Presidential Debate

[Bobalouie 0]

I remember George bush and John Mcain condeming Russia for driving tanks into a different country? What did we do in Iraq? Why does George W. Bush and the Usa think they are responsible for what happens everywhere esle in the world and trying to be like police?

Did the Georgian leader massively torture and kill his own people like Saddam did? How can you even compare what Russia's doing to what USA did in Iraq? That's another gross distortion that Obama's electorate is so easily succeptible to.

Plus, don't forget that Iraq war was approved by the Congress, whereas Putin is hardly accountable to anyone in his decisions.

Also, did you hear what Obama answered to the question about USA having moral responsibility to respond to "what happens everywhere esle in the world"? He says the same big words as McCain does, only McCain is actually capable of following through, while Obama will go and shake hands with every little Fuhrer who decides to wage a genocide against a neighbor country or his own people. Go, vote for him, sure, he's so big on keeping his promises.

The Georgian President killed 2000 innocent russians mostly women and children that were russian. (they had passports ect.) That is called ethnic cleansing! This is what Georgia did! Russia responded! Sadam was hung for those cimes. When Russia invaded Georgia this was on russian news the georgian leader tried to commit suicide. His advisors stopped him! he is a radicalist. We wanted to go to Iraq before 9/11! The main reason oil! How do you justify that? They used 9/11 and the term terrrorist to scare people here saying we had to do it! People inside the bush administration have admitted this! So I see two similarites! In my opinion and its my opinion I thnk Russia was alot more justified invading Georgia then we were Iraq!

Man you are so far behind what has actually happened over there it is funny. You are using an argument that was refuted about a month ago. You need to read some more. Hell, the Russians arent even disputing the fact anymore that they were actually in Georgia a day before Georgia actually started shelling.

[Bobalouie 0]

If Serbs had attacked US peacekeepers in Bosnia and killed even one, it wouldn't have been an airwar against Belgrade. The USA would have occupied it, of that we can be sure.

From that perspective, the Russians even look a bit restrained: they didn't conquer all of Georgia.

Thats BS and you know it. The US lets its people get killed all the time all across the world with a limited response. The recent embassy bombings a few years ago got nearly no response. We didnt occupy Yemen after the USS Cole was blown up killing quite a few people.

[Blues Fairy 0]

How we treat our enemies says a lot about us as a civilization and as a people. We "extreme liberals" don't oppose the brutal torture of terrorists (especially "terrorists" who haven't even been charged) because we think it hurts their feelings, but because it hurts us as a society

Mox, I do not defend "brutal torture" of anyone, be it terrorists or child molesters, but the inane argument that terrorism is a relative notion just pisses me off. When some Muslim students in USA cheered and danced at the news of WTC bombing, was it a civilized thing to do to let them cheer because who knows, maybe they think USA is a terrorist country and we must "hear what they have to say"? Personally, I side with those who later caught these guys off-campus and beat the **** out of them.

[mox 298]

Mox, I do not defend "brutal torture" of anyone, be it terrorists or child molesters, but the inane argument that terrorism is a relative notion just pisses me off.

234 years ago a group of "terrorists" rose up against His Majesty and fomented rebellion against the Crown. Had those terrorists failed, they'd have all been shipped back to London where they would have no doubt endured weeks, months, or years of "enhanced interrogation techniques," and ultimately executed. But they won, and so history sees them as "freedom fighters" and "founding fathers."

Terrorism IS a relative notion. That's not to say I have any sympathy for Al Queda or their ilk, but it's much more complex than just "they are evil and must be stopped."

When some Muslim students in USA cheered and danced at the news of WTC bombing, was it a civilized thing to do to let them cheer because who knows, maybe they think USA is a terrorist country and we must "hear what they have to say"? Personally, I side with those who later caught these guys off-campus and beat the **** out of them.

In this country we have the right to express our thoughts and opinions, as horrible and unpopular as those words may be. And although we may not like or support what someone says, it is imperative that they be allowed to speak. This is how Democracy works. Shut down the speech of someone because you are offended by what they say and maybe someday your own words will also be shut down. You may very well support the violence done to those students, but someday it may be you who is on the wrong side. What then?

What lessons were these students to learn from their beatings? Do you think this changed their minds, or do you think it just made a mob of unthinking cretins feel better about themselves for a few minutes? More importantly, I wonder how much more entrenched in their ideas these students became, and how much more likely they are now to act on their feelings because of this violence done to them personally?

[Blues Fairy 0]

234 years ago a group of "terrorists" rose up against His Majesty and fomented rebellion against the Crown. Had those terrorists failed, they'd have all been shipped back to London where they would have no doubt endured weeks, months, or years of "enhanced interrogation techniques," and ultimately executed. But they won, and so history sees them as "freedom fighters" and "founding fathers."

Terrorism IS a relative notion.

Your notions are totally mixed up. Terrorism, by definition, includes ideological acts deliberately targeting civilians and intended to perpetrate FEAR among the nation, to achieve certain political goals. How on Earth you manage to stretch this notion to include the Founding Fathers with their warfare of military against military, I just cannot fathom. Rich imagination indeed.

What lessons were these students to learn from their beatings? Do you think this changed their minds, or do you think it just made a mob of unthinking cretins feel better about themselves for a few minutes?

Are you mad?! People were outraged at the tradegy and even more outraged at the unbelievable reaction the guests of this country were displaying, and you call them "a mob of unthinking cretins"?

And what lesson would those students learn if people just ignored their dancing and invited them to further elaborate on their views? That would only bring them to the conclusion that the "enemy" is weak and can be trampled upon any time, without any danger of retribution. Bonne route, Mox, embrace the terrorists, teach them the values of your civilized world. Like they would ever care.

[mox 298]

Your notions are totally mixed up. Terrorism, by definition, includes ideological acts deliberately targeting civilians and intended to perpetrate FEAR among the nation, to achieve certain political goals. How on Earth you manage to stretch this notion to include the Founding Fathers with their warfare of military against military, I just cannot fathom. Rich imagination indeed.

Merriam-Websters Dictionary: terror: violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>

Oxford has a similar definition, but their online service isn't free and I'm too lazy to type it in by hand. The point being that terrorism isn't just about targeting civilians. We consider, for example, the attack on the Pentagon on 9/11 to be an act of terrorism, and it most certainly was a government/military target.

The comparison of our founding fathers as terrorists isn't my idea. Many scholars throughout history have made this comparison, back before terrorism got to be the buzz-word it is today. The Boston Tea Party was considered an act of terrorism in its day.

Are you mad?! People were outraged at the tradegy and even more outraged at the unbelievable reaction the guests of this country were displaying, and you call them "a mob of unthinking cretins"?

I'm gonna have to go with "yeah." You know what beating those students up did? It made them martyrs. Soldiers and civilians have probably died because of it. That's why I call them a mob of unthinking cretins. Because they didn't think about the consequences of their actions past the simple joy of beating some dumb ignoramus to a pulp.

And what lesson would those students learn if people just ignored their dancing and invited them to further elaborate on their views? That would only bring them to the conclusion that the "enemy" is weak and can be trampled upon any time, without any danger of retribution. Bonne route, Mox, embrace the terrorists, teach them the values of your civilized world. Like they would ever care.

Can you honestly say that violence has taught the enemy that we are strong? Do you see them cowering in fear? The insurgence in Afghanistan is as strong as its been since we invaded. The Iraqi insurgency is nowhere near crushed. Global terrorism is on the rise, and there are more madrassah's being built in Iraq and Afghanistan this year than there were total before we invaded. It is because of our so-called show of strength in Iraq that the US is perceived as weak.

[Blues Fairy 0]

So what, in your opinion, subdues an enemy who is in the business of hijacking aircrafts and blowing up buildings? Gente talk?

Those students were first positioned as martyrs, sure, and the "mob of cretins" was summoned to court, but ultimately the judge heard the story and ruled in their favor. It's not all about the other side and their hurt feelings, Mox. Sometimes it has to be about OUR side and OUR hurt feelings.

Both your reasoning and morals are completely upside down, and I see no point in continuing this conversation.

[mox 298]

I see no point in continuing this conversation.

We are agreed on one point at least.

[slim 1,514]

I see no point in continuing this conversation.

We are agreed on one point at least.

Aw man.... I go out of town for one weekend to do some marksmanship and heritage "training" and look at all the fun I miss.

I actually cut and pasted about twelve posts from Blues... but each time... mox pretty well summed up my answers. Great job mox, and by the way, it's definitely time for you to get some marksmanship and heritage training as well. APPLESEED!!!!

I'll spark up the "debate" once more.....

So what, in your opinion, subdues an enemy who is in the business of hijacking aircrafts and blowing up buildings? Gente talk?

Violent armed response and swiftness of action. That's about the only thing that subdues enemies in businesses such as those. However, those actions are limited to reactions not pre-actions. If you go around the world and pick up everyone who's ever trained with a firearm or talked about blowing stuff up, held them without charge and/or trial, then you're not going to subdue anyone, you're only going to create more enemies.

Gentle talk is reserved for before they do something. Swift, violent action is response to their business.

Those students were first positioned as martyrs, sure, and the "mob of cretins" was summoned to court, but ultimately the judge heard the story and ruled in their favor. It's not all about the other side and their hurt feelings, Mox. Sometimes it has to be about OUR side and OUR hurt feelings.

Here's where you're just plain wrong, as are most people when it comes to things that cause extreme emotional response.

Basically it boils down to this..... if we take away the right of students to cheer at the death of Americans, even if in America, then someone can take away the right to cheer, period. Imagine a Super Bowl where you're not allowed to jump up and make noise for your team. Sure, that's an extreme example, but if we limit the rights of expression for one group simply because we as a whole do not approve of them then we limit our rights in the future. And worse, not only do we limit our rights but we willfully give them up.

This is why it's so important to protect basic rights. A small "innocent" looking the other way can turn into a large, unprecedented, erosion of all our rights. And it's so easy to do when it's something we disagree with very strongly. But, once it's "our turn" to be disagreed with, we no longer have the rights we took away from "those guys."

Both your reasoning and morals are completely upside down, and I see no point in continuing this conversation.

You really shouldn't continue this conversation until after you've read the Bill of Rights.

I find it simply amazing that people are so willing to give up their own rights, rights that were fought for and folks died to give us. Rights that we've come to ignore in the last couple of years simply because it was inconvenient to watch others exercise them or we found it "popular" to jump on the bandwagon of their erosion because that's what everyone else was doing.

I'll sum up very simply and plainly - If we don't protect the rights of those we disagree with, then we lose our right to voice our own oppinion.

[mox 298]

I actually cut and pasted about twelve posts from Blues... but each time... mox pretty well summed up my answers. Great job mox, and by the way, it's definitely time for you to get some marksmanship and heritage training as well. APPLESEED!!!!

I've been to the range about 3 times with my new pistol and am really enjoying it. First time I went it felt awkward in my hands, but by the end of that day it felt pretty natural. By the third time it just felt like a natural extension of my hand. It's a great little gun!

You really shouldn't continue this conversation until after you've read the Bill of Rights.

Very much agreed on this, especially (addressing Blues here) since you're relatively new to the country and probably don't have a solid understanding of the foundations of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Although sadly enough I think most Americans don't have even a rudimentary understanding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

To be fair, I understand that your opinions are your opinions and you're not trying to ground them in Constitutional law, but just expressing your particular viewpoint. That's fair I guess, but then please state your views clearly and stop with the name-calling. If you think people who support the Bill of Rights are "extreme liberals," then you should probably know that the country you now call home was founded by "extreme liberals."

I find it simply amazing that people are so willing to give up their own rights, rights that were fought for and folks died to give us. Rights that we've come to ignore in the last couple of years simply because it was inconvenient to watch others exercise them or we found it "popular" to jump on the bandwagon of their erosion because that's what everyone else was doing.

I'll sum up very simply and plainly - If we don't protect the rights of those we disagree with, then we lose our right to voice our own oppinion.

Martin Niemoller's poem "First they came" should be required reading of all Americans:

When the Nazis came for the communists,

I remained silent;

I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,

I remained silent;

I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,

I did not speak out;

I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,

I remained silent;

I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,

there was no one left to speak out.

[Bobalouie 0]

I actually cut and pasted about twelve posts from Blues... but each time... mox pretty well summed up my answers. Great job mox, and by the way, it's definitely time for you to get some marksmanship and heritage training as well. APPLESEED!!!!

I've been to the range about 3 times with my new pistol and am really enjoying it. First time I went it felt awkward in my hands, but by the end of that day it felt pretty natural. By the third time it just felt like a natural extension of my hand. It's a great little gun!

You really shouldn't continue this conversation until after you've read the Bill of Rights.

Very much agreed on this, especially (addressing Blues here) since you're relatively new to the country and probably don't have a solid understanding of the foundations of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Although sadly enough I think most Americans don't have even a rudimentary understanding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

To be fair, I understand that your opinions are your opinions and you're not trying to ground them in Constitutional law, but just expressing your particular viewpoint. That's fair I guess, but then please state your views clearly and stop with the name-calling. If you think people who support the Bill of Rights are "extreme liberals," then you should probably know that the country you now call home was founded by "extreme liberals."

I find it simply amazing that people are so willing to give up their own rights, rights that were fought for and folks died to give us. Rights that we've come to ignore in the last couple of years simply because it was inconvenient to watch others exercise them or we found it "popular" to jump on the bandwagon of their erosion because that's what everyone else was doing.

I'll sum up very simply and plainly - If we don't protect the rights of those we disagree with, then we lose our right to voice our own oppinion.

Martin Niemoller's poem "First they came" should be required reading of all Americans:

When the Nazis came for the communists,

I remained silent;

I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,

I remained silent;

I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,

I did not speak out;

I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,

I remained silent;

I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,

there was no one left to speak out.

I think the point that Blues is trying to make is that freedom of speach doesnt mean that if you say something offensive, in public, that you will not get your a$$ kicked. Those people had every right to dance in the streets here in America and show their solidarity for their people back home. No one should have told them that they cant. However, a warning of "you do it at your own peril" should have been included.

[Blues Fairy 0]

(addressing Blues here) since you're relatively new to the country and probably don't have a solid understanding of the foundations of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Rather arrogant of you to presume such things about me. Firstly, I've lived here before for an extended period of time; second, being a historian by education, believe me, I have a very good understanding of the concept of the Bill of Rights and the contexts where it can and cannot be used.

Your mistake (addressing Slim and yourself here) is that you try to apply the individual rights and freedoms guaranteed by Constitution to the specimens of indoctrinated collective mentality which overruns any individual values - irreversibly. That's usually the case with terrorists and their supporters. They are not cases of individual sociopathy (as in serial killers etc) which, sometimes, can be treated by therapy. It's a rational, organized collective warfare driven by hatred bred to the bone. Treating them as regular citizens entitled to the First Amendment is perilous and stupid; it's a losing position, considering their aim of instilling fear and undermining the morale of the nation. Here's a military analogy for you Slim: on the battlefield, if you see your enemy armed and ready to strike, would you, out of humanitarian considerations, wait for him to deal the first blow?

I would not, and I would rather beat up someone who cheers at the death of innocent civilians then wait for him to gather courage, seeing my wimpy reaction, and commit something more serious. I do not offer the other cheek.

[slim 1,514]

I think the point that Blues is trying to make is that freedom of speach doesnt mean that if you say something offensive, in public, that you will not get your a$$ kicked. Those people had every right to dance in the streets here in America and show their solidarity for their people back home. No one should have told them that they cant. However, a warning of "you do it at your own peril" should have been included.

Why should they have had the warning of "you do it at your own peril?" Common since should've told them that.

I have the right to free speech which means I can say anything I want about anybody at any time, but you will not catch me walking downtown yelling out that famous word that begins with the letter n. Why not? Becuase I have common sense (and common courtesy as well) and know that I say and do certain things, protected or not, that are at my own peril. (And downright disrespectful and should catch me an @$$-whoopin.) There are also "expressions" that are not protected such as yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater or being nude in public. There has to be a common sense applied to one's own actions and the expectations of the reaction of those witnessing the expression or speech. However, once again, if we limit the rights of some.... we take away the rights of all.

I'm not arguing whether or not they should've been dancing in the streets I'm simply saying they had the right to and even though we may have disagreed with them that still doesn't give anyone the right to lay hands on them. However, a reasonable person (which is 99% of the time used as the "generic term" by which a person's behavior should be based) should've expected emotionally charged people to react in a certain and even violent manner because of the manner in which they chose to exercise their rights.

The law usually supports the actions of "reasonable people" and that's why someone who punches and kicks another person for celebrating in the streets while watching the towers fall will be excused for their crimes where someone who beats up a convenience store owner in Detroit becuase he looks "of Middle-Eastern decent" (even though he's Indian) will be charged and sent to jail.

(addressing Blues here) since you're relatively new to the country and probably don't have a solid understanding of the foundations of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Rather arrogant of you to presume such things about me. Firstly, I've lived here before for an extended period of time; second, being a historian by education, believe me, I have a very good understanding of the concept of the Bill of Rights and the contexts where it can and cannot be used.

Obviously not.

I have no doubt you understand the rights outlined in the Constitution and through your education are completely knowledgeable of them. However, you seem to miss the context of where they can and cannot be used and more importantly, why.

Your mistake (addressing Slim and yourself here) is that you try to apply the individual rights and freedoms guaranteed by Constitution to the specimens of indoctrinated collective mentality which overruns any individual values - irreversibly. That's usually the case with terrorists and their supporters. They are not cases of individual sociopathy (as in serial killers etc) which, sometimes, can be treated by therapy. It's a rational, organized collective warfare driven by hatred bred to the bone.

Not true.

Do you know a lot of terrorists? And before you retort with, "well, do you?" I will answer that no I do not. Not personally. However, I have a pretty good education on terrorism/anti-terrorism, as I'm sure mox does as well, and I can tell you I've been to several of the "terrorist-supporting countries", as has mox, and have known many, many people from those countries and they've given me quite an insight into the "terrorists" there. For the most part, the "reasonable people" of every country the world over think terrorists are a bunch of crazies and want nothing to do with them. However, when you take poor, disenfranchised people, the world over, and ask them to support anything that will give them hope or help them build wealth, they overwhelmingly support it.

Don't believe me..... just ask Barack Obama. He's built quite a campaign on fear and ignorance. Are you going to tell me the American people are all supporters of terrorism?

And no, I don't believe they are. But, like you say, the "group mentality" is pretty easy to lob people into if you're looking for it. And then when you label that group mentality as something negative, something like "terrorist supporters" then all of the sudden everyone in that group, or that country is now part of it. In effect, you take away their individual rights and we cannot afford to do that simply because there is a group of individuals anywhere that we don't agree with.

If we don't grant them individual rights then we take away our own.

Treating them as regular citizens entitled to the First Amendment is perilous and stupid; it's a losing position, considering their aim of instilling fear and undermining the morale of the nation.

So what happens when, all of the sudden, Russian immigrants are instilling fear and undermining the morale of the nation? Should they not be afforded First Amendment rights?

Here's a military analogy for you Slim: on the battlefield, if you see your enemy armed and ready to strike, would you, out of humanitarian considerations, wait for him to deal the first blow?

This is what's so great about military analogies.... there are simple (military guys aren't always the smartest!) rules of engagement and when someone is armed, they're not considered under any type of "humanitarian" anything... they're considered a military target to be engaged and dealt with in a swift and violent manner.

Now, that said, once they're rendered incapable of fighting and/or no longer presenting a threat (either by being wounded, laying down their arms or surrendering, etc.) it is the soldier's duty to treat them in a humanitarian manner. Moreover (and you "extreme liberals" out there will love this one) it is LAW that the soldier must give them medical treatment and even protect them from further harm.... even if it's coming from their own side!

I would not, and I would rather beat up someone who cheers at the death of innocent civilians then wait for him to gather courage, seeing my wimpy reaction, and commit something more serious. I do not offer the other cheek.

So someone cheering in the streets about something they agree with emboldens them to commit violence against you because they view you as a wimp?

Do you honestly think anyone cheering in the streets of America that day was a terrorist? Do you honestly think they looked at the reactions of those around them and said, "OK, I think I'm going to give up my nice easy lifestyle here in the U.S. and start being a terrorist!"?

Or... do you think maybe, just maybe, they were tired of seeing America b!tch slap their home country and finally had the RIGHT to cheer when someone did something about it?

[mox 298]

Don't believe me..... just ask Barack Obama. He's built quite a campaign on fear and ignorance. Are you going to tell me the American people are all supporters of terrorism?

I think you misspelled "John McCain."

[slim 1,514]

Don't believe me..... just ask Barack Obama. He's built quite a campaign on fear and ignorance. Are you going to tell me the American people are all supporters of terrorism?

I think you misspelled "John McCain."

"America is a great place but we're going to make it so much better... you need more money and less taxes.... we're going to change the world...." You can pretty much insert any poitician's name in there during an election.

The point I'm trying to illustrate is when folks have nothing left they'll follow just about anyone that offers them hope. And that includes average Americans and anyone else around the world. Beleiving in something and supporting a cause, even if that cause includes a couple crazies, doesn't necessarily mean all those people are terrorists too.