of murderers and rapists in our own country..... And we decide to pick a war with someone sitting on his ass. Great job Mr.Bush. I can see how he was SUCH a threat to us(yea right). $20,000 to the palestinian families who have lost sons and daughters as suicide bombers....its about freaking time someone supported the Palestinian people.... too bad it was by a bad guy in a crude way...

Jeff Mott

10-07-2004, 12:30 AM

Drilling our own oil will reduce our dependancy on other countries NOW.No, actually, it really won't. The amount of oil we have in America is not nearly enough to sustain us. We know it, and the oil producing countries know it. They know that we'll have to come crawling back to them in just a few years time. Which means that during those few years that we're supposedly not dependant, we're still going to have to kiss their ass to stay in their good graces.

Paul Jr

10-07-2004, 12:59 AM

Originally posted by theuedimaster
And about this stupid flip flop thing Bush and Cheney talk about when saying Edward and Kerry voted for the war and now oppose it, they misunderstand the situation
I don’t see what’s so hard to understand. Kerry voted for the war, then voted against funding the troops. So Kerry agrees to send our troops to war, and then denies them the support they need. Yeah, real hard to understand. :rolleyes:

Reli4nt

10-07-2004, 01:38 AM

increasing spending while actually cutting taxes

If you look you'll see that Bush tried exactly that.

Reli4nt

10-07-2004, 01:46 AM

Our oil reserves couldn't possibly sustain us, we all know that and no one has ever said otherwise. The goal is to limit our dependency on foreign oil and thereby provide a buffer to the economic rollercoaster of oil prices.

It is a fact in my mind that no war has ever been fought by this country if there wasn't an economic angle in it. Even the Civil war, the war of 1812, and WWII I'm sad to say. I'm not saying financial gain (or the avoidance of loss) were the only reasons, but there was never any action until there was a bottom line impact. Economics drives the American war machine.

PhillMc

10-07-2004, 01:58 AM

Originally posted by theuedimaster
About the spending, he wants to lower taxes for middle class, and make them higher for upper class. Therefore, they balance out.........And we decide to pick a war with someone sitting on his ass. Great job Mr.Bush. I can see how he was SUCH a threat to us(yea right). $20,000 to the palestinian families who have lost sons and daughters as suicide bombers....its about freaking time someone supported the Palestinian people.... too bad it was by a bad guy in a crude way...

You really have no clue... How does raising taxes on the 20% of this nation that already pays 80% of the nation's taxes balance?? Think I'm exagerating?? Look up the currect tax code. The American 'Upper Class', roughly 20 percent of the nation, already pays 80% of the nation's taxes. The 'Upper Class' has over 40% of their annual salaries taken each year. So, tell me 'master', how does cutting the tax on the middle class and adding to the already monstrous load of the upper class balance? Hmm?

And as for picking a war 'with a man sitting on his ass' you could not be more incorrect. Just about every liberal I come accross believes we were not 'diplomatic' enough; WHAT!? Are 16 UN resolutions not good enough for you!? SIXTEEN resolutions were passed Saddam's way and he IGNORED every one of them; what good would a 17th done?? Intel said he was a threat as far back as the beginning of the CLINTON administration. Kerry said he was a threat and something needed to be done about it on the Senate floor in '97. THIS IS WELL DOCUMENTED! What the hell was Bush supposed to think about Saddam not allowing UN inspectors into the country and when he did, kept them out of key locations? Liberals jumped Bush's case about not stopping 9/11 before it happened but also jumps his case when he pre-empted the threat that was Saddam... Make up your mind, people!!! As for Al-Quida, it'll be quite some time before they can do anything to us with over 70% of the forces gone and a great, big chunk of their chain-of-command either dead or in prison. Oh, yeah, Bush really failed us.:rolleyes: </sarcasm>

PhillMc

10-07-2004, 02:00 AM

Originally posted by Reli4nt
If you look you'll see that Bush tried exactly that.

No, Bush did the tax cut to stimulate the growth of business. What happens when business grows? More jobs are created. What happens then? THE ECONOMY EXPANDS, getting us out the recession! It's not rocket science!

PhillMc

10-07-2004, 02:04 AM

Originally posted by Reli4nt
Our oil reserves couldn't possibly sustain us, we all know that and no one has ever said otherwise. The goal is to limit our dependency on foreign oil and thereby provide a buffer to the economic rollercoaster of oil prices.

It is a fact in my mind that no war has ever been fought by this country if there wasn't an economic angle in it. Even the Civil war, the war of 1812, and WWII I'm sad to say. I'm not saying financial gain (or the avoidance of loss) were the only reasons, but there was never any action until there was a bottom line impact. Economics drives the American war machine.

Japan attacking Pearl Harbor is economic??? A lunitic crashing 2 planes in the WTC is econemic?? I wouldn't call that 'economics', I'd call us going after them 'justice'.

Reli4nt

10-07-2004, 02:18 AM

Originally posted by PhillMc
Japan attacking Pearl Harbor is economic??? A lunitic crashing 2 planes in the WTC is econemic?? I wouldn't call that 'economics', I'd call us going after them 'justice'.

America had moved into WWII before Japan attacked. And yes the Japanese earned them selves a whooping for that, maybe not a nuking but certainly a whooping.

The lunatics who crashed those planes weren't Iraqis!!

What kind of justice are you talking about? Certainly not any justice based on reason or even cause. Hell the next time someone steps on my foot in manhattan I could justify attacking Iowa with that logic!

steelersfan88

10-07-2004, 06:43 AM

Originally posted by Reli4nt
America had moved into WWII before Japan attacked. And yes the Japanese earned them selves a whooping for that, maybe not a nuking but certainly a whooping.Indeed we did not. 'Tis the reason we turned back trips of mostly Jewish refugees who attempted to escape Hitler's cruelty.Originally posted by Reli4nt
The lunatics who crashed those planes weren't Iraqis!!Correct, but purposes were similar. A threat to the US could be a threat to the world, and if Bush was not the agressor, any of horrible events could have happened to the Middle East. As a great Israelian ally, we must not leave the Middle East vulnerable to nuclear or biological attack.Originally posted by Reli4nt
What kind of justice are you talking about? Certainly not any justice based on reason or even cause. Hell the next time someone steps on my foot in manhattan I could justify attacking Iowa with that logic! Only if the feet belonged to a man from Iowa that was attempting to harm you, but otherwise, you are incorrect, again.

Jeff Mott

10-07-2004, 10:11 AM

America had moved into WWII before Japan attacked.Indeed we did not.Indeed we did. The Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor was in direct response to the US cutting exports to Japan.

PhillMc

10-07-2004, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by Reli4nt
America had moved into WWII before Japan attacked. And yes the Japanese earned them selves a whooping for that, maybe not a nuking but certainly a whooping.

Actually, Japan's attack got us into WWII; we were non-combatants until then.

Originally posted by Reli4nt

What kind of justice are you talking about? Certainly not any justice based on reason or even cause. Hell the next time someone steps on my foot in manhattan I could justify attacking Iowa with that logic!

After the war on terror began, it was found Saddam had ties with Al-Quida. Saddam was still ignoring the resolutions; when he finally let the inspectors in, they're access was restricted. What was Bush supposed to think? If he didn't have anything then why were the inspectors restricted? We tried diplomacy; it failed. When 16 resolutions of diplomacy fail it's not time for more diplomacy; it's time to act. Now take a look at both Afghanistan and Irag; both countries are FREE, Democratic governments were built and are in place. Schools have been opened, woman can goto school, get a job, vote and Iraq is holding it's first election soon. You can't tell me that things are not better now.

Reli4nt

10-07-2004, 12:10 PM

I didn't say we were fighting in WWII pay attention, but we were definately invovled in diplomatic and economic warfare before the Japanese attacked.

PhillMc

10-07-2004, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by Reli4nt
I didn't say we were fighting in WWII pay attention, but we were definately invovled in diplomatic and economic warfare before the Japanese attacked.

Diplomatic and economic warfare? All America did was cease trade with Japan; that's it, other than that we stayed out if it. I'd hardly call that 'economic' warfare or a justified reason for Japan's attack.

Jeff Mott

10-07-2004, 02:35 PM

it was found Saddam had ties with Al-QuidaNo, it wasn't. There was *never* any such link. In fact, Osama bin Laden considered Saddam an enemy. The CIA publicly stated exactly this even before the invasion took place. But Bush overwhelmed the news media with his own convenient distortion of the truth.

In fact, according to Paul O'Neill (Bush's former treasury secretary), the invasion of Iraq was planned from the very beginning of Bush's presidency (before the events of 9/11).

(Paul O'Neill revealed many other interesting facts about Bush's presidency. I encourage you to read about them.)Now take a look at both Afghanistan and Irag; both countries are FREE, Democratic governments were built and are in place. Schools have been opened, woman can goto school, get a job, vote and Iraq is holding it's first election soon. You can't tell me that things are not better now.That's a cozy little picture you've painted. Unfortunately that's not how reality is. Last I recall, roughly half of Iraqi citizens actually detest America's occupation of Iraq.Diplomatic and economic warfare? All America did was cease trade with Japan; that's itThere are many ways to cripple a country. Bullets are only one of them. Oil was one such product that the United States ceased exporting to Japan, which would have incapacitated the country. Make no mistake, cutting exports to Japan was, in principle, a deliberate attack by the US.

Japan's response was not unjustified. In fact, given similar circumstances, the United States probably would do the same.

steelersfan88

10-07-2004, 02:43 PM

If you *meant* to say we made reference to WW II by cutting Japanese exports, watching your prepositions. The preposition into refers to taking an action from the outside. In otherwords, Getting INTO WWII means to go from not be involved, to being a force.

Jeff, please never become a US president, or a leader in any country. Thinking that we should not deal with Saddam because evidence we had found was not guaranteed is not a great choice. What if the evidence were true, and you were busy determining it. Then the country would be eliminated off the Earth from nuclear and biological warfare, while a neighoring country with Bush at president is fighting to make the world a safer place.

Then going to say we should invade Korea is another problem. We cannot do so without China being on our side, and we need our alliance to be stronger with Japan, although Japan is a great friend. Bush cannot divert attention from the major focus ... eliminating terroristic threats from the middle east. This is a global plan yes, but it cannot be global, until a source is cut off. In the next 4 years, Bush we prove, yet again, a great president, when the fears of people in the country of attacl leave, because the world will be a better place since he was inaugurated into office, in January of '01.

PhillMc

10-07-2004, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by Jeff Mott
That's a cozy little picture you've painted. Unfortunately that's not how reality is. Last I recall, roughly half of Iraqi citizens actually detest America's occupation of Iraq.

Oh, so I guess that I'm making up the fact that 40% of the registered voters that will vote in upcoming Iraqi elections are women. :rolleyes:
Hmm, since there are elections, would that not make the gov't DEMOCRATIC? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Jeff Mott
There are many ways to cripple a country. Bullets are only one of them. Oil was one such product that the United States ceased exporting to Japan. This would have severly incapacitate Japan.

Japan's response was not unjustified. In fact, given similar circumstances, the United States probably would do the same.
So, you're saying by ceasing trade with Japan that it's our fault they attacked Pearl Harbor.... Hmm, I guess Al-Quida's attack on us was our fault because we're a free nation where women have equal rights as men. :rolleyes:

soccer362001

10-07-2004, 02:54 PM

In resonse to the Japanese and WWII. We technically did not enter WWII until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Why? Because Congress had not yet declared war, thus we were not in the war.

PhillMc

10-07-2004, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by soccer362001
In resonse to the Japanese and WWII. We technically did not enter WWII until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Why? Because Congress had not yet declared war, thus we were not in the war.

Thank you, Soccer. :)
-EDIT-
Fixed Typo

soccer362001

10-07-2004, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by PhillMc
Thank you, Soccor. :)
No problem.

P.S. It's Soccer

PhillMc

10-07-2004, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by soccer362001
No problem.

P.S. It's Soccer

My apologies; post edited. ;)

Reli4nt

10-07-2004, 03:26 PM

So you really think the ONLY way to be invovled in a war is by declaring war yourself? Economic sanctions or support, the sale or loaning of military equipment, allowing access to military intelligence dont constitutue involvement?

Wow thanks for clearing that up for me.

PhillMc

10-07-2004, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by Reli4nt
So you really think the ONLY way to be invovled in a war is by declaring war yourself? Economic sanctions or support, the sale or loaning of military equipment, allowing access to military intelligence dont constitutue involvement?

Wow thanks for clearing that up for me.

You don't get it, do you? The United States was not involved in WWII until THEY attacked us. The only reason trade ceased with Japan was because of the USA/Britain aliance. We were doing NOTHING because Americans did not want to be part of another World War. THIS IS DOCUMENTED!

Reli4nt

10-07-2004, 03:50 PM

Do your homework. We were involved. Ever try to actually read those "documents" you're referring to?

soccer362001

10-07-2004, 04:01 PM

Yes we were involved, but we were not IN the war.

MstrBob

10-07-2004, 04:09 PM

The US is justified in controlling it's own economic movements. In fact, deciding not to trade with another country (no matter the reason) is by no means justification for the other to attack. If the US were stopping everyone from trading with Japan, than that would be involvement. But no matter why we do it, economic trade can be used to hold power with debates, but is never a just cause for attack. You can't say to someone "Damnit, sell me your car! No, you don't want to sell it to me? Than I'm perfectly justified in shooting you!"

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not particularly fond of the Iraqi invasion. Of course, my reasons here are more on the economic side. The cost of the war, in dollars and men, and the fact that this is stretching our military thin. Given the opportunity, Saddaam would most definately have restarted weapons development, that is known. The people were greatly repressed. Yes, the Iraqis resent the US being in Iraq, because they are unsure if we'll leave. But look at the fact that the Iraqis now have the freedom to protest the US. Ultimately, Iraq will be better off. However, considering the lack of a threat Iraq really was to the US, I don't think now was the time to be doing this. However, Saddaam shouldn't be screwing around with the UN either.

I really think that the US would be a hell of a lot better off by simply withdrawing from being so involved in the Middle East. The two major reason why anybody cares about the whole desolate area are (1)Oil (2)Israel.

I'm going to get hated for this, but I think both reasons shouldn't exist. The US is perfectly able to develope alternatives to Oil if there's an incentive. But with the lack of incentive, power of oil companies, and unresponiveness of government have quenched it. It major investment money was spent in it, we would be able to, I feel, come up with alternatives. And then there'd be no reason to care about the Middle East.

The other being Israel. This is where people probably won't agree with me. I understand that we needed to do something for the Jews after World War II. I understand that very well. What I don't get is, why did we have to go to the Middle East, boot out the Arabs, and carve the Jewish population a country? Why didn't the allies take in the refugees? Why were the booted out and basically given Israel? Does it make any sense to remove a location's residents and put in foreigners? Yes, I know the Jews are orginally from that area. However, those were European Jews, most with no, or very long, thin ties to the area. And why most the locals be removed for this? What did they do? I think this was a major mistake on the part of the Allies, and has caused nothing but trouble.

PhillMc

10-07-2004, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by Reli4nt
Do your homework. We were involved. Ever try to actually read those "documents" you're referring to?

Actually, yes. I get both sides of the issue and then go to the source on everything. I do not eat the bull#$%@ the liberal biased media tries to feed everyone. lol

Reli4nt

10-07-2004, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by MstrBob
[B]The US is justified in controlling it's own economic movements. In fact, deciding not to trade with another country (no matter the reason) is by no means justification for the other to attack. If the US were stopping everyone from trading with Japan, than that would be involvement. But no matter why we do it, economic trade can be used to hold power with debates, but is never a just cause for attack. You can't say to someone "Damnit, sell me your car! No, you don't want to sell it to me? Than I'm perfectly justified in shooting you!"

I agree with you, but it wasn't that simple. Imagine we do business together and then I suddenly stop and tell you I won't trade with you until you start doing the things differently. Who am I to even begin to tell you what to do? Now I don't think Japan was justified in attacking, but I also maintain that America had already gotten involved in the war. That is all I'm saying, they were invovled.

As far as Iraq, Saddam really needed to go, and if you recall the Americas were cheered as they entered Iraq, it was once America started dictating the terms of the new government that things began looking like Viet Nam. I don't mind the deposition of Saddam but if their motivation was humanitarian then why aren't we at war in Sudan, why didn't we declare war on the Serbs, why aren't we in Chechnya, why aren't we at war with the Chinese, why didn't we invade Guatemala when they wiped out the natives, why haven't we invaded half the planet?

My original point is that economics drives the American war machine.

And yes PhillMc the media is so biased its not even funny. What I would give for a truly impartial media source!

theuedimaster

10-07-2004, 07:21 PM

MstrBob

10-07-2004, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by theuedimaster
Tell me Mstr Bob, if OPEC decides to stop selling us oil, seriously, what are we going to do? Thats what we did to Japan....... What would we do if our oil supply was totally shut off..... I am willing to put money that we would attack the middle east to gain control over oil facilities and fields..... don't deny it.

What would we do? I don't know what we would do. Depends on our president, methinks. Or maybe it doesn't. I didn't say countries wouldn't, I simply pointed out that it isn't justification for war.

Sometimes I wonder if being shut off from oil isn't such a bad idea. Maybe then we'd develope alternatives and just leave the Middle East alone. Look at what's going on in Africa. Do we get involved other than some humanitarian groups? No. Why? There's nothing at stake and nothing to gain. It's economically pointless for us. That's what determines involvement. In fact, thats the major justification for the vast majority of political conflicts: economic reasons.

Reli4nt

10-07-2004, 08:15 PM

In fact, thats the major justification for the vast majority of political conflicts: economic reasons. [/B]

My point exactly.

Such is the nature of man.

theuedimaster

10-07-2004, 08:28 PM

Its sad isn't it.... I think everybody should read Camus's "The Plague"........ people just don't know how or what to live for. What a cruel world we live in.

PhillMc

10-07-2004, 08:30 PM

theuedimaster

10-07-2004, 08:32 PM

Be realistic. It would never be enough. We wouldn't be able to get it flowing through the nation in time.

The point is though, as stated by Reli4nt, our society is basing its actions on economic matters. They[maybe you] have no real understanding of humanity. You live in a world of goods and services and entertainment. Waving your flag as if its gold, you follow its waver ignorantly without truly understanding the situation of the world itself. Sad.

PhillMc

10-07-2004, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by theuedimaster
Be realistic. It would never be enough. We wouldn't be able to get it flowing through the nation in time.

Be realistic. You don't think that this situation has been thought out and planned?? lol

theuedimaster

10-07-2004, 08:40 PM

And about Iraq, you're kidding me right, we went there because he was making trouble in U.N inspections? The U.N inspections were there to search for weapons of mass destruction. It seems that he didn't even have any weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, there was absolutely no point in going there. You might argue that we attacked Iraq for reasons of freedom and democracy. That makes sense right, since one of our biggest allies in the "fight" against terror, Pakistan. Pakistan was a democracy, it was taken over by a military dictator and freedom was tossed aside. And we claim him as being our friend? If freedom and democracy were our true intentions we would stand up to this tyranny. If we really believed in freeing the people in this world, we would be help ing the victims of GENOCIDE in africa. Of course, we make a big fuss about the holocaust, but no, when they are africans we don't give a sh&t.

theuedimaster

10-07-2004, 08:42 PM

How long would we last without the oil from the middle east? What happens when our reserves go out? What then do we do? It is impossible for us to totally transfer our gas gussiling vehicles and industries to an alternative energy source before they go out. The point is we WOULD go and attack the middle east if they denied us oil. You see, Japan didn't have any reserves. We basically cut off their only supply for oil and a major share of their metal imports. If our people were in that situation we would of done the exact same thing.

MstrBob

10-07-2004, 08:44 PM

Originally posted by theuedimaster
Be realistic. It would never be enough. We wouldn't be able to get it flowing through the nation in time.

The point is though, as stated by Reli4nt, our society is basing its actions on economic matters. They[maybe you] have no real understanding of humanity. You live in a world of goods and services and entertainment. Waving your flag as if its gold, you follow its waver ignorantly without truly understanding the situation of the world itself. Sad.

You starting to sound a bit communistic. It is the nature of man to want to better himself. That's why we're still here. As such, it'd be against our very biology to do anything but attempt to better ourselves.

MstrBob

10-07-2004, 08:45 PM

Originally posted by theuedimaster
How long would we last without the oil from the middle east? What happens when our reserves go out? What then do we do? It is impossible for us to totally transfer our gas gussiling vehicles and industries to an alternative energy source before they go out. The point is we WOULD go and attack the middle east if they denied us oil. You see, Japan didn't have any reserves. We basically cut off their only supply for oil and a major share of their metal imports. If our people were in that situation we would of done the exact same thing.

Of course Japan didn't attack us for resources. Japan attacked China for resources. China sought only to cripple the US fleet so that we'd be powerless to stop their Pacific expansion. They sought a wick, swift blow to cripple us and buy time. But, of course, they missed the aircraft carriers, and hence, it backfired.

theuedimaster

10-07-2004, 08:51 PM

It is the beauty of human nature to overcome obstacles and achieve success. However, me must realize our responsibility and that every one of our actions affect other in immeasurable ways. We shouldn't be selfish, our world is not only about getting more and more. It goes deeper that that.

PS: Thanks for correcting me with the China thing. However, the point remains that the Japanese were probably pi&*ed. They really had no reason to attack us all the way on the other side of the Pacific. They were having a good time taking countries in Asia. They attacked us because of how we were threatening them economically and militarily.

theuedimaster

10-07-2004, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by steelersfan88
(* Sorry for probably creating another disaster ... *)

Yup! good job steelers fan! :mad: jk :)

MstrBob

10-07-2004, 09:01 PM

Originally posted by theuedimaster
It is the beauty of human nature to overcome obstacles and achieve success. However, me must realize our responsibility and that every one of our actions affect other in immeasurable ways. We shouldn't be selfish, our world is not only about getting more and more. It goes deeper that that.

As true as that may be, that spirit isn't going to prevail. Ever. People very early on realized if they focused on themselves and bettered themselves, they can seize control...

theuedimaster

10-07-2004, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by MstrBob
As true as that may be, that spirit isn't going to prevail. Ever. People very early on realized if they focused on themselves and bettered themselves, they can seize control...

Yes our cruel, cruel world. But people with that spirit must keep fighting the wall of ignorance.

Jeff Mott

10-07-2004, 10:03 PM

Oh, so I guess that I'm making up the fact that 40% of the registered voters that will vote in upcoming Iraqi elections are women.I don't know if you're making it up or not. I never said anything that contradicts that. I said roughly half of Iraqi citizens detest American occupation. Maybe the half that does not detest the occupation is 40% women and maybe not. I don't know and I never claimed to know.

So, you're saying by ceasing trade with Japan that it's our fault they attacked Pearl HarborI wouldn't exactly say it is our fault. What I would say is that we didn't leave them very much choice. By cutting off their oil we forced them to choose between watching their industrial and military infrastructure crumble, or going to war. I'm willing to bet that any country, including the U.S., would have made the same choice.

I guess Al-Quida's attack on us was our fault because we're a free nation where women have equal rights as men.Once again, it is not exactly our fault, but we are certainly not without blame (but not for any such reason that you have listed). It all comes back to Saudi Araba (you'll recall this is where Osama bin Laden originated). The Saudi royal family is, in general, greedy and oppressive and mostly at the expense of its citizens. Now, this type of situation is usually remedied by a revolution; the oppressed citizens band together to overthrow the oppressive government. But in this particular case with Saudi Arabia, that oppressive government has protection (i.e., special military training and weaponry). And guess who provides these protective services? Yup, the United States of America. Why does the U.S. protect this oppressive government? Money. If you are an American citizen and have not been to another country (e.g., England, France) then you have no idea how cheap the gas is in the U.S. The price per gallon is, roughly, 3-5x higher in other countries. And that, in a nutshell, is why terrorists (a good portion of them anyway) hate us. Because their lives are utterly sh!t and it is U.S. foreign policy (in return for a discount on oil) that keeps it that way.

What I don't get is, why did we have to go to the Middle East, boot out the Arabs, and carve the Jewish population a country?I never understood that either. I agree that the Jews needed to be accomodated in some way, but they did so at someone elses expense. Which is why we have the situation we do today.

Maybe then we'd develope alternatives and just leave the Middle East alone.I just thought I'd point out that this is exactly what Kerry wants to do, and Bush not.

Uhh, we have reserves in-case that type of thing happens.As has already been mentioned, it won't last. The reserves are just that: reserves. There is not nearly enough to treat it as the primary supply.

PhillMc

10-07-2004, 10:47 PM

....but we are certainly not without blame.
So, you believe that we are, at least, patially to blame for the 9/11 attacks...... The first thing that comes to mind is "What the F#$%".

Jeff Mott

10-07-2004, 11:11 PM

I'm sure it's much more convenient for you to see the U.S. as nothing more than an unfortunate victim, but the fact is that we did much to create our own worst enemy.

PeOfEo

10-07-2004, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by theuedimaster
But Edwards got him on the major point that cheney refused to touch. The adminsitration did lie about Iraq, and when Edward pointed that out with support, Cheney couldn't say a single thing.
nbc -- this mourning ont he today show a reporter said this
Hallaburton did not have a no bid contract, but rather a no body else can bid contract. Hallaburton was the only company that could deliver the services neccessary within the time frame neccessary
And about this stupid flip flop thing Bush and Cheney talk about when saying Edward and Kerry voted for the war and now oppose it, they misunderstand the situation, and Edwards and Kerry for some reason have never said this: We as a people trusted the Bush administration after 9/11 to defend our nation. We TRUSTED him to deal with the situation correctly. By going into Iraq without a real game plan for winning the peace and causing more uprising in the middle east, he BROKE our trust. We had trust in you Mr.Bush, and you broke it. Thats the real point. Kerry votes for weapons, then against them. Kerry says he would go to war, then he says he wouldnt. He changed his mind on the war several times in 3 months. He was competeing with dean. He really was saying just what people want to hear at the time, its lip serive.

By the way Pe of E, I bet every penny I have that you have absolutely no idea about numbers and facts about the defecit in such detail that you can make a valid decision if what someone says they can do with the defecit is not possible. Admit it, you have no real evidence, you are just listening to the brainwashing by the Bush Administration. Really man, ask yourself, how do you REALLY know that it isn't possible? Okay, coperate income tax genorates a ton of revenue for the country. Tons, because corperations have a lot of income. If Kerry goes and cuts that while increasaing spending and keeping all of the other taxes the same or dropping them, except for the income tax on the highest tax bracket he is going to be taxing the living daylights out of that very small minority of our country. He is saying just what everyone wants to hear, except for a very small minority in order to get votes. He is saying I will drop your taxes to basically everyone. He is going to tax away a very very very large chunk of the income of the wealthy. Also he promposes tons of new spending. Money out the butt for tons of programs. He proposes to lower taxes, increase sending and cut the deficit.

To tell the truth, about nobody, except the experts, really know how this works. Pe of E, don't come to invalid conclusions that don't have any backing to, and that you really have no idea about. Dude, I have taken 3 economics courses, I have aan ap credit in micro and macro economics, and I follow this. Do not insult my intelligence. I am not the only person saying this either. You cant decrease income while increasing spending and expect to make money. Its not possible, its voodoo math.

PhillMc

10-07-2004, 11:19 PM

Originally posted by Jeff Mott
I'm sure it's much more convenient for you to see the U.S. as nothing more than an unfortunate victim, but the fact is that we did much to create our own worst enemy.

WHAT THE F@#$ DID WE DO TO CAUSE THAT CRAZY BASTARD TO KILL 3000 INNOCENT PEOPLE!!?:mad: :mad:

Who the hell do you think you are, trying to tell me that we are at fault for 9/11!!!?

PeOfEo

10-07-2004, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by theuedimaster
About the spending, he wants to lower taxes for middle class, and make them higher for upper class. Therefore, they balance out. Seriously, if the upper class makes less money, are you telling me they are going to take huge cuts from company profits just so they make more money, and make their own company go spiraling down? No. Thats just stupid. But if it does happen, that proves the real corrupt practices of our buisness elite class in America. Dude, cutting corperate income cuts out a lot of govt revenue. Te elite already pay tons in taxes, and taxing them more is only going to hurt the economy because it takes that much more money out of their investments.

You people don't understand, WE made this war. It is OUR own fault that it happened. Are you gonna tell me that Saddam Hussein was a bad man who killed thousands and deserves to die? You ignorant people don't understand what else is going on in the world. While Saddam was sitting on his ass, yes sitting, he was doing absolutely nothing, we have genocide in Africa, nuclear weapons being made in Iran and North Korea, terrorists actively bombing the Russians, Palestinians blowing up Israeli Civilians, Israelis blowing up Palestinian civilians (yes fools, using an attack helicopter to "assasinate" someone in the middle of the street in the middle of the day does cause collateral damage), hundreds dying of starvation, civil unrest in South Asia, Kim Jong threatening the SK border, thousands of murderers and rapists in our own country..... And we decide to pick a war with someone sitting on his ass. Great job Mr.Bush. I can see how he was SUCH a threat to us(yea right). $20,000 to the palestinian families who have lost sons and daughters as suicide bombers....its about freaking time someone supported the Palestinian people.... too bad it was by a bad guy in a crude way... Its a threat to our ally. If you feel we should just step on our allies then you really are like Kerry. Do not call others ignorant when you think the war was fought just to line the pockets of someone. PS Are you saying its good to sponsor terrorist? Its good to pay these people to Kill the jews? Israel is not going out and killing random palestinians, they are going after the terrorist leaders to attempt to stop palestinians from killing them. You should also not call anyone ignorant when you link israel to the terrorists.

PeOfEo

10-07-2004, 11:26 PM

Reli4nt

10-07-2004, 11:26 PM

Someone mentioned to me that Bush is very religious and that he supports the Israelis to such a degree because according to the Bible the Jews have to be in the Holy land in order for Judgement Day to come.

Now I'm not anti-Israel, I don't think even the Palestinians would deny that the Jews have gotten the sh!t end of the stick for quite some time. But screwing over one group as compensation for another seems a bit absurd. The funniest part is how the Israelis speak so strongly against "terrorism" when their first leaders resorted to means like bombing a hotel full of Brits in an effort to chase them out!

What it boils down to is that the Jews are there now and they have been for along time now. Long enough for them to say it is their home, but not so long that the Palestinians can't claim it as well. It's a mess, no one has the answers and America keeps stirring up the pot.

I love this country and I am always amazed at how long its ideals of freedom have perservered, it took forever for minorities to get any measure of respect here but they have been able to make head way and I am proud of that. In my eyes it is not our reponsibility to police the world, I am no bleeding heart, but it is our responsibility to support benign government and to act as responsible members of the global community. So we should interfere in circumstances of genocide and institutionalized rape and so forth, and we should supprot the governments which oppose those violent oppressive regimes, but it is totally irresponsible of us, and a waste of our resources to try to tell people how they should govern themselves. We should support a communist regime if that is what the people of that nation choose. We should support an Islamic government if that is what they choose. The principles of freedom and not greed should be our governing motives in this world.

PeOfEo

10-07-2004, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by Reli4nt
Someone mentioned to me that Bush is very religious and that he supports the Israelis to such a degree because according to the Bible the Jews have to be in the Holy land in order for Judgement Day to come. we support israel because they are a democracy in the middle east. They are an anchor in that area. Plus they have been our friend since we estabilished them, we can't just let them wither.

Now I'm not anti-Israel, I don't think even the Palestinians would deny that the Jews have gotten the sh!t end of the stick for quite some time. But screwing over one group as compensation for another seems a bit absurd. The funniest part is how the Israelis speak so strongly against "terrorism" when their first leaders resorted to means like bombing a hotel full of Brits in an effort to chase them out! there is a difference when the miliatary goes after noncivilians then when people go after civilians.

What it boils down to is that the Jews are there now and they have been for along time now. Long enough for them to say it is their home, but not so long that the Palestinians can't claim it as well. It's a mess, no one has the answers and America keeps stirring up the pot. No one is kicking the palestinians out. The arab population in israel is something like 45% from what I last saw. No one said the 'palestinians' (there was never a palestine, before israel there was syria) had to leave, and they never did. They just do not like the jews.

I love this country and I am always amazed at how long its ideals of freedom have perservered, it took forever for minorities to get any measure of respect here but they have been able to make head way and I am proud of that. In my eyes it is not our reponsibility to police the world, I am no bleeding heart, but it is our responsibility to support benign government and to act as responsible members of the global community. So we should interfere in circumstances of genocide and institutionalized rape and so forth, and we should supprot the governments which oppose those violent oppressive regimes, but it is totally irresponsible of us, and a waste of our resources to try to tell people how they should govern themselves. We should support a communist regime if that is what the people of that nation choose. We should support an Islamic government if that is what they choose. The principles of freedom and not greed should be our governing motives in this world. We are acting now on a threat. We are going after terrorist states now so they do not end up hitting us in our back yard 10, 20, or 30 years down the road. We are also supporting our allies. 9/11 was an eye opener. If we overturn these regimes, the threat of something like 9/11 is much less because the terrorists have no firm base of operation, no training ground, and a substantial decrease in funds.

rhsunderground

10-07-2004, 11:34 PM

i have stopped following this thread. if it gets out of hand, please let jick and i know.

PeOfEo

10-07-2004, 11:36 PM

Originally posted by rhsunderground
i have stopped following this thread. if it gets out of hand, please let jick and i know. I come back after a day and 3 pages have gone by. I just sot of picked it up from where I left off ;). I promise to be civil and not call other people names like retard, moron, idiot, dumbass, ass hole, **** tard, dip ****, so on and so fourth. Being a mod I feel I have to do that much, but I cant make promises for others.

Jeff Mott

10-07-2004, 11:39 PM

by not being a muslim?Sorry, but the answer to the "Why do they hate us?" question is not nearly that simple. It is a lie (or distortion of the truth if you prefer) that we perpetuate so that we, as a country, feel better about ourselves. As you can clearly see above, some people (many people in fact) would much rather go on believing that we are completely innocent of any wrongdoings.

Reli4nt

10-07-2004, 11:48 PM

Originally posted by PeOfEo
I come back after a day and 3 pages have gone by. I just sot of picked it up from where I left off ;). I promise to be civil and not call other people names like retard, moron, idiot, dumbass, ass hole, **** tard, dip ****, so on and so fourth. Being a mod I feel I have to do that much, but I cant make promises for others.

Thanks man, I know we make it hard for you, but we appreciate that.

PeOfEo

10-08-2004, 06:21 AM

Originally posted by Jeff Mott
Sorry, but the answer to the "Why do they hate us?" question is not nearly that simple. It is a lie (or distortion of the truth if you prefer) that we perpetuate so that we, as a country, feel better about ourselves. As you can clearly see above, some people (many people in fact) would much rather go on believing that we are completely innocent of any wrongdoings. When you get right down to it the Muslim 'radicals' hate us because we are not a Muslim nation and have a different life style from them and because we support the Jews. Muslims have always hated the Jews. In fact even before Islam the Jews were hated by Arabs... I can go back in the bible and look all this up, but this is not a theological discussion. We did not provoke anyone to blow up the WTC though.

theuedimaster

10-08-2004, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by PeOfEo
When you get right down to it the Muslim 'radicals' hate us because we are not a Muslim nation and have a different life style from them and because we support the Jews. Muslims have always hated the Jews. In fact even before Islam the Jews were hated by Arabs... I can go back in the bible and look all this up, but this is not a theological discussion. We did not provoke anyone to blow up the WTC though.

Here's one for you:

When you get right down to it the Christian 'radicals' hate the Arabs because they aren't Christian and have a different life style from them and because they don't like anyone having differences with the Jews. Christians have always hated the Muslims. In fact even before Christianity the Muslims were hated by white people... I can go back in the bible and history books and look all this up... like the when the christians killed thousands of innocent Muslims in the crusades... but this is not a theological discussion and thousand age grudge war. They did nothing provoke the Christians to come and invade their land.

Just another perspective for you...

theuedimaster

10-08-2004, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by PeOfEo
You should also not call anyone ignorant when you link israel to the terrorists.

There are palestinian terrorists that use suicide bombers to blow up israelis. The israeli terrorists just use tanks and attack helicopters. You bet the israeli's are acting like terrorists. Killing innocent civilians left and right like a grudge war is unacceptable. If Israel is a civilized country, which it says it is, it is unacceptable for it to be killing tons of innocent palestinian civilians. I'll go find some numbers and post back.

theuedimaster

10-08-2004, 05:01 PM

Almost 1900 Palestinians have been killed since the start of the “al-Aqsa Intifada”, compared to almost 700 Israelis.

I know most of you argue that percentage wise, there have been more israeli deaths than palestinian deaths when considering non-combatants. You would argue that they both have killed about the same civilians, the palestinians are only more because israel has killed more combatants.

I would argue that a life is a life. I don't care if they guy is a soldier, or if the guy is a grocery store worker, their lives are worth the same. We constantly honor the 6 million Jews that were killed in the holocaust... but what about the 22 Million Russians in WWII!!! You might still argue that most of the russian casulties were soldiers......

Lets take into the WWII situation in Germany...... lets look at a BRIEF summary of a dead jewish man's life. He is born into a wonderful family of love and companionship. HIs parents love him and take care of him and loves the beauty of his new world. He reaches his first birthday, his parents are so proud. He grows up slowly, 2, 3, 4, 5 and he is already in school. He makes his friends and his parents are so proud of his progress. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10....he grows up even more, he goes through tempers, sadness, love, and fun. He hangs out with his friends after school...he may even like a girl..... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15...the kid is going through school. He has a girlfriend. He is having a good time with his friends. He is a star on the hockey team... his parents are so proud..... 16, 17, 18... he is captured by the Nazi's and sent to a concentration camp, and BOOM! He is sent into a human oven and is literally burned and vaporized to death. He has to pound the walls in agony as the skin rolls and burns off his body. A painful death.

Lets take into the WWII situation in Russia...... lets look at a BRIEF summary of a dead soldiers life. He is born into a wonderful family of love and companionship. HIs parents love him and take care of him and loves the beauty of his new world. He reaches his first birthday, his parents are so proud. He grows up slowly, 2, 3, 4, 5 and he is already in school. He makes his friends and his parents are so proud of his progress. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10....he grows up even more, he goes through tempers, sadness, love, and fun. He hangs out with his friends after school...he may even like a girl..... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15...the kid is going through school. He has a girlfriend. He is having a good time with his friends. He is a star on the hockey team... his parents are so proud..... 16, 17, 18... he is conscripted into the military, trained in a tank, sent to war, and BOOM! A panzer hits him dead on and his two legs and left arm are thrown into the forest. He lies on the ground breathing in agony, looking into the sky, as the blood slowly seeps into his lungs and drowns him to death.

Their lives are much the same I argue.......how about some more.....

We argue that civilian lives are worth so much more than soldiers. To kill a civilian is much worse of dead than to kill a combatant....... Lets see about that....

Lets take into our situation in Iraq...... lets look at the effects of a dead soldiers. When he is announced dead on abc or cnn...we mourn at his demise. We cry at the heroism and patriotism he showed for us. Fighting for freedom and democracy and liberty.....Oh my gosh... we cry, we cry, we shout for the flag to put at half mast.....we lament at his death and honor his or her life.......

Then we find out two black guys were shot in a gas station in inner detroit. Oh. Too bad.. lets go back to our lives shall we?

See the great hypocritical behavior we enact? How can we say killing civilians is so much worse when we don't give a sh%t about them in our own country......you must see... a life is a life. I don't care how the person died, but the value of a life is immeasurable. Think about your own life. Think about how you could sum if up. You can't. It is priceless. It is immeasearuble. Multiply your life's value by 1000 to think of our American soldiers dead in Iraq. Multiply your life's value by 8000 to think of Iraqi civilians dead in Iraq. Multiply your life's value by 50,000 to think of the American soldiers lost in Vietnam. Multiply your life value by 3 million to think of the amount of Vietnamese we killed during the Vietnam War. Multiply your life's value by 6 million to think of the amount of Jews that were killed in World War Two. Multiply your life by 22 million... to think of the amoutn of Russians that were killed in World War Two. Immeasurable for all of them I say. You may say casulties are low and such... we may say Bush really considered about losing life before jumping to Iraq... but how could he really?

soccer362001

10-08-2004, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by theuedimaster
Here's one for you:

When you get right down to it the Christian 'radicals' hate the Arabs because they aren't Christian and have a different life style from them and because they don't like anyone having differences with the Jews. Christians have always hated the Muslims. In fact even before Christianity the Muslims were hated by white people... I can go back in the bible and history books and look all this up... like the when the christians killed thousands of innocent Muslims in the crusades... but this is not a theological discussion and thousand age grude war. They did nothing provoke the Christians to come and invade their land.

Just another perspective for you...
Actually its the other way around, Muslims hate Christians because they are not Muslims. The reason for the Crusades was to reclaim the Holy Land from the Muslims who had taken it over after the Roman Empire had started to collapes. And I would like to see where it says in the Bible that Christians hate Muslims. The Bible does say, "Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you."

theuedimaster

10-08-2004, 05:46 PM

Originally posted by soccer362001
Actually its the other way around, Muslims hate Christians because they are not Muslims. The reason for the Crusades was to reclaim the Holy Land from the Muslims who had taken it over after the Roman Empire had started to collapes. And I would like to see where it says in the Bible that Christians hate Muslims. The Bible does say, "Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you."

And I would like to see where it says in the Bible that Muslims hate Christians. The Koran most probably says something like, "Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you." It is a peaceful religion at base as is Christianity. Too bad radicals on both sides use the religions as reasons for their fights. And about the Crusades, it wasn't that simple. Believe me, there was a lot of hatred against the muslims and such. Go into it. You'll see. And the Christians were not "reclaiming" the holy land or what not. They were there for LOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time. Thousands and Thousands of years ago. Don't keep believing Christians are the good guys. You must admit that they have done wrong too, as did probably all the religious groups in the world. it is both ways soccer, both ways.

soccer362001

10-08-2004, 05:59 PM

Well the crusades were not just to reclaim the Holy Land. The fourth to be exact was to help the Easter Roman Empire to fight off the Muslims because they were attacking Constantinople, modern day Instanbul. No where in the Bible does it say the Muslims hate Christains, but it is evident because it is illegal for a Christian missionary to preach in a Muslim country. If fact if you do you will most likly be killed.

MstrBob

10-08-2004, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by theuedimaster
And I would like to see where it says in the Bible that Muslims hate Christians. The Koran most probably says something like, "Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you." It is a peaceful religion at base as is Christianity. Too bad radicals on both sides use the religions as reasons for their fights. And about the Crusades, it wasn't that simple. Believe me, there was a lot of hatred against the muslims and such. Go into it. You'll see. And the Christians were not "reclaiming" the holy land or what not. They were there for LOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time. Thousands and Thousands of years ago. Don't keep believing Christians are the good guys. You must admit that they have done wrong too, as did probably all the religious groups in the world. it is both ways soccer, both ways.

Okay, religion just provided some justification to the Crusades. Basically, you've got the moslem armies taking over and uniting a large area. They are threatening the Byzantine Empire, the surviving half of the orginal Roman Empire. The emporer asks Western Europe for help. The pope sees the chaos that is the middle ages. All these knights and lords running around slaughtering and destroying places. He rallies and sends these men to Byzantine Empire to more or less rid Western Europe of them. Now you have large armies of rowdy, violent knights and the Byzantine Empire is pretty much scared of them. Over successive crusades they simply go wild and take over and invade, and then get beaten back by superior muslim generals. The crusades were more or less just an excuse to become rich and gain honor in war, with the whole having a saved soul as a nice back up. Religion only served as justification...

As with these groups now. Yes the radicals hate us for not being Muslim. Of course, the rest of the more moderate arab population also likes the US for being so freaking involved and bossy in the region. Look at the majority, who aren't radical. Look at why they dislike us. They dislike us for getting involved with Israel. Because we are helping a group of foreigners who basically came in and took power. Palestinians, though still in Israel, are basically being confined to their towns or cut off by walls. And as Israel retalliates, they wind up killing civillians. Which incites the people. Which fosters hates and provides a breeding ground for new radicals. I don't know the answer to the Israeli problem, but why must we be involved? Israel itself, though it may be democratic, isn't the finest upholder of human rights. The best thing for the US is to withdraw.

And theuedimaster, I understand greatly what you say. Yes, of course human life is of the highest of values. It is numbing to think about it. But how can one deal with thousands, even millions of deaths? Deaths everyday? Death constantly, and all around us. Even with peace, it's inevitable. Sickness, age, accidents, it will happen. It is simply a condition of the mind. When under great stress, the human mind disconnects itself. How can massively injured people get themselves out of a life threatening situation and not feel anything? The mind disconnects itself. Like bacteria when the enviroment is hostile, the rest of the cell becomes an empty shell, and inside is a much smaller, still living section. The mind withdraws to preserve itself. In order to keep on living and going, numbing must happen. Can you remember pain? Sure, you can remember having pain. But can you remember it? If so, there wouldn't be many babies in the world. Of course, as terrible as it may sound, the lives start to have less meaning in our minds. If we thought of it that way, for every single death, we'd be totally crushed.

Reli4nt

10-08-2004, 10:27 PM

MstrBob you've got a good head on your shoulders.

One thing I find amazing about Israel is that their human rights record is pretty poor yet they rarely make the papers. Our media is not the unbiased entity it needs to be. We never hear of the raping, torture of Palestinians by the Israelis. I heard only a small blurb once about an incident where Jews were asked to donate blood and they throw out all the blood donated by the black/Ethiopian Jews. Just threw it in the trash like it was filthy.

I think war, and death in and of themselves are an intergral aspect of the human condition and not the main problem. Things get nasty when greed and needless suffering enter the equation. There is a need for balance in the world, and today there is very little.

Reli4nt

10-08-2004, 10:30 PM

For the record, I think balance isn't about homogeneity but rather about diversity. The capacity to agree to disagree is seldom evident throughout our history.

PeOfEo

10-09-2004, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by theuedimaster
Here's one for you:

When you get right down to it the Christian 'radicals' hate the Arabs because they aren't Christian and have a different life style from them and because they don't like anyone having differences with the Jews. wrong. Christians do not hate people of other religions. I am not saying that evangelical christians are not pushy, but they are not going to go out and kill muslims. However in the Koran there are numerous verses that state the world will not end until the muslims consume or destroy the jews and the idoleters.
Christians have always hated the Muslims. In fact even before Christianity the Muslims were hated by white people... I can go back in the bible and history books and look all this up... like the when the christians killed thousands of innocent Muslims in the crusades... but this is not a theological discussion and thousand age grudge war. They did nothing provoke the Christians to come and invade their land.

Just another perspective for you... Dude, christianity was around because islam. So your point is total bs. The fact is that if you go back into the depths of the bible you have abraham, he had two suns, issac and ishmael. Issac was the chosen son and ishmael was not. Ishmael was cast out and was never supposed to have a religion come of his seed, but a great empire. The Arabs were decended from Ishmael and that is a major factor in why they hate the jews and consiquently the christians who came from the jews.

PeOfEo

10-09-2004, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by theuedimaster
There are palestinian terrorists that use suicide bombers to blow up israelis. The israeli terrorists just use tanks and attack helicopters. You bet the israeli's are acting like terrorists. Killing innocent civilians left and right like a grudge war is unacceptable. If Israel is a civilized country, which it says it is, it is unacceptable for it to be killing tons of innocent palestinian civilians. I'll go find some numbers and post back. No. The israelies are not going out into the streats and purposly going after innocent palestinians. Is that what your news sources are telling you? Find some other sources if so man. In war there are casualties. The Israelies do not try to kill innocent palestinians (why would they, if they did it blatantly the whole world would come down on them, they just want to defend themselves). They are just trying to kill the terrorist leaders to minimize their threat. There is a big difference.

PeOfEo

10-09-2004, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by theuedimaster
I know most of you argue that percentage wise, there have been more israeli deaths than palestinian deaths when considering non-combatants. You would argue that they both have killed about the same civilians, the palestinians are only more because israel has killed more combatants.

I would argue that a life is a life. I don't care if they guy is a soldier, or if the guy is a grocery store worker, their lives are worth the same. We constantly honor the 6 million Jews that were killed in the holocaust... but what about the 22 Million Russians in WWII!!! You might still argue that most of the russian casulties were soldiers...... okay so you are saying that its not okay to kill a palestinian even if he is planning on carring out an attack that would kill a bus load of innocent civilians. A life is a life right?

We argue that civilian lives are worth so much more than soldiers. To kill a civilian is much worse of dead than to kill a combatant....... Lets see about that.... but then you have the fact that the suicide bombers are taking 20 jews with them.

Lets take into our situation in Iraq...... lets look at the effects of a dead soldiers. When he is announced dead on abc or cnn...we mourn at his demise. We cry at the heroism and patriotism he showed for us. Fighting for freedom and democracy and liberty.....Oh my gosh... we cry, we cry, we shout for the flag to put at half mast.....we lament at his death and honor his or her life.......

Then we find out two black guys were shot in a gas station in inner detroit. Oh. Too bad.. lets go back to our lives shall we? Not every death in iraq is on the news. They just say 15 people died today, in other news. There is not a memorial to every dead soldier. Otherwise would would not have time for any other news. But every night I hear about local murders too, and its the same little blurb.

But here is a good example. The ramsey girl gets massive coverage, but on the same day a little black girl was killed in a hotel bathroom in the next state and received no coverage. That is our media for you. They want ratings. They will latch onto anything they think people can sympathise with the most.

In war we need to keep the innocent deaths to a minimum, as well as our own soldiers. But when it comes right down to it, the soldiers signed up to fight the war and they did so knowing there is a chance they could be killed in combat. The civilians did not. Do not give me stuff about oh this guy was in the reserves he did not join the army as a full time sodier. He signed up probably for college benefits, he is paying his dues by going to Iraq. He was unlucky that we went to war. Oh well. He knew that there is a pocibility that he could die in a war when he joined the armed forces.

See the great hypocritical behavior we enact? How can we say killing civilians is so much worse when we don't give a sh%t about them in our own country......you must see... a life is a life. I see no hippocracy. The soldiers made a sacrifice for a cause, the civilian got screwed in either case weather he was shot by a troop or another civilian. But the soldier made a choice to die for his country, that is why he is honored more. But the idea is to minimize the number of civilian casualties. In war its either kill or be killed, if you think every life is valuble so you do not kill the suicide bomber he is going to take out 20 others.

We went to war to keep this fight on the soil of another country so that we are not getting killed in our own. You would just say oh our troops are too precious to risk and let the terrorists just keep killing us? Without taking them out they would never stop, we would just keep on getting killed and the number would be far greater then 1000.

PeOfEo

10-09-2004, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by theuedimaster
And I would like to see where it says in the Bible that Muslims hate Christians. The bible was written before the founding of islam
The Koran most probably says something like, "Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you." It is a peaceful religion at base as is Christianity. But the Koran also has countess verses that say to the extent kill the nonbeliever. If you read the Koran as a fundamentalist you would see that it is telling you to go out and convert or kill anyone who is not a muslem.
Too bad radicals on both sides use the religions as reasons for their fights. And about the Crusades, it wasn't that simple. Believe me, there was a lot of hatred against the muslims and such. The crusaids were not geared to expand christianity, they were geared for lining the pockets of the catholic church.
Don't keep believing Christians are the good guys. You must admit that they have done wrong too, as did probably all the religious groups in the world. it is both ways soccer, both ways. No, it clearly is not.

PeOfEo

10-09-2004, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by Reli4nt
MstrBob you've got a good head on your shoulders.

One thing I find amazing about Israel is that their human rights record is pretty poor yet they rarely make the papers. Our media is not the unbiased entity it needs to be. We never hear of the raping, torture of Palestinians by the Israelis. I heard only a small blurb once about an incident where Jews were asked to donate blood and they throw out all the blood donated by the black/Ethiopian Jews. Just threw it in the trash like it was filthy. our media sucks. American media has a sort of elitism to it that say if it did not happen in the states it never happened. Our international news coverages is abysmal. That is why I often seek international sources. I look at the bbc, I have even watched some Israely news casts online and read some of their papers to get the Israely perspective... that is I read and watched the ones in english.

PeOfEo

10-09-2004, 01:15 PM

as for last nights debate, I thought it was really close, but I think bush won by 1% of my arbitrary rating system... the margin of error is 5%. So it was a dead heat. There were several things that I wish bush went after Kerry on more. I wish he had addressed that no bid contract halliburton bs more too. Also Kerry said "that is not the number" one time when bush said Kerry plans on spending this, I wish bush had then asking him what the number was, put him on the spot. Because it is certainly not less then the extra money he will get from slapping a massive tax on that top two tax brackets.

Reli4nt

10-09-2004, 03:44 PM

They both performed very well in last night's debate. I'm glad to see Bush finally took this thing seriously.

Pe of Eo, your opinion and mine on who won mean nothing because we're already partial and decided, but I know several people who were undecided until they saw last night's debate and they side with Kerry now. I hope you're rich cos that's where Bush's loyalties lie.

As for the Israelis, they had a very poor record when it comes to avoiding civilian casualties. They also have a very long history of limiting outside coverage and allowing outside media to view their actions. They are no less murderous with regard to civilians than the Palestinians. If anything they have become worse because they have the military might afforded them by us!

theuedimaster

10-09-2004, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by PeOfEo
The bible was written before the founding of islam

Excuse me sir, you THINK the bible was written before the founding of Islam. How do you really know? Maybe the bible was just a story book? Maybe there was no such person as Abraham and Adam and Eve. Don't assume everyone has the same BELIEFS as you.

Funny, eh? The Muslims and Arabs descend from the dude banished from God in the bible. Must be a freakin' coincidence. No, the christians and jews never had anything against muslims...........

And MstrBob, yea thats the dilemma you go through. It seems to much to think about sometimes. Maybe it is. However, I believe it will be something I keep fighting for. Its just something I have to do.

soccer362001

10-10-2004, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by theuedimaster
Maybe the bible was just a story book?
Don't make me bring my Bible teacher into this. 2 Timothy 3:16 says,"All scripture is God breathed and is useful teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness." The Word of God is also powerful. Hebrews 4:12 "For the word of got is living and active, sharper than any double edged sword. It penetrates even to the dividing of soul and spirit, joints and marrow, it judges the thoughts and attitude of the heart." As for proof that the Bible is true, the words "And God said" are found over 3,800 time in the Bible. The findings of the Hittite empire can also proove that the Bible is true. Oh and science does back it up.

steelersfan88

10-10-2004, 09:11 AM

Guys, I didn't expect us to stay on topic, but i expected a political discussion. How on earth did we get to the bible out of a debate?

Jeff Mott

10-10-2004, 10:10 AM

As for proof that the Bible is true, the words "And God said" are found over 3,800 time in the Bible.lol... the Bible is true because the Bible says so?

theuedimaster

10-10-2004, 10:57 AM

Believing in the bible is a meaning of faith my man. A person does not have to believe it if he or she doesn't want to. It isn't clear fact. You believing it is based on if you have faith in it. You can't use stuff in it as fact in an argument, unless you are in some Christian debate. I mean, in it, there is stuff like when the jews march around a fort however many times, and then it fell down by the power of god. If you believe in that, that is your faith. I don't have to. I think thats crazy. Its a matter of FAITH not FACT!!!

theuedimaster

10-10-2004, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by steelersfan88
Guys, I didn't expect us to stay on topic, but i expected a political discussion. How on earth did we get to the bible out of a debate?

Mr.PeofEo tried to back up a statement by saying "The bible said so".

steelersfan88

10-10-2004, 11:00 AM

Well, can we try to keep this in the direction of the debates? It would be helpful for those who are actually laughing at us argue politics, rather than those who are bored by biblical fights ...

Reli4nt

10-10-2004, 12:13 PM

amen to that

PeOfEo

10-10-2004, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by Reli4nt
They both performed very well in last night's debate. I'm glad to see Bush finally took this thing seriously.

Pe of Eo, your opinion and mine on who won mean nothing because we're already partial and decided, but I know several people who were undecided until they saw last night's debate and they side with Kerry now. I hope you're rich cos that's where Bush's loyalties lie. No, but I am a us citizen and that is where Kerry's loyalties are not.

As for the Israelis, they had a very poor record when it comes to avoiding civilian casualties. They also have a very long history of limiting outside coverage and allowing outside media to view their actions. They are no less murderous with regard to civilians than the Palestinians. If anything they have become worse because they have the military might afforded them by us! Okay, lets just tell Israel to stop defending herself.

PeOfEo

10-10-2004, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by theuedimaster
Excuse me sir, you THINK the bible was written before the founding of Islam. How do you really know? Maybe the bible was just a story book? Maybe there was no such person as Abraham and Adam and Eve. Don't assume everyone has the same BELIEFS as you. the koran was written in 800ad. That was well after the official canon of the new testament which happened in the 90s ad... John was still alive at the time of the canon of the new testament.

Funny, eh? The Muslims and Arabs descend from the dude banished from God in the bible. Must be a freakin' coincidence. No, the christians and jews never had anything against muslims........... its in the Koran too. Ishmael.

PeOfEo

10-10-2004, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by Jeff Mott
lol... the Bible is true because the Bible says so? You accep the bible based on faith. But I know that the bible is factual. I can see God working in my life when prophesies are fulfilled and I see my prayers being answered.

PeOfEo

10-10-2004, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by theuedimaster
Mr.PeofEo tried to back up a statement by saying "The bible said so". when did I do that? Quote me on it bud. You put those words in my mouth.

theuedimaster

10-10-2004, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by PeOfEo
Dude, christianity was around because islam. So your point is total bs. The fact is that if you go back into the depths of the bible you have abraham, he had two suns, issac and ishmael. Issac was the chosen son and ishmael was not. Ishmael was cast out and was never supposed to have a religion come of his seed, but a great empire. The Arabs were decended from Ishmael and that is a major factor in why they hate the jews and consiquently the christians who came from the jews. [/B]

There you go. A "Because the bible said so" post. Again, this is faith not fact. I doubt that we can trace the whole goddamn arabic race down to one person. H*ll no. Again, these are presumptions. Presumptions based on a scripture written thousands of years ago. Who really knows that they are the truth? No one does. You really do not have any proof. Those who believe take the choice of putting their heart and faith into it. But they really cannot prove that god exists. You might argue that "god is in everything. see all the miracles, they are gods work". I can argue that men can be lucky, and men can do great things. If you believe that it is gods work, it is your own OPINION!!! I can believe this is a story book if I really want to. You see, PeofEo, if you could of been born in India instead of in America, and you could of been Hindu. You would of believed in their respective holy book. Sir, do you have the balls to go up to 4 billion people and say that they are wrong? That their beliefs are sh*t? Because if you don't, they you accept the idea that you may be wrong. You must realize that you may wrong. There is always that possibility and that it was just a chance you were born into a christian family. The bible is not necessarily true. You give me some real facts sir.

steelersfan88

10-10-2004, 09:17 PM

Hey, watch the language. I'm just wondering ... if the Bible is made of written scriptures ... then how are we sure the rest of history is all fake, and it isn't fact.

I'll believe PeOfEo until you can prove he specifically made the "The Bible Says So" comment. As for this thread's direction ... we'll se about that. ...

theuedimaster

10-10-2004, 09:18 PM

Originally posted by PeOfEo
You accep the bible based on faith. But I know that the bible is factual. I can see God working in my life when prophesies are fulfilled and I see my prayers being answered.

Yours is a theory PeofEo. A belief. Not factual. Here is my theory.

If we automatically go to heaven after we die, our lives on earth would become unsubstantial. Therefore we must confront death and choose actions without eternal truth, and proceed through life in accordance with responsibility and love of life. We must do good because we must respect life and it is the right thing to do. That is our purpose. Everything revolves around our choice to prove the man has the power to live life and respect it. The bible is just a story book. It is not fact, just a moral teachings book. Why must I live a good life just to get a reward, a chance to go to heaven. It is absurd. I will live a life of doing good because it is the right thing to do.

I admit, this is my theory. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe there is a god. Maybe there is Allah. Maybe there are all those Hindu Gods. I don't know for a fact. The things above are my beliefs. Christianity is your belief. Existentialism is mine.

Being close to other ideas is being ignorant. Don't be life Mr.Bush. He did make mistakes. No human is perfect. He was so egotistic that he couldn't even admit them in the debates.See Steelers Fan! I connected it with the topic :) If I was asked I could tell you my mistakes. I have been lazy in highschool. I can do better. I should treat my mother and father better. I should study more for the SAT and ACT. If I could go back even today, I wouldn't play that computer game, I would of kept doing my essay. I make mistakes. You make mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes. That my friend, is fact. Are you bold enough to say thats wrong?

theuedimaster

10-10-2004, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by steelersfan88
Hey, watch the language. I'm just wondering ... if the Bible is made of written scriptures ... then how are we sure the rest of history is all fake, and it isn't fact.

Thats right. How are we sure? Quite a dillema isn't it. Will you accept it blindly? That is the question.

The fact is, that as time goes by, the facts are twisted and mutated. Remember, the winner is usally the one who tells the story. The point is, history is blur. We really don't know. What are you gonna tell me....the jews wrote the bible, or torah, i don't know, because the story was passed down generation to generation, or god told them while they were sleeping? Really, quite absurd. Usually people talk to god. Not the other way around. Wait, you say, god has talked to me. Go get yourself a straight-jacket. So tell me, what kind of voice did he have? Was it a man's or woman's? Or did it sound like a bird, or an elephant? Or did he talk to you in the actions around you. Maybe those happened because they did. Maybe there are no connections. Maybe you were just lucky.

Originally posted by steelersfan88 I'll believe PeOfEo until you can prove he specifically made the "The Bible Says So" comment. As for this thread's direction ... we'll se about that. ...

Sure, close it, it is causing me enough grief anyways. But first, you'll have to declare me, Reliant4, and others with the same ideas WINNERS!!!!! :) ;) I say we keep going.

theuedimaster

10-10-2004, 09:32 PM

Originally posted by steelersfan88
I'll believe PeOfEo until you can prove he specifically made the "The Bible Says So" comment.

If you read my post, (third one above this), you'll see where I site it. He basically uses scripture in the bible to support his opinion. A "bible says so" comment. It is implied. Give me your argument to what he said.

theuedimaster

10-10-2004, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by PeOfEo
Ishmael was cast out and was never supposed to have a religion come of his seed, but a great empire. The Arabs were decended from Ishmael and that is a major factor in why they hate the jews and consiquently the christians who came from the jews. [/B]

WOAH!! A BIBLE SAID SO ARGUMENT! A BIBLE SAID SO ARGUMENT! A BIBLE SAID SO ARGUMENT! ALERT!

PeOfEo

10-10-2004, 10:49 PM

Originally posted by theuedimaster
There you go. A "Because the bible said so" post. muslmis have hated the jews since their religion was founded. I was provinding some religious reasons. That is not a bible said so answer, that is what ie built into the religion of the jews and the muslims. Its not me saying oh the bible says this so it must be true, its what is in the koran that leads to islamic hatred of the jews. This is what is at the beginnign of the torah/old testamen and koranSir, do you have the balls to go up to 4 billion people and say that they are wrong? That their beliefs are sh*t? Because if you don't, they you accept the idea that you may be wrong. You must realize that you may wrong. There is always that possibility and that it was just a chance you were born into a christian family. The bible is not necessarily true. You give me some real facts sir. You miss the concept of faith. Its not worth it to argue about a matter of faith to you. If you were saved you would know it is right but you are never going to be saved if you keep fighting like this so you will never see the evidence of God working in your life.

PS: I was not born into a christian family. My parents are ani christian if anything. My dad hates my faith.

PeOfEo

10-10-2004, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by theuedimaster
Yours is a theory PeofEo. A belief. Not factual. Here is my theory. its not like I can prove it to someone who does not have faith, but it is factual. I know 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt that I am going to haven when I die, and that Jesus Christ made that possible by dying for my sins.

Bush admited he made mistakes in the last debate. But he is not going to say this this and this were mistakes especially at this time because hte other party would jump all over it. What exactly do you think that bush did was a mistake and why do you think it was a mistake. I want to hear your answers.

PeOfEo

10-10-2004, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by theuedimaster
If you read my post, (third one above this), you'll see where I site it. He basically uses scripture in the bible to support his opinion. A "bible says so" comment. It is implied. Give me your argument to what he said. No, giving biblical references is not what I base opinions on. It is just some background information as to why the muslims hate the jews, its built into their religion. That was what I was trying to explain and you don't seem to get that. Want a Koran says so argument?

Paul Jr

10-11-2004, 12:15 AM

Originally posted by theuedimaster
If we automatically go to heaven after we die, our lives on earth would become unsubstantial.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say we automatically go to heaven after we die.

MstrBob

10-11-2004, 12:21 AM

Okay, whoah here. First off, no, as a Catholic, I can tell you that the Bible, word for word, is not 100% correct. However, the Bible does contain certain proven facts. By dating, science can prove that Judaism came before Christianity, which came before Islam. Mohammad accepted many Jewish and Christian ideas. The Islamic faith views the Jewish and Christian faiths as being inline with them. They believe that they are correct, however that Mohammad was the last prophet.

And, NO, the Muslims did not hate the Christians and Jews from the beginning. In fact, as the Islamic empire expanded, Jews and Christians were given special tax breaks and were greatfully excepted by the Muslims. They Muslims have no issue with the Jewish and Christian faiths. The Arabs today dislike us for more modern, political reasons. They dislike the Jews because they came in, pushed off the Arab residents, and have killed so many Muslims (Justified or not, there's been too much death). They dislike the Christians for helping the Jews. Actually, not the Christians or Jews. They dislike Western Europe and America. There hatred is political, not religious. Only the radicals use it as an excuse.

Do not be so quick to dismiss the Bible. One must dissect the Bible carefully, both in matters of faith and fact. The Bible contains much factual evidence, and much exagerrated or misunderstood instances used to teach faith. Taking the extreme that the Bible is 100% correct, or 100% wrong are both blind and ignorant.

Paul Jr

10-11-2004, 12:33 AM

Originally posted by MstrBob
Okay, whoah here. First off, no, as a Catholic, I can tell you that the Bible, word for word, is not 100% correct.
I don’t see how you can say that an be anymore correct than I or theuedimaster. I have, for the most part, grown up in a Christian family. The only person who was actively involved in my life and not a Christian was my father. However, I have been preached to almost my whole life, and it continues today (much to my dismay). Frankly, the only “proof” anyone has ever given me is, “well the Bible says this…” or something to that effect.

MstrBob

10-11-2004, 12:51 AM

Correct on what? Does the entire Arab population descend from Ishmael? I personally am unsure. He is, however, a religious figure, as is Abraham and Isaac. In the end, however, the Bible does contain certain, proved facts. For instance, the Israeli people were once enslaved by Egyptians. The exodus, I don't know how true much of it is. It's more to teach about the faith. However, they were removed from being enslaved. There was a nation of Israel. It did split. There were wars. The two Jewish countries were invaded and certain people exiled. They were taken over by Romans. The key Apostles are known to have existed, and well before the Islamic faith. These are certain facts, that even athiestic scientists will admit too. Trying to say that Islam was founded before Christianity is absurb and has no scientific backing.

Despite my faith, I require hard proof to believe most things. I'm not one to jump on the bandwagon easily. I don't say "Well, the Bible says so..." I believe certain things the Bible says are true because science say they are true. The rest I can look beyond and see it for the religious lesson it's trying to get across. If you don't know by now, I'm a moderate. I find that taking either extreme most generally puts you on the wrong side.

Paul Jr

10-11-2004, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by MstrBob
Correct on what?
You say, “as a Catholic, I can tell you that the Bible, word for word, is not 100% correct.“ So how can you say that and be anymore correct than we (theuedimaster, me, and many others) are when we say something different? What makes the statement any more true when you say it?

soccer362001

10-11-2004, 07:49 AM

Originally posted by MstrBob
Okay, whoah here. First off, no, as a Catholic, I can tell you that the Bible, word for word, is not 100% correct. However, the Bible does contain certain proven facts. By dating, science can prove that Judaism came before Christianity, which came before Islam. Mohammad accepted many Jewish and Christian ideas. The Islamic faith views the Jewish and Christian faiths as being inline with them. They believe that they are correct, however that Mohammad was the last prophet.

And, NO, the Muslims did not hate the Christians and Jews from the beginning. In fact, as the Islamic empire expanded, Jews and Christians were given special tax breaks and were greatfully excepted by the Muslims. They Muslims have no issue with the Jewish and Christian faiths. The Arabs today dislike us for more modern, political reasons. They dislike the Jews because they came in, pushed off the Arab residents, and have killed so many Muslims (Justified or not, there's been too much death). They dislike the Christians for helping the Jews. Actually, not the Christians or Jews. They dislike Western Europe and America. There hatred is political, not religious. Only the radicals use it as an excuse.

Do not be so quick to dismiss the Bible. One must dissect the Bible carefully, both in matters of faith and fact. The Bible contains much factual evidence, and much exage or misunderstood instances used to teach faith. Taking the extreme that the Bible is 100% correct, or 100% wrong are both blind and ignorant.
OK. If one piece of the Bible is wrong, does that not mean the entire Bible is wrong? I would like to see what part of the Bible you don't agree with. I believe that the whole Bible is true, and it was inspired by God.

MstrBob

10-11-2004, 11:10 AM

The Bible was inspired by God and written through entirely human authors. When God inspired them to write, did he endow them with the knowledge of the universe? No. Do I believe the world was created in seven days? No. Do I believe God's hand was involved in the ultimate shaping of the universe? Yes. In saying that the world and everything on it was made in seven days is incorrect. It is used, however, to illustrate the power of God and that he was involved in creation. I believe that the Lord works through more inconspicuous ways, he's not so blatently obvious. However, the fact remains that the Bible contains certain historical facts which can't be denied.

And Paul, perhaps I used bad wording. I, myself, even though I am a believing Catholic, believe the Bible to not be flawless. Being written by humans it is inherently flawed. It was inspired by God, not dictated. It's not a whole imagined story either. Taking either viewpoint is dangerous. You can't dismiss the entire Bible as false. Believing that the world wasn't made in seven days does not by any means falsify the entire Bible.

PhillMc

10-11-2004, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by theuedimaster
Excuse me sir, you THINK the bible was written before the founding of Islam. How do you really know? Maybe the bible was just a story book? Maybe there was no such person as Abraham and Adam and Eve. Don't assume everyone has the same BELIEFS as you.

Actually, the Bible was written before the founding of Islam. Texts have been found and carbon dating showed this to be true

As for the Bible being 100%, to the letter, acurate is unlikly. The Bible has been translated who knows how many times; anyone here that speaks more than one language knows that when you literrally translate a word or phrase, some of it's meaning is lost in the translation. But, I do believe, that the Bible is mostly correct.

On a side note; perhaps we should get back on to politics; relgious debates are often quite ugly.

Paul Jr

10-11-2004, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by MstrBob
Taking either viewpoint is dangerous. You can't dismiss the entire Bible as false.
I don’t believe a word of the Bible, and I don’t believe that God exists. If that makes me ignorant in some way, then so be it. I have my beliefs, and you have yours.

soccer362001

10-11-2004, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by MstrBob
The Bible was inspired by God and written through entirely human authors. When God inspired them to write, did he endow them with the knowledge of the universe? No. Do I believe the world was created in seven days? No. Do I believe God's hand was involved in the ultimate shaping of the universe? Yes. In saying that the world and everything on it was made in seven days is incorrect. It is used, however, to illustrate the power of God and that he was involved in creation. I believe that the Lord works through more inconspicuous ways, he's not so blatently obvious. However, the fact remains that the Bible contains certain historical facts which can't be denied.

And Paul, perhaps I used bad wording. I, myself, even though I am a believing Catholic, believe the Bible to not be flawless. Being written by humans it is inherently flawed. It was inspired by God, not dictated. It's not a whole imagined story either. Taking either viewpoint is dangerous. You can't dismiss the entire Bible as false. Believing that the world wasn't made in seven days does not by any means falsify the entire Bible.
Because of the canonicity of the Bible, if one part of the Bible is wrong, the whole Bible is wrong. And as for the days of Creation, God created the universe in six days, not seven.

PhillMc

10-11-2004, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by Paul Jr
I don’t believe a word of the Bible, and I don’t believe that God exists. If that makes me ignorant in some way, then so be it. I have my beliefs, and you have yours.

That's one of the many wonderful things about this country. One has the right to believe whatever he wants. Other than political views, lol, you'll receive no judgement from me. :)

Paul Jr

10-11-2004, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by PhillMc
That's one of the many wonderful things about this country. One has the right to believe whatever he wants. Other than political views, lol,
lol, so true. :D

Originally posted by PhillMc
you'll receive no judgement from me. :)
Too bad I can’t say that for some people… (hint: it isn’t anyone here)

PhillMc

10-11-2004, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by soccer362001
Because of the canonicity of the Bible, if one part of the Bible is wrong, the whole Bible is wrong. And as for the days of Creation, God created the universe in six days, not seven.

That I do not believe to be true. The Bible has been translated and altered (Books removed) so many times that it is un-likely that it is 100% correct.

Take this for example.
Isaiah 9:3, the KJB says:

Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy ...

The NIV says:

You have enlarged the nation and increased their joy...

those two verses do not mean the same thing; even though they are the same verse, they are different translations.

Another example would be the verse John 5:4; in the NIV, this verse is missing. It also occurs in many other places, such as:
Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14.

Mark 7:16; 9:44; 9:46; 11:26; 15:28.

Luke 17:36; 23:17; John 5:4.

Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29.

Romans 16:24 and 1 John 5:7.

Whole books were removed during the Protestant Reformation by Martin Luther himself. You can see these missing books by comparing a Catholic Press Bible with any other Bible. Books such as the Book of Wisdom are gone.

The only true, completely accurate version of the Bible, both new and old testiments, would be the original one, written in Aramaic(sp?).