14 yr. old suspended for... free speech?

[Sodacider]

Now don't get me wrong, I went through k-12 public and I know that some things are just wrong to bring up, like saying "i'm gonna shoot you." But this does NOT fall in that category.
--------------

NEW YORK — A 14-year-old New Jersey schoolboy — whose dad and stepdad are in the military — was suspended for five days because he drew a "patriotic" stick figure of a U.S Marine blowing away a Taliban fighter, officials said yesterday.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101569,00.html

I was literally just laughin at how stupid the school district is here. I drew **** like that all the time and got in trouble alot, and they said I'd understand when I was older.
Well I joined the military, learned about the Constitution, and had a damn fun time through all of it, and you know what? I still don't see why it's bad? In fact, I think it's very very healthy.


Scott said school officials may have been edgy because of an earlier incident in which other students had drawn a "very Columbine-ish" picture.

So that makes it ok to use blatant censorship?
And even on top of that, it doesn't even look like the kid did this in school. Looks more like he checked out his drawin in a computer class and showed it off.

Scott's mother said school officials described the drawing as "not the work of a normal mind."
omfg.

--------
in end, I know this'll make some democrats here mad, but what the **** have the so-called liberal movements in the school system brought? If multiculturalism also means nazism, count me the **** out.

[Ford Mustang]

Wow. That is sooo freaking rediculous. I can't stand the direction that our school systems are headed in this country. They are changing from schools and becoming more like prisons, if you ask me. The fact that someone said that this work was "not of a normal mind" or whatever really ****es me off. Whoever said that should be slapped in the face. Maybe they'll wake the hell up. :cuss:

[speedbuggy76]

I agree with you to some extent. I can somewhat understand the school's wariness of guns as the drawing does advocate guns to to some extent.. But I also agree with you that he has the right to free speech and I don't think he should be punished, maybe told not to bring stuff lke that to school as it just causes conflict. I also agree that the liberals are taking over the public schools so that they can promote their ideas to those who will be future voters. I'm sick of everything having to be politically correct.

[Typhoon Merc]

WOW.....

Damn maybe i shouldnt b pointing my fingers at a certain person....:watchout: ....and pretending to shoot them.....LOL

[Sheeyt]

I read this and almost fell off my chair. This is a direct result of liberalism via the NEA taking over the public school system. I seriously doubt if the kid was arab/muslim drawing a picture of a Taliban member "blowing away" a US Marine, it would've been framed and hung in the classroom.

[Master Gracey]

http://www.xboxaddict.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=79

[Master Gracey]

Originally posted by TheRightIsRight
I read this and almost fell off my chair. This is a direct result of liberalism via the NEA taking over the public school system. I seriously doubt if the kid was arab/muslim drawing a picture of a Taliban member "blowing away" a US Marine, it would've been framed and hung in the classroom.

Secondly, what on earth are you implying by that statement? Is there a single verifiable truth in what you said? What you said is nothing more than partisan slander of not only a political ideology (liberalism, not the Taliban), but also of an entire culture and religion.

[Sheeyt]

Oh please its widely known that the NEA is a liberal group. They didn't want schools to remember 9/11 on the anniversary, but instead teach students exactly why America was to blame for the incident. Secondly its also no secret that liberals in general dislike America. If they had to choose between America and the UN, well we all know who would rule this country.

If this kid was drawing a picture of a student killing another student that might be cause for concern. However the boys father is a marine for gods sake. If my son drew a picture like this I would applaud him and the school would feel my wrath for suspending him. Groups like the NEA want to stomp on peoples patriotism, in the name of tolerence.

I remember after 9/11 a teacher had created a game where students would climb a painting ladder to drop eggs on a huge blown up picture of Osama. That teacher was repremanded for misconduct saying that her actions could insight anger in the students towards muslims. Thats the biggest load of crap I've ever heard.

[Snake Eyez]

Another example of zero tolerance being used and not making any sense. The part that they need to elaborate on is "Officials said they were concerned because his drawing contained a reference to another student who they feared might have been a potential target. " Was that really there, or did they add it to make their decision seem more justified. From what I have read on the story, it doesn't seem like something I would suspend a student over. But some teachers seem to think that being an American is something to be ashamed of.

[Sheeyt]

http://www.nypost.com/photos/web10290317.jpg

Here is the kid holding up the drawing, all I have to say is. OMG HOW BRUTAL THAT STICK FIGURE MARINE IS!!!

[Yankeez]

Originally posted by TheRightIsRight
http://www.nypost.com/photos/web10290317.jpg



omg......:eek: its soooooo realistic












:rolleyes:

[Ford Mustang]

You're right. Zero tolerance is completely rediculous. In one of my magazines I read about a student who was expelled because he was pointing a chicken finger at another person. :huh: Is this how we want our educational system to be? A place where nobody can do anything that's not "politically correct?" And I shouldn't even get started on Political Correctness. I think I'd end up running in circles screaming with my hair on fire.

[yeszir]

Thats the most ridiculous thing Ive ever heard. If that were me I'd be fighting the school like none other, they cant do that!

[CarGuy]

Why do you guys care?? For all you know the kid could grow up and beat his wife or be a serial killer. You dont even know him, i'm sure justice will be served. It's not the end of the road for the kid.

[Sheeyt]

Its an infringment on the kids freedom of speech.

[Snake Eyez]

Originally posted by CarGuy
Why do you guys care?? For all you know the kid could grow up and beat his wife or be a serial killer. You dont even know him, i'm sure justice will be served. It's not the end of the road for the kid.

It's the principle that these things are going on in our schools. It can't be good when things like musical chairs, tag, dodge ball, and cowboys and indians have been banned in our schools.

[ghost 009]

Originally posted by CarGuy
Why do you guys care?? For all you know the kid could grow up and beat his wife or be a serial killer. You dont even know him, i'm sure justice will be served. It's not the end of the road for the kid.

I drew that stuff all the time and the entire frekin world is stupid. On mtv they showed the wtc buildings collapse but wouldn't show a Disturbed video (which had nothing to do with 9-11). So what its reality and its time to step up to it. Marines kill taliban and old people at schools annoy the **** outta me! It wasn't even meant to be realistic.

[ghost 009]

Originally posted by Snake Eyez


It's the principle that these things are going on in our schools. It can't be good when things like musical chairs, tag, dodge, and cowboys and indians have been banned in our schools.

ya good point, their turning the kids into homosexuals

[shapoopy]

what's this gotta do with freedom of speech

[Nameless]

Originally posted by Butterz

ya good point, their turning the kids into homosexuals
Thats the stupidest thing I've ever read...

I'm just gonna play devil's advocate here for a inute, if this kid had drawn a Taliban member wasting a USA Marine, how many would still say he was suspended for a stupid reason?

I'm only asking because the level of hypocricy when it comes to freedom of speech is amazing.

[Sodacider]

Originally posted by CarGuy
Why do you guys care?? For all you know the kid could grow up and beat his wife or be a serial killer. You dont even know him, i'm sure justice will be served. It's not the end of the road for the kid.

or more likely he could be a totally healthy guy who's influenced by his father bein in the military. woopty doo, he sure as **** didn't deserve this punishment

[ghost 009]

Originally posted by Nameless

Thats the stupidest thing I've ever read...

I'm just gonna play devil's advocate here for a inute, if this kid had drawn a Taliban member wasting a USA Marine, how many would still say he was suspended for a stupid reason?

I'm only asking because the level of hypocricy when it comes to freedom of speech is amazing.

I was only joking. And ya it would have been worse in many peoples eyes, but if they were just plain stick figures it wouldnt have mattered. He probally should've just gotten a lunch detention, wtf.

[Sodacider]

Originally posted by Nameless

Thats the stupidest thing I've ever read...

I'm just gonna play devil's advocate here for a inute, if this kid had drawn a Taliban member wasting a USA Marine, how many would still say he was suspended for a stupid reason?

I'm only asking because the level of hypocricy when it comes to freedom of speech is amazing.

uhh well the difference is that its an american school, and the whole situation was in response to an attack on america

on a further note, i'm as patriotic as anyone in the world, and had the guy drawn taliban shooting US, i'd take issue with it but I would not suspend him or take action if he was excersizing his freedoms. What he did was NOT threatening to the school, did not bring a direct threat whatsoever, and was totally healthy. But the messed up school system (which is messed up around the country) decides to go a step beyond and say 'its not a product of a healthy mind.'

no ****ing wonder they dont have enough teachers. this kind of continued action is actually what will likely stop me from pursuing becoming a school history teacher (which is what i'm shootin for in college right now). With some of the bull**** the NEA and California court systems are putting into play, I don't think I could morally feel right about teaching what they would expect me to teach.

[Sodacider]

oh p.s., your 'level of hypocrisy' statement has a big flaw in it
from your point of view, if someone is condemned for something thats being hypocritical

I certainly wouldn't appreciate if this guy was condemned. But that's not the issue--- the issue is, he was not only condemned but he was illegally punished for it.

If you'll notice all those people who are pro-peace anti-war, they aren't in jail right now. They aren't punished through federal means. The only thing that happens is they are treated as despicable people by a general population. That's totally in line with what democracy is.

[Nameless]

What I mean here is that whenever an issue of freedom of speech comes up and it involves pro-American ideas everyone is all for it, preaching about how ppls freddom of speech should not be violated. However, if a point of view arieses that is anti-American, lets use Johnny Depp calling America dumb, people say he should keep his mouth shut and not talk. How is that not hypocritcal?

[ghost 009]

He is a hypocritical because he makes millions of dallars off of our movies and then says something like that.

[Sodacider]

Originally posted by Nameless
What I mean here is that whenever an issue of freedom of speech comes up and it involves pro-American ideas everyone is all for it, preaching about how ppls freddom of speech should not be violated. However, if a point of view arieses that is anti-American, lets use Johnny Depp calling America dumb, people say he should keep his mouth shut and not talk. How is that not hypocritcal?

but the issue isn't whats being said
its the punishment for whats being said. It's basically saying, there's a legal penalty attached to excersizing free speech.

just as anti americans aren't punished (legally), pro american's aren't either. Johnny Depp hasn't been imprisoned or denied citizenship as a result of this. This kid, on the other hand, is getting a very literal punishment for his free speech.

What your saying relates to a popular perception, and whether its hypocritical or not (which I think it isn't), thats a whole separate issue.

[Nameless]

Oh I see what your saying now Sodacider, makes sense :cheers:.

He is a hypocritical because he makes millions of dallars off of our movies and then says something like that.
Thats not being a hypocrite. Just because someone makes money off of people doesn't mean they think much of them.

[lllSmokelll]

thats almost as retarded as my school

1 tardy = detention
2 tardies = in school suspension
3 tardies = at home suspension
4 tardies = *1 unexused absense, at home suspension, parents have to come in and meet with the principil


*Note: 4 unexused absences is a loss of credit in a class (in other words u get an F)

they are like "our school has a problem with tardies, and we're gonna fix that with this new plan.


they've also got this new plan for swearing, if a teacher hears u say any swear word its either an in school or at home suspension.

[Master Gracey]

So let's sum up the argument thus far, shall we...

1. This kid's rights are being infringed because he drew a picture of a Marine killing a Taliban.

2. His suspension would have been alright if he'd drawn a picture of a Taliban killing a Marine.

Noone sees the hypocrisy in this??? Are we to say that our lives are more valuable than theirs? I think his suspension was a good thing, because violence isn't going to stop until this world comes to the understanding that all human life is valuable and should be respected. One of my favorite lines about this came from the final season of Rowan Atkinson's '80s Britcom sensation, "The Black Adder," when Baldrick says "What if they called a war, and noone showed up?" So simple, yet so brilliant.

Violence only breeds violence. This isn't something that's inherent in human nature, either... tolerance, understanding and respect come from education. And that's what this kid got. Let's start breaking down ignorance, fear and hatred, for the good of all mankind.

[Sodacider]

umm see, i argued that his suspension would NOT be alright

and master gracey, I can see what your saying, but I think your totally flawed. we're a sovereign nation and have whatever right we want to dislike other peoples
this isn't one united world, its one united states that can say whatever it wants about the world.

[Sheeyt]

Master....oh forget it...it's pointless.

[Sodacider]

and now that i've read the SECOND half of your post, I think your even more messed up in your thought process

violence brings peace. if you haven't figured that out your a fool. read your history. Read ANY history.

just to take a random one, appeasement of Nazi Germany brought what? war costing millions of lives. World War II could have been just a couple weeks long had the French decided against appeasement and struck them down.

--
as for, are our lives more valuable? Well, our citizens lives are more valuable to our government. I have no clue why our government should take citizens of other nations into account unless its to bring our own citizens benefits. That's kinda how government works- it supports its people, not others. Not your ideological and foolish perception.

[Master Gracey]

Originally posted by Sodacider
and now that i've read the SECOND half of your post, I think your even more messed up in your thought process

violence brings peace. if you haven't figured that out your a fool. read your history. Read ANY history.

just to take a random one, appeasement of Nazi Germany brought what? war costing millions of lives. World War II could have been just a couple weeks long had the French decided against appeasement and struck them down.

--
as for, are our lives more valuable? Well, our citizens lives are more valuable to our government. I have no clue why our government should take citizens of other nations into account unless its to bring our own citizens benefits. That's kinda how government works- it supports its people, not others. Not your ideological and foolish perception.

Okay... where to begin. How about the beginning?

History is the best teacher anyone could ever ask for. People only think violence brings about peace because peace always follows violence (as violence always seems to follow peace). But what we should really do is look at history and learn from mistakes made. If we throw up our arms and proclaim that things can never change, then history is lost on us. We've failed as human beings if we can't learn from past mistakes. War, death and violence are nothing but mistakes... anomalies of the human condition. The only reason war takes place is when you get two sides who are too stuck in their ways to negotiate, or one side who takes things too far (like Hitler or Milosovic). In any case, war is failure. Saying that there's no other way is like giving up on being human, a complete loss of everything that makes us great as a species.

And as for America being able to do what it wants just because it's America, that's nothing more than an imperialist notion and a head-in-the-sand mentality. True, our government has to look out for the well-being of Americans before it can look out for the rest of the world. What good are they otherwise? But they shouldn't just ignore or taunt the rest of the world. Like it or not, our actions have effects on the global level, even moreso than other countries, being the world's lone superpower that we are. That gives us a unique responsibility to act with prudence and wisdom... our current administration uses neither.

While we're on the subject of our government caring for the people, I have to wonder what on earth they're doing pouring another $87 billion into Iraq when the economic situation is so terrible here at home. They need medicine and schools... great. So do we. Personally, I have a pre-cancerous stomach condition that I should be seeing a doctor for, and I should be on medication. But I'm uninsured, can't afford to see the doctor, and can't afford my medicine. Without treatment or needed surgery, I'm guaranteed to die within the next ten years (stomach cancer is the fastest, most painful cancer that exists). But can we have national healthcare? Of course not... that'd be against the American spirit of making the rich richer. But let's spend $90 billion bombing Iraq to the stone age, and then $87 billion giving them the healthcare denied to our own citizens. Looking out for Americans, my @$$... but my death will be okay so long as a few billionaires make more money for their instruments of death, and Halliburton gets that wonderful oil. Go USA!! :rolleyes:


EDIT - sorry about the tone on this one... I was finally eligible for health insurance on Nov. 1, and now I'm losing my job on Friday (Oct. 31).

[RagunCajun]

As for the kids getting suspended, i agree and disagree with it. But if it was a little kid that didnt know any better......well i dunno.

[dd deeznuts]

thats bull**** he should be able to speak his mind and not get in trouble cause i mean every body hates the taliban dont they

[Master Gracey]

One other thing I haven't mentioned yet... how come, when all the celebrities were coming out against the war and being trashed by the right, everyone on the right screamed out about how free speech has consequences? Then some kid draws a picture of what's nothing less than a murder, gets suspended, and all of a sudden his "rights" are getting trampled on. Where are those precious consequences now, eh?

I think I smell a double-standard... :watchout:

[Sodacider]

Originally posted by Master Gracey
One other thing I haven't mentioned yet... how come, when all the celebrities were coming out against the war and being trashed by the right, everyone on the right screamed out about how free speech has consequences? Then some kid draws a picture of what's nothing less than a murder, gets suspended, and all of a sudden his "rights" are getting trampled on. Where are those precious consequences now, eh?

I think I smell a double-standard... :watchout:

because celebrities can generally be assumed to have little or no education and do little or no work, whereas the kid is innocent of any of these issues, and I can attest to the fact his parents work damn hard for him.

[Sodacider]

History is the best teacher anyone could ever ask for. People only think violence brings about peace because peace always follows violence (as violence always seems to follow peace). But what we should really do is look at history and learn from mistakes made.
-Mistake: Letting Hitler gain a foothold and drive the world into a second Great War costing millions of lives. A pre-emptive strike would have cost less than 100,000 men and crushed Hitler's ability to move past the Rheinland.

If we throw up our arms and proclaim that things can never change, then history is lost on us. We've failed as human beings if we can't learn from past mistakes. War, death and violence are nothing but mistakes... anomalies of the human condition.
-And Communism should work, too? You are extremely naive in what you consider the 'human condition.' Men are naturally evil & ignorant, and society can only exist to correct that issue. The human condition does not 'naturally' do good.

The only reason war takes place is when you get two sides who are too stuck in their ways to negotiate, or one side who takes things too far (like Hitler or Milosovic). In any case, war is failure.
-Your totally ... wrong? War exists for so many reasons that are too complex to bring up. The First Great War wasn't started because Germany was 'set in its ways,' it was because a Communist rebel shot Archduke Ferdinand during a parade. Through cascading breakdowns and alliances, the war started. It wasn't just because 'differences couldn't be resolved between two countries' it was because of thousands of small social issues compounded into the most terrible war ever.

Saying that there's no other way is like giving up on being human, a complete loss of everything that makes us great as a species.
-So Saddam was really willing to negotiate, we should have just given him more milk and cookies? lol.

And as for America being able to do what it wants just because it's America, that's nothing more than an imperialist notion and a head-in-the-sand mentality.
-Hate to break it to you but there is only one superpower, and that is the United States. It's hardly 'head in the sand,' its just the opposite- a queue for us to get involved in every social issue in the world. Monroe Doctrine, read up on it before you post any more on the issue.

they shouldn't just ignore or taunt the rest of the world. Like it or not, our actions have effects on the global level, even moreso than other countries, being the world's lone superpower that we are.
-Your right. its a global economy, and I won't get a higher paycheck unless international relations increase free trade. Just as long as anything my government does serves to help us the citizens, I'm fine with that. I don't expect them to give a damn about other citizens.
Of course, then there are the Christian organizations which push for aid. I'll bet your anti-Christian, at least with the way you talk its kind of tonal. But in any case, they are the only reason we feed and take care of Afghanis right now, they are the only reason we do precision bombing as opposed to firebombing.
So both sides are served here. But the only reason we 'do good' to other people is because its the will of OUR people to play nice.

That gives us a unique responsibility to act with prudence and wisdom... our current administration uses neither.
-You don't have a clue what your talking about historically or sociopolitically, so your opinion on a current situation holds no weight. Again, read Monroe Doctrine, then follow up with Eisenhower and Kennegan.

While we're on the subject of our government caring for the people, I have to wonder what on earth they're doing pouring another $87 billion into Iraq when the economic situation is so terrible here at home.
-Christian organizations want it, and we want another friendly boon there. $87 billion is nothing more than a tiny ripple in the American economy, if you think it'll somehow hurt the US your ****ing dumb... Most of the contracts are with US companies, most notably Bechtel, the largest worldwide construction company.

They need medicine and schools... great. So do we. Personally, I have a pre-cancerous stomach condition that I should be seeing a doctor for, and I should be on medication. But I'm uninsured, can't afford to see the doctor, and can't afford my medicine. Without treatment or needed surgery, I'm guaranteed to die within the next ten years (stomach cancer is the fastest, most painful cancer that exists). But can we have national healthcare?
-First off, making it personal only shows your bias is less based on reality. If you aren't aware of the hippocratic oath, you can at least be aware that if you apply for government mandate you will receive it, and hospitals will be required to help you.

Of course not... that'd be against the American spirit of making the rich richer. But let's spend $90 billion bombing Iraq to the stone age, and then $87 billion giving them the healthcare denied to our own citizens. Looking out for Americans, my @$$... but my death will be okay so long as a few billionaires make more money for their instruments of death, and Halliburton gets that wonderful oil. Go USA!!
-So again your views are totally skewed simply by the fact its personal.

[Master Gracey]

Originally posted by Sodacider
because celebrities can generally be assumed to have little or no education and do little or no work, whereas the kid is innocent of any of these issues, and I can attest to the fact his parents work damn hard for him.

Oh... now you know the kid personally? And celebrities are stupid, but this kid is somehow wise and all-knowing because he drew a picture of a man blowing another man's brains out? Because he's the kid of a military family and is probably getting a head full of right wing dogma because of it? Because he's being encouraged into being a killer? Please...

-Mistake: Letting Hitler gain a foothold and drive the world into a second Great War costing millions of lives. A pre-emptive strike would have cost less than 100,000 men and crushed Hitler's ability to move past the Rheinland.

Wrong... a preemptive strike would have crushed France because Germany's army was already immense. Also, if France had done that, there probably would have been more countries coming to Germany's aid out of sympathy. They might have abandoned Germany after finding out their true plan, but that assistance at the start of the war could have made WW2 even more devastating.

-And Communism should work, too? You are extremely naive in what you consider the 'human condition.' Men are naturally evil & ignorant, and society can only exist to correct that issue. The human condition does not 'naturally' do good.

Let's face it... this is a philosophical argument. I believe in the good of men, you believe men have no good. I'll never be swayed into thinking otherwise, and neither will you. Best to just drop it.

-Your totally ... wrong? War exists for so many reasons that are too complex to bring up. The First Great War wasn't started because Germany was 'set in its ways,' it was because a Communist rebel shot Archduke Ferdinand during a parade. Through cascading breakdowns and alliances, the war started. It wasn't just because 'differences couldn't be resolved between two countries' it was because of thousands of small social issues compounded into the most terrible war ever.

You just proved what I was saying... war only started because of a breakdown of negotiation, and because all sides were too stuck in their ways to accept compromise. In other words, closed minds. Open minds would almost never (I say almost never) resort to violence, because they're open to all possibilities. They weigh the good and the bad, always thinking about what's best for all, then pick the best solution. Gandhi resorted to hunger strikes to gain sympathy in getting the British out of India. Martin Luther King used passive resistance to break down racist policy. However, neither of these actions would have stopped the genocide in Bosnia... nothing more than military action would have saved those people. It's about finding the right solution to each problem. Bloodshed isn't always the first answer.

-So Saddam was really willing to negotiate, we should have just given him more milk and cookies? lol.

This is just ridiculous. Nothing more than right wing groupthink. We on the left don't, as much as your precious talk radio may tell you, think that Saddam was a swell guy. He was a brutal megalomaniac who had to be dealt with. It was the way he was dealt with that was the problem. And now, after the fact, with another $87 billion approved and another 130 lives lost since the official end of the operation, I believe we war protestors are being vindicated. It was, as we said, going to be more difficult, more bloody, and more costly than the Bush administration was letting on. And we still didn't catch him!!! Now, his previously secular speeches (he had a secular, not fundamentalist, government), have turned into calling for religious war... we just created another Osama!! And he's on the loose, just like Osama still is. Bush's war made the world safer, did he? But I guess that's alright, because Halliburton got a nice cut. And it was released last month that Cheney didn't give up 100% of his holdings in his former company. How convenient.

-Hate to break it to you but there is only one superpower, and that is the United States. It's hardly 'head in the sand,' its just the opposite- a queue for us to get involved in every social issue in the world. Monroe Doctrine, read up on it before you post any more on the issue.

I've read it, I don't agree with it. Manifest destiny is bunk. We don't have a god-given right to take expand forever, no matter what the Monroe Doctrine says. Nazi Germany thought they had a god-given right to expand as well... and you know where that little military adventure got them.

-Your right. its a global economy, and I won't get a higher paycheck unless international relations increase free trade. Just as long as anything my government does serves to help us the citizens, I'm fine with that. I don't expect them to give a damn about other citizens.
Of course, then there are the Christian organizations which push for aid. I'll bet your anti-Christian, at least with the way you talk its kind of tonal. But in any case, they are the only reason we feed and take care of Afghanis right now, they are the only reason we do precision bombing as opposed to firebombing.
So both sides are served here. But the only reason we 'do good' to other people is because its the will of OUR people to play nice.

So you don't care how we're perceived in the eyes of the world? You don't care that almost the entire world hates us? Guess what? That's only going to cause more instability and more bombs to be lobbed at US interests (and on US soil, I'll wager). We're the epitome of the playground bully, and it doesn't have to be that way.

Also, what does my religious affiliation have to do with anything?? Are my words anti-Christian because I don't believe in Republican dogma, or that the US is the greatest, or that the Christian god didn't give us the right to stomp on the rest of the world? We don't live in a theocracy, and religion has no place in our political decisions. I'm not taking away anyone's right to freedom of religion... they can practise whatever they want. It's this need to thrust it onto others that's truly disturbing.

-You don't have a clue what your talking about historically or sociopolitically, so your opinion on a current situation holds no weight. Again, read Monroe Doctrine, then follow up with Eisenhower and Kennegan.

I don't agree with you, so obviously I know nothing and nothing I say matters. It's bad enough you'd think this, but now you post it for all to see? That's just dirty. We disagree, yes, but that's no reason to start cutting down my intelligence. Different people see things through different eyes. I've read all the history you have, as well as it's social ramifications... I merely interpret it differently. That doesn't make me wrong, it doesn't make you wrong. So can we get past this petty remark?

-Christian organizations want it, and we want another friendly boon there. $87 billion is nothing more than a tiny ripple in the American economy, if you think it'll somehow hurt the US your ****ing dumb... Most of the contracts are with US companies, most notably Bechtel, the largest worldwide construction company.

What does Christianity have to do with anything??? I'm just not following this line of thinking. Why do we need their support? They're religious, the government is secular. And please... can you stop the name-calling? It's thoroughly undignified.

-First off, making it personal only shows your bias is less based on reality. If you aren't aware of the hippocratic oath, you can at least be aware that if you apply for government mandate you will receive it, and hospitals will be required to help you.

So in other words, the moment the actions of your government affect you personally, you lose all right to speak out about the actions of your government? That makes no sense... because of my situation, I follow that particular news very closely. Probably more closely than people who don't have to worry about it. Why should my words mean less just because I'm directly affected? According to this logic, the more you learn about something, the less qualified you become to speak about it, and god forbid you ever live through it personally! It just doesn't work.

[Sheeyt]

Oh man.....What a character. Celebrities have gone abroad and talked trash about their own country. Sorry, if people who understand that their is a force in the world that wants to see all Americans dead are offended by that. How cowardly can those liberal kooks in Hollywood be? They don't even have enough nerve to disrespect the nation that has made them famous, in that nation. They go to other nations to run their mouths. 9/11 changed alot of people's minds. So when someone who is an American wants to blast America for defending ourselves after 3k Americans have been killed people have a right to get ticked about that. One thing you've failed to mention is the fact that even though people where ****ed off that these morons said these things people still understand it's their right to be well....stupid and say...well even stupider things. However these people can't think they are indestructable, so when they say something stupid and someone wants to boycott their movies or music, that person has every single right to do that. The only double standard here is coming from the left. Who claim they support "tolerance," except when it comes to the right of a babies life, or for school vouchers, or for independent choice.

Oh as for as your economy babble maybe you should read the headlines.


Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984
Oct 30, 8:54 AM (ET)

By JEANNINE AVERSA

WASHINGTON (AP) - The economy grew at a scorching 7.2 percent annual rate in the third quarter in the strongest pace in nearly two decades. Consumers spent with abandon and businesses ramped up investment, compelling new evidence of an economic resurgence.

The increase in gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the economy's performance, in the July-September quarter was more than double the 3.3 percent rate registered in the second quarter, the Commerce Department reported Thursday.

The 7.2 percent pace marked the best showing since the first quarter of 1984. It exceeded analysts' forecasts for a 6 percent growth rate for third-quarter GDP, which measures the value of all goods and services produced within the United States.

The economy's recovery from the 2001 recession has resembled the side of a jagged cliff; a quarter of strength often has been followed by a quarter of weakness. But analysts are saying that pattern could be broken, considering increasing signs the economy finally has shaken its lethargy and is perking up.

Near rock-bottom short-term interest rates, along with President Bush's third round of tax cuts, have helped the economy shift into a higher gear during the summer, economists say. The next challenge is making sure the rebound is self-sustaining, they say.

Democrats, however, argue that the tax cuts contributed to a record budget deficit in the recently ended 2003 fiscal year and have done little to spur significant job growth.

Although the nation's payrolls grew by 57,000 in September - the first increase in eight months - the economy needs to add a lot more jobs than that each month to drive down the 6.1 percent unemployment rate, analysts have said.

The administration has argued that as economic growth improves, meaningful job creation will follow. Bush will be counting on that as he heads into the 2004 presidential election season.

In other encouraging economic news from the Labor Department, new claims for unemployment benefits last week dropped by 5,000 to 386,000, a sign that layoffs are slowing. U.S. workers' wages and benefits went up by 1 percent in the third quarter, up slightly from a 0.9 percent increase in the previous quarter.

Amid signs that the recovery is regaining traction, the Federal Reserve on Tuesday decided to hold a key short-term interest rate at a 45-year low of 1 percent. Super-low short-term rates may give consumers and businesses an incentive to spend and invest more, boosting economic growth.

Economists believe the economy will grow at a slower - but still healthy - 4 percent rate in the final quarter.

In the third quarter, consumers ratcheted up their spending at a brisk 6.6 percent annual rate. That was the biggest increase since the first quarter of 1988 and was up from a 3.8 percent pace in the second quarter.

Consumers in the third quarter spent lavishly on big-ticket items, such as cars, boosting such spending by a whopping 26.9 percent rate. And, they also spent briskly on "nondurables" such as food and clothes, which grew at a 7.9 percent pace, the strongest showing since the first quarter of 1976.

While consumers have been the main force keeping the economy going, there are more signs that businesses are starting to do their part.

Especially encouraging was the 15.4 percent growth rate in spending by businesses on equipment and software in the third quarter. That marked the largest increase since the first quarter of 2000 and was up from a 8.3 percent growth rate in the second quarter.

Sustained turnarounds in capital spending and in hiring are crucial to the economy's return to full throttle. Economists said business wants profits to improve and wants to be sure of the recovery's vigor before it goes on a spending and hiring spree.

The red-hot housing market, powered by low mortgage rates, also contributed to the strong showing on third quarter GDP. Investment on residential projects grew at a 20.4 percent rate, the biggest increase since the second quarter of 1996, and more than three times the 6.6 percent growth rate seen in the second quarter.

Federal government spending, which grew at a 1.4 percent rate, was only a minor contributor to GDP in the third quarter. Spending on national defense was flat. But in the second quarter, military spending on the Iraq war - which grew at a whopping 45.8 percent rate - helped to catapult economic growth.

A better trade picture in the third quarter also contributed to GDP growth.

But inventory reduction by businesses continued to be a drag on the economy and reduced third-quarter GDP by 0.67 percentage point. And a continuing reluctance by businesses to build up stocks suggest that executives remain wary of the rebound's staying power.

Sorry but the economy isn't an issue anymore so might as well drop that. Also notice how it says fastest growth since 1984 who was in office then....Oh that was Reagan. Also note how economists have said that GUESS WHAT Bush's tax cuts DID, I repeat DID help the economy.

[Casper]

Soda - this is going as a good debate, but please, cut out the personal attacks. It irks me to see debates between 2 members that are on different perspectives to start attacking other members that don't agree with them. If this was out in real life, you'd have fists start throwing, well, just call me the bouncer then cuz it's going to stop.

Thanks

[CarGuy]

What's ironic is both of you are unbelievably similar... So unwilling to accept your own ignorance.

[Duke]

Great points Gracey. And yeah, seriously, this stuff has made me stay away from political debates. Calling of names, and the assumption by at least one member that liberals have no morals, is just sheer idiocy.

While some of us are certainly not willing to admit the faults for our side, most liberals i know draw their opinions from all of them. We are willing to see our faults as well as those who are opposed to our views.

I'm just tired of this dogmatic bs. The worst part to me about 9-11 (aside from the obvious: lives lost etc.) is that it seems that so many conservatives chose to take Anne Coulter as thier new messiah.

We are not traitors, we have morals, we don't want to give Saddam milk and cookies.

Get this pointless bs out of your heads and realize that we are people the same as you. We're trying to make sense out of a crazy world. Just because we reach different conclusions doesn't make us any better or worse than you are. Debate the points fine. But dehumanize us? And then wonder where the nazi references come from? please.

And to end it. I've seen too many people making references to those hollywood types not knowing anything and that they should stay out of political debate. Many of them are the same people who made posts about how Arny should be gov. of CA. So, if a celebrity agrees, with you, then he should be in charge of a whole state. But if he/she doesn't, then they shouldn't even be voicing their opinion.

[Snake Eyez]

Gracey, I understand your point of view. You dislike the fact that so much money is going to Iraq, when we have problems here at home. Do you feel the same way about the $15 billion that is going to Africa. And what about the general aid that the US provides to other third world countries?

And like Casper said, people need to watch the personal attacks. We all know that everyone here is just a dirty commie.:D

I think you get the point of a joke.

[Sheeyt]

I don't think some people took Saddam seriously, may not have brought him milk and cookies but I think it was almost tempting. Especially with Sean Penn and Baghdad Jim McDermot.

Ann Coulter is a genius. She could easily be my messiah. I'm more then willing to say that there are faults on my side of the isle. However there are MORE faults on the other side.

Wasn't it the democrats who wanted America to disarm our nuclear weapons in the face of a threat from the USSR. Wasn't Al Gore leading the charge on that? Wasn't it Bill Clinton or ordered the botched attempt in Somalia, then tucked tail and ran when it didn't go right. Didn't Bill Clinton and Al Gore cut defense and intelligence spending? Was it Bill Clinton who through covert means sold advanced missle technology to Red China for campaign contributions? Wasn't it Bill Clinton who could've had Bin Laden arrested long before 9/11?

Since Kennedy when have democrats fought a war with the intent to win? After 9/11 these democrats talked about bipartisanship, as soon as Bush was ready to launch an attack on Afghanistan all of a sudden it was time to talk peace. How many American's have to die before we are allowed to defend ourselves? Bill Clinton allowed more then 50 Americans to die in a span of 8 years and 4-5 different direct attacks on Americans abroad. What did he do? Blew up some tents, bombed and asprin factory.

[Sodacider]

Oh... now you know the kid personally? And celebrities are stupid, but this kid is somehow wise and all-knowing
-I never claimed he was wise or all knowing, but I did claim he was innocent, which he is. You of all people should understand that concept, because it's the point I agree with you on- men aren't entirely evil, and there is a level of innocence until they are older.

Because he's the kid of a military family and is probably getting a head full of right wing dogma because of it?
-The reason I know his father's goin out of his way, or at least can safely presume it, is because I know the training his father went through. If his father was abusive or nonsupportive in any way, he would have been dishonorably discharged immediately. Seems brash considering work and family should be separate, but the Marine Corps is one of the most conservative 'citizen' organizations in the world.

Wrong... a preemptive strike would have crushed France because Germany's army was already immense. Also, if France had done that, there probably would have been more countries coming to Germany's aid out of sympathy. They might have abandoned Germany after finding out their true plan, but that assistance at the start of the war could have made WW2 even more devastating.
-When Hitler crossed into the Rheinland and Sudetenland, he literally had a cornfield army. Totally worthless- but the Rheinland and Sudetenland had no army whatsoever, so it was a guaranteed victory. France was impervious to retaliatory strikes because of it's Maginot line, and had France and Britain stopped the process of appeasement at the start, when Hitler crossed into the Rheinland, France alone could have easily crushed Germany.
Germany never had great forces, nor the morale to fight the war against France, until the spring a year and a half later- after the Germans spent an entire year building up to attack France.
On top of that, your belief that other countries would have seen France as the belligerent is false. Both Japan and Germany were becoming worldwide recognized as beligerents long before the war. America's Neutrality Acts of 1935, 1936 and 1937 were already preparing by giving thousands of destroyers and rifles to Britain.



You just proved what I was saying... war only started because of a breakdown of negotiation, and because all sides were too stuck in their ways to accept compromise. In other words, closed minds. Open minds would almost never (I say almost never) resort to violence, because they're open to all possibilities.
-No true democracy has ever gone to war with another democracy. Your right to that extent- rational nations simply avoid war. However, the world is still full of irrational nations that can't come to terms. It's not like everyone WANTS the Middle East to be a hellhole- they create that on their own with their autocracy-theocracy moronic rule. They, just like Russia of the early 50s, have to blame SOMEONE for their ****ty rule, so they blame the United States to justify themselves.


This is just ridiculous. Nothing more than right wing groupthink. We on the left don't, as much as your precious talk radio may tell you, think that Saddam was a swell guy. He was a brutal megalomaniac who had to be dealt with. It was the way he was dealt with that was the problem. And now, after the fact, with another $87 billion approved and another 130 lives lost since the official end of the operation, I believe we war protestors are being vindicated. It was, as we said, going to be more difficult, more bloody, and more costly than the Bush administration was letting on. And we still didn't catch him!!! Now, his previously secular speeches (he had a secular, not fundamentalist, government), have turned into calling for religious war... we just created another Osama!! And he's on the loose, just like Osama still is. Bush's war made the world safer, did he? But I guess that's alright, because Halliburton got a nice cut. And it was released last month that Cheney didn't give up 100% of his holdings in his former company. How convenient.
-Most of what your saying is ideological bull****. The only 'way' he was going to be dealt with was through military means. He was simply too much of a threat, given what we knew at the time of attack. As for the rest of your comments, they don't really relate and are just used to support a weak argument.

I've read it, I don't agree with it. Manifest destiny is bunk. We don't have a god-given right to take expand forever, no matter what the Monroe Doctrine says.
-I can guarantee you haven't. At least go google it before you call it Manifest Destiny, as that's an entirely different principle, and one that died out in the early 1900s.

So you don't care how we're perceived in the eyes of the world? You don't care that almost the entire world hates us?
-LOL. The most common misconception in the world is that everyone hates us!
Guess what? It's not true. The vast majority of nations support us... In fact, here's a rundown on the ones that don't- France and Germany (piecemeal only, not truly against us or for us), Iran, North Korea, Egypt (piecemeal only), and... hmm... That's what came from the top of my head.
Now you say, omg, almost everyone hates the US and what they stand for. Your thinking of localizations and pockets, not entire countries or even cultures. For instance:
Somalia, 1993, Black Hawk Down. Everyone assumes that an arabic nation like Somalia hates the US because of how they faught like rabid dogs, throwing themselves at our machine guns (and dying for it). However, if you look at any kind of map, and how that situation was even resolved, Farrah Aidid controlled the ONLY anti-American pocket of the entire country. As soon as Rangers left that one central district of Mogadishu, the next district over (controlled by a different warlord) was cheering them on and helping them however they could.
The "Islamic Street" is a separate issue. They hate the US because their leaders have to justify their rule, as I've stated. Look back to Kennegan's 'Long Telegram' from the Russian Embassy circa 1947- Turns out, the reason we couldn't give economic aid and influence the decisions of the Soviet Union was because Stalin was making his public believe we were the absolute enemy of the USSR. While this action was totally confusing to US leaders, who had just been allied with them during the Second Great War, it had rationale. Prior to the war, Stalin had been justifying his rule to his people, telling them they lived like ****, because they had to defend the homeland from Germany and Japan, the two belligerents that always had threatened them historically. Unfortunately, after the war Stalin could no longer justify his rule through that means as both Germany and Japan lay in complete ruins. In reality, the only center of power capable of striking Russia was the United States, so he created a vast propaganda campaign. Thus, he could justify the 30 million russians he killed during his rule, saying it was to defend the homeland.
If you haven't noticed, arabs live like ****. It's not because they have to, its because their governments don't want to invest money in their citizens when they get wealthy enough on their own. Education is virtually nonexistant in most countries save Saudi Arabia. These theocracies depend on propaganda campaigns to make the United States look like the great serpent, when, in fact, their own leaders are the issue.

So, further, before you accuse me of not caring about other people, I'll say this as I know it's been said before- the Iraqi people are far better off in the world they are headed to. Turkey has already been down this road, and they are doing incredibly well. The actions of the United States in this war have brought about a prospect of peace and already more peace than existed before, brought about the prospect of a pro-Western nation in the center of the most corrupt lands on the planet, brought about another country for free trade. Sure, it helps me because my paycheck will go up, but it also helps them, helps my country, helps my beliefs in Western ideals, and propagates society as a whole towards a more scientific and peaceful world.

-Also, on the note of 130 more lives lost, so the hell what?
You have no ground to speak on because you've never sacrificed for your country, given up your time in defense of the country, or put your life in serious risk for it. I'll tell ya something- everyone who's out there is a volunteer, they are doing their job the best they can, and dying in the most honorable way they can. I understand that you probably cant understand it, but you can't judge a serviceman if you haven't been one yourself.
On top of that, 130 lives is hardly justification to stop a war on behalf of millions. We aren't trying to be a weak and spineless country like France, we have to exert power. This is no Vietnam, as I'll wager you think it is, because in Vietnam more than 45,000 died. Heck, your argument will probably be that any human life is too valuable, but then you'd be missing the entire point that this is a just war.


Also, what does my religious affiliation have to do with anything?? Are my words anti-Christian because I don't believe in Republican dogma, or that the US is the greatest, or that the Christian god didn't give us the right to stomp on the rest of the world?
By saying you were tonally not Christian, your arguments try to use Christian ideals without giving recognition to where they are from.
Personally, I'm not so I'm obviously not condeming you for it. But you also have to recognize that christianity is the primary force pushing many of the good acts in the world, such as humanitarian aid campaigns.

[Sodacider]

We don't live in a theocracy, and religion has no place in our political decisions. I'm not taking away anyone's right to freedom of religion... they can practise whatever they want. It's this need to thrust it onto others that's truly disturbing.
-Ok, so we should stop the humanitarian aid campaigns? No more support of the Red Cross?
When you have a democracy that is mostly Christian, many of the policies are going to be inherently Christian oriented, as they have to appeal to the people. You would be foolish to say that the government has any right whatsoever to remove Christian actions from its policy. Those actions cover everything from economic aid to food packets.


We disagree, yes, but that's no reason to start cutting down my intelligence. Different people see things through different eyes. I've read all the history you have, as well as it's social ramifications...
-No, you haven't. You haven't supported any of your statements with anything more than you could have picked up on the history channel or from a high school textbook. Learn your stuff before making any kind of argument on history.
It has nothing to do with your intelligence, it has to do with the work put into learning it.

So in other words, the moment the actions of your government affect you personally, you lose all right to speak out about the actions of your government? That makes no sense... because of my situation, I follow that particular news very closely. Probably more closely than people who don't have to worry about it. Why should my words mean less just because I'm directly affected? According to this logic, the more you learn about something, the less qualified you become to speak about it, and god forbid you ever live through it personally! It just doesn't work.
-Hardly. You can't be a fair judge by any sense of the word if you are directly involved in what is being argued.
You'd be thrown out of any court system, and the argument you just used would be enough evidence to keep ya from ever gettin back in the court system again.

[dronezero]

violence brings peace.

war is peace
slavery is freedom
ignorance is strength

[Sheeyt]

Also, what does my religious affiliation have to do with anything?? Are my words anti-Christian because I don't believe in Republican dogma, or that the US is the greatest, or that the Christian god didn't give us the right to stomp on the rest of the world?

I find it offensive when an America denies America's greatness. My simple question is, what nation is better? And why haven't you moved there yet?

-No, you haven't. You haven't supported any of your statements with anything more than you could have picked up on the history channel or from a high school textbook. Learn your stuff before making any kind of argument on history.
It has nothing to do with your intelligence, it has to do with the work put into learning it

Actually school history books can be classified as a joke now, especially in CA. The liberals got their hands on the history books of CA and have butchered them to be more politically correct. Removed has been "founding fathers" because its sexist they are now referred to as "the framers." Gone are all references to Yacht's or upper class living. Simple reason why...Not everyone is rich. Removed was the use of terms such as "senior citizen" because it's offensive to the elder. Instead they are called "older people." So it's easy to become confused when reading a liberal history book, lord knows what is real and what is fantasy.

[Sodacider]

Originally posted by dronezero
war is peace
slavery is freedom
ignorance is strength

I was hoping someone would catch that, even though its contrary to my argument :)

[Jafo232]

Hmm, thought we were supposed to be a more tolerant society these days. Judging from this article, I guess not.

[Sodacider]

Originally posted by TheRightIsRight
Actually school history books can be classified as a joke now, especially in CA. The liberals got their hands on the history books of CA and have butchered them to be more politically correct. Removed has been "founding fathers" because its sexist they are now referred to as "the framers." Gone are all references to Yacht's or upper class living. Simple reason why...Not everyone is rich. Removed was the use of terms such as "senior citizen" because it's offensive to the elder. Instead they are called "older people." So it's easy to become confused when reading a liberal history book, lord knows what is real and what is fantasy.

Yeah. And the issue is, textbook makers are pressured to conform to CA and TX standards since they hold the greatest share of the market... A textbook company that misses its goal of one of those two states is guaranteed minimal business until the next textbook cycle.
So the majority of textbooks on the market are aimed at CA, and that means school districts whether they are normal or not don't have much selection but to choose these 'multicultural' acceptance books.
In the end it's just a cycle for liberals to basically say that anything that is true about human nature isn't true, that everyone is made and born equal, that no culture is greater than another culture, etc.
But I think it's very safe to say that humans are naturally greedy- Capitalism's whole efficiency is based on that, and it's turned it into a good force.
I think it's safe to say that alot of people are born into better situations than alot of other people.
And most of all, I think it's safe to say that cultures and supercultures are better than others- American culture will always be superior to Hitler's Germany, and Western Culture will always be superior to Non-Western culture.
But that's a whole separate issue that... might deserve another topic.

[Sodacider]

p.s. for anyone wanting to check out the historical accuracy on this, I posted wrong on saying Kennegan.
actually I just meant Kennan.

Read: the Long Telegram, NSC-68 and Article X. These are all declassified documents, should be googlable.

The Long Telegram
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/coldwar/documents/episode-1/kennan.htm

Second, please note that premises on which this party line is based are for most part simply not true. Experience has shown that peaceful and mutually profitable coexistence of capitalist and socialist states is entirely possible. Basic internal conflicts in advanced countries are no longer primarily those arising out of capitalist ownership of means of production, but are ones arising from advanced urbanism and industrialism as such, which Russia has thus far been spared not by socialism but only by her own backwardness. Internal rivalries of capitalism do not always generate wars; and not all wars are attributable to this cause. To speak of possibility of intervention against USSR today, after elimination of Germany and Japan and after example of recent war, is sheerest nonsense. If not provoked by forces of intolerance and subversion "capitalist" world of today is quite capable of living at peace with itself and with Russia. Finally, no sane person has reason to doubt sincerity of moderate socialist leaders in Western countries. Nor is it fair to deny success of their efforts to improve conditions for working population whenever, as in Scandinavia, they have been given chance to show what they could do.

Falseness of those premises, every one of which predates recent war, was amply demonstrated by that conflict itself Anglo-American differences did not turn out to be major differences of Western World. Capitalist countries, other than those of Axis, showed no disposition to solve their differences by joining in crusade against USSR. Instead of imperialist war turning into civil wars and revolution, USSR found itself obliged to fight side by side with capitalist powers for an avowed community of aim.

Nevertheless, all these theses, however baseless and disproven, are being boldly put forward again today. What does this indicate? It indicates that Soviet party line is not based on any objective analysis of situation beyond Russia's borders; that it has, indeed, little to do with conditions outside of Russia; that it arises mainly from basic inner-Russian necessities which existed before recent war and exist today.

At bottom of Kremlin's neurotic view of world affairs is traditional and instinctive Russian sense of insecurity. Originally, this was insecurity of a peaceful agricultural people trying to live on vast exposed plain in neighborhood of fierce nomadic peoples. To this was added, as Russia came into contact with economically advanced West, fear of more competent, more powerful, more highly organized societies in that area. But this latter type of insecurity was one which afflicted rather Russian rulers than Russian people; for Russian rulers have invariably sensed that their rule was relatively archaic in form fragile and artificial in its psychological foundation, unable to stand comparison or contact with political systems of Western countries. For this reason they have always feared foreign penetration, feared direct contact between Western world and their own, feared what would happen if Russians learned truth about world without or if foreigners learned truth about world within. And they have learned to seek security only in patient but deadly struggle for total destruction of rival power, never in compacts and compromises with it.

It was no coincidence that Marxism, which had smoldered ineffectively for half a century in Western Europe, caught hold and blazed for first time in Russia. Only in this land which had never known a friendly neighbor or indeed any tolerant equilibrium of separate powers, either internal or international, could a doctrine thrive which viewed economic conflicts of society as insoluble by peaceful means. After establishment of Bolshevist regime, Marxist dogma, rendered even more truculent and intolerant by Lenin's interpretation, became a perfect vehicle for sense of insecurity with which Bolsheviks, even more than previous Russian rulers, were afflicted. In this dogma, with its basic altruism of purpose, they found justification for their instinctive fear of outside world, for the dictatorship without which they did not know how to rule, for cruelties they did not dare not to inflict, for sacrifice they felt bound to demand. In the name of Marxism they sacrificed every single ethical value in their methods and tactics. Today they cannot dispense with it. It is fig leaf of their moral and intellectual respectability. Without it they would stand before history, at best, as only the last of that long succession of cruel and wasteful Russian rulers who have relentlessly forced country on to ever new heights of military power in order to guarantee external security of their internally weak regimes. This is why Soviet purposes most always be solemnly clothed in trappings of Marxism, and why no one should underrate importance of dogma in Soviet affairs. Thus Soviet leaders are driven [by?] necessities of their own past and present position to put forward which [apparent omission] outside world as evil, hostile and menacing, but as bearing within itself germs of creeping disease and destined to be wracked with growing internal convulsions until it is given final Coup de grace by rising power of socialism and yields to new and better world. This thesis provides justification for that increase of military and police power of Russian state, for that isolation of Russian population from outside world, and for that fluid and constant pressure to extend limits of Russian police power which are together the natural and instinctive urges of Russian rulers. Basically this is only the steady advance of uneasy Russian nationalism, a centuries old movement in which conceptions of offense and defense are inextricably confused. But in new guise of international Marxism, with its honeyed promises to a desperate and war torn outside world, it is more dangerous and insidious than ever before.

It should not be thought from above that Soviet party line is necessarily disingenuous and insincere on part of all those who put it forward. Many of them are too ignorant of outside world and mentally too dependent to question [apparent omission] self-hypnotism, and who have no difficulty making themselves believe what they find it comforting and convenient to believe. Finally we have the unsolved mystery as to who, if anyone, in this great land actually receives accurate and unbiased information about outside world. In atmosphere of oriental secretiveness and conspiracy which pervades this Government, possibilities for distorting or poisoning sources and currents of information are infinite. The very disrespect of Russians for objective truth--indeed, their disbelief in its existence--leads them to view all stated facts as instruments for furtherance of one ulterior purpose or another. There is good reason to suspect that this Government is actually a conspiracy within a conspiracy; and I for one am reluctant to believe that Stalin himself receives anything like an objective picture of outside world. Here there is ample scope for the type of subtle intrigue at which Russians are past masters. Inability of foreign governments to place their case squarely before Russian policy makers--extent to which they are delivered up in their relations with Russia to good graces of obscure and unknown advisors whom they never see and cannot influence--this to my mind is most disquieting feature of diplomacy in Moscow, and one which Western statesmen would do well to keep in mind if they would understand nature of difficulties encountered here.
Trust me that was as hard for me to read as any of you, but essentially what that says (and what I'm comparing with pan-arabism) is:
The Russian propaganda towards the US, saying it was a great evil, had nothing to do with the United States at all. Intsead, it had to do with needing a reason to justify the unjust rule over their people. In reality, very few Russian leaders had any idea what was going on outside the borders, and could only use the U.S. as a scapegoat to cover their own shortcomings.

[Sodacider]

Originally posted by TheRightIsRight
Sorry but the economy isn't an issue anymore so might as well drop that.
To support your statement...

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/CNBCTV/Articles/Dispatches/P64803.asp

[Nameless]

Originally posted by TheRightIsRight

I find it offensive when an America denies America's greatness. My simple question is, what nation is better?

Canada :cheers:.

[Sheeyt]

:huh: In their dreams.

[Nameless]

Originally posted by TheRightIsRight
:huh: In their dreams.
Canada is great.

[Frink]

Originally posted by Master Gracey


Oh... now you know the kid personally? And celebrities are stupid, but this kid is somehow wise and all-knowing because he drew a picture of a man blowing another man's brains out? Because he's the kid of a military family and is probably getting a head full of right wing dogma because of it? Because he's being encouraged into being a killer? Please...Gracey, I don't always agree with all of your posts, but they are always a joy to read and now you bring this in. I think you may have just topped my most offensive posts list. As a good amount of people know, I was brought up in a military family (father being in the Air Force). I can't say that I've ever been encouraged to be violent in any form (actually it was one of the most strongly discouraged things) and thus have never been "encouraged into being a killer". I've never had any belief shoved down my throat, I've always had the right to choose what I'd like to believe. You may be anti-military and that's fine, but stereotyping the entirety of military families is by no means correct.

[Master Gracey]

Originally posted by Frink-XBA
Gracey, I don't always agree with all of your posts, but they are always a joy to read and now you bring this in. I think you may have just topped my most offensive posts list. As a good amount of people know, I was brought up in a military family (father being in the Air Force). I can't say that I've ever been encouraged to be violent in any form (actually it was one of the most strongly discouraged things) and thus have never been "encouraged into being a killer". I've never had any belief shoved down my throat, I've always had the right to choose what I'd like to believe. You may be anti-military and that's fine, but stereotyping the entirety of military families is by no means correct.

Actually, the quote about "encouraged into being a killer" was in reference to the drawing he drew, and had nothing to do with him being in a military family. I've known people who grew up in military families who were wonderful people, and I've known people who grew up in military families that were the complete opposite. Everyone is different and there's nothing absolute in life. So if I seemed to be lumping everyone into a category, I apologise. It honestly wasn't my intent.

[Frink]

Originally posted by Master Gracey


Actually, the quote about "encouraged into being a killer" was in reference to the drawing he drew, and had nothing to do with him being in a military family. I've known people who grew up in military families who were wonderful people, and I've known people who grew up in military families that were the complete opposite. Everyone is different and there's nothing absolute in life. So if I seemed to be lumping everyone into a category, I apologise. It honestly wasn't my intent. Yeah, I was talking to you right after you made the comment and reread what you said and realized I misunderstood it.

[Cottrau]

if his parents are military, it probably means he doesn't spend as much time with him as an early teen should.. and spends his time playing xbox and watching HBO... keep in mind New York and California are two hella politically correct states, and stuff like this always happens. He ****ed off the wrong person, and she had the last laugh.

[ghost 009]

Originally posted by Nameless
Oh I see what your saying now Sodacider, makes sense :cheers:.


Thats not being a hypocrite. Just because someone makes money off of people doesn't mean they think much of them.

No thats not what I said, I said he acts like he likes the us and makes millions of dollars here then said that.

[Sodacider]

Originally posted by Butterz


No thats not what I said, I said he acts like he likes the us and makes millions of dollars here then said that.

yeah he obviously didn't have the balls to say it before his movies came out, he had to wait until after he'd made most of the royalty money before sayin it.

[Sodacider]

here's a link to the pan-arabism argument supported by George Kennan
http://www.36echo.com/

yeah it's my own site, but I think its acceptable (not sure of XBA's rules) to post a link as long as it has to do directly with the topic?