[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Changleen
Oh, nice, more personal insults as a comeback.

kumbaya

Originally posted by Changleen
That's just great. Kill and destroy first, ask questions later. Brilliant. Well, good luck with that. I'm sure the war on terror will be over really soon...

you do know you're allowed to peek at my quotes, right? If you did, you would see that "kill & destroy first" has no bearing upon what i typed.

Originally posted by Changleen
OK, I don't need to, plenty of other sensible people have been doing it for me... Just take a look at March for a start!
Have a read of this for a start It starts in 2001 and goeas all the way through to the present day.

this doesn't support the first claim you made previously:

Originally posted by Changleen
"Instead Bush has ignored and repealed most of the decent environmental policy the US has ever created..."

your NRDC link is a red herring. You think you can bury me links? You think i won't ferret you out? You've sorely misjudged me. I like these bush "rollbacks" (from your provided link):

• EPA upholds Clinton decision to clean up diesel pollution
• EPA delays, then upholds, new rule protecting wetlands
• Sierra Nevada plan limits logging, grazing activities in California national forests
• Forest Service won't allow drilling in New York's Finger Lakes
• NRDC lauds EPA's rejection of efforts to scale back Hudson River cleanup
• EPA issues an arsenic-in-tap-water standard higher than that recommended by public health advocates
• DOE to fund biomass research
• Bush administration wants farm policy overhaul
• ...

ok, that's from just part of '01, and from a site which has an obvious agenda in mind. I thought that was supposed to help w/ your implied open & shut case. A case you made that he was going to gut a discrete set of "decent environmental policy the US has ever created". And what i want the most out of this - or any future - administration is to increase CAFE standards, not to reward exceeding them with a credit, or to categorize SUV's as light trucks.

Originally posted by Changleen
Seriously, it's well known (you practically admit it yourself) that Bush has been the worst Pres. for the Environment pretty much ever! Alaska:
Click here

anything that anyone writes which starts with "it's well known that..." raises a red flag w/ me.

Originally posted by Changleen
By 'cleverly' quoting from my point in different arguments? Hey look, If I cut and paste from what you've said I can make 'I am a sensible Libertarian' - which is clearly rubbish.

so, there is no hypocrisy in saying we should give equal merit (my interpretation of your point), except when you disagree & care to point out bias. I see. It's something like, "i voted for the 87 billion dollars, just before i voted against it". I guess it depends on the meaning of the word "is".

Originally posted by Changleen
Dude, The Geneva convention was written to govern the conduct of warfare between civilized nations. I don't think the people who wrote it were anticipating that the most technologically advanced army in the world would be invading a country with a GDP lower than many of it's medium sized businesses.

i see: the GC applies only between nations lacking troglodytes of GDPs within the same order. I never realised there was an evolutionary or fiscal rider to Protocol I of the geneva convention.

Originally posted by Changleen
Your argument is 'They didn't wear uniforms (they don't have a organised army or enough money to pay for them), so we don't have to obey the Geneva convention and can do what ever we like to them.' NICE! How utterly mature.

or, as i said before:

In order for the distinction between combatants and civilians to be clear, combatants must wear uniforms

did the placement of the prepositional phrase at the beginning throw you off? Let's try this (look ma, no hands):

combatants must wear uniforms in order for the distinction between combatants and civilians to be clear

isn't that clever of me? And what's this about lacking organization? And funding? You cannot be serious.

Originally posted by Changleen
I could argue that the Geneva convention states that since they weren't wearing uniforms, they clearly weren't soldiers, so what were you doing fighting them in the first place?

i would certainly love to see that tortured logic. Go on then.

Originally posted by Changleen
This would obviously be ridiculous, though, so one would expect that as a civilized country you would attempt to apply the principles of the Geneva convention where possible, such as the rights of Prisoners of War. However, it seems as though the US ignored these principals (see all the links I posted above, if you bothered to read them) and despite being the invading force, acted like , well, however the hell they wanted.

so all my specific replies to your links happen at random? Why are you wasting this LSD trip on the internet? Shouldn't you be whispering at horses or digging for more shrooms?

Originally posted by Changleen
...whereas all you do is avoid the argument and post a single link to the contents of the Geneva Convention, which you pick a single passage from, then attempt to use this one passage to justify your ignoring of all the rest of it and the principals on which it was founded. That is so full of sh*t I can't beleive it.

consider it doing you a favor to reduce to what's pertinent to the argument. It's your style to bury & hand wave, not mine.

Originally posted by Changleen
Please answer Yes or No to the following statements:

I believe that striking back at someone who has struck me is the correct way to proceed.

not yes, but hell yes. If you disagree, walk up to someone & try out your philosophy.

Originally posted by Changleen
I really believe that if my enemy is not wearing a uniform I am within my rights to treat them however I like, ignoring all principals of international law.

yet another red herring. How's about: "If i am seeking to prevent another attack, I would attempt to apply the principles of the Geneva convention where possible". Hmmm, looks a lot like something you posted.

Originally posted by Changleen
I believe it is OK that my country consumes 25% of the world's resources, despite only having 2% of the worlds population.

ahhh, i think we're getting to the root cause of it all: to each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities. Can't wait to see your avatar 20 posts from now. You know the phrase "useful idiots" & who coined it, ya?

Originally posted by Changleen
I believe that my president labeling three countries and 107 million humans as 'Evil' over and over again is helpful and constructive in international affairs.

i'll use my modus operandi by constructing your response, all from the whitehouse press release:

North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.

Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.

This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children

wait for it...wait for it....

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world

did you see a theme in the build-up? Evil government inflicting harm on its own people? I don't have the team roster for the AoE, but i'm sure it's far less (at the time of the SOTU) than 107 million.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by LordOpie
ditto!

I'm sorry for calling you a faeg... I love you too, please don't do that to us again. If we ever upset you again, we'll sacrafice Zod as an apology.

you know you're supposed to sacrifice the unspoiled, yes? and who's to say that isn't Zod in the pic? You know, "humpty dumpty was pushed" & all.

 

[Silver]

You guys have to narrow the scope of your arguments a bit.

I have a fairly good attention span, but damn....

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Silver
You guys have to narrow the scope of your arguments a bit.

I have a fairly good attention span, but damn....

she started it.

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by $tinkle
she started it.

Why I don't I start another gay marriage thread, and I'll smack you around there for a while?

 

[RhinofromWA]

Holy crap

Uh when did you guys stop making sense? On both sides?

Anyway I brought the stick for the PISSING CONTEST.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by Silver
You guys have to narrow the scope of your arguments a bit.

I have a fairly good attention span, but damn....

ditto

Originally posted by $tinkle
she started it.

haha... reminds me of my ex

 

[Changleen]

Originally posted by $tinkle
she started it.

The retort of a 4 year old...

Stinkle you really are a right wing idiot. You also seem to have selective vision.

your NRDC link is a red herring. You think you can bury me links? You think i won't ferret you out? You've sorely misjudged me. I like these bush "rollbacks" (from your provided link):

(posted about 7 items, most which are Environmental Protection Agency decisions, NOT Bush's and one which was later largley backtracked on, especially in regard to international access. Nice list, Dufus.)

How about:

USFS guts protections for undeveloped forest lands
NRDC sues Department of Energy to expose Cheney energy task force secrets
Bush administration shutting down Everglades restoration office
EPA may lift ban on human testing of pesticides
Bush backing away from pledge to clean up federal facilities
Bush administration considers disposing of radioactive waste in consumer products
Bush administration appeals federal judge's decision to ban drilling off California's coast
Bush seeking to weaken federal environmental enforcement
Bush outlines an 'all talk, no action' approach to global warming
Bush will open Gulf tract to offshore drilling; NRDC says drilling would threaten waters and beaches
Bush seeks to relax requirements of Endangered Species Act
Bush administration suspends the "contractor responsibility rule"
Bush administration rejects Kyoto Protocol
Bush administration delays hard-rock mining regulations that protect watersheds
Bush administration seeks to roll back Roadless Area Conservation Plan
Bush retreats from campaign promise to reduce carbon pollution
Bush seeks to open Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil development

So the link is a red herring is it? Bush has done nothing to harm the environment?

And you appear to still be maintaining that the US's treatment of prisoner it captured in Afghanistan was OK?

I'd love to go on, but frankly, since you are clearly so sure that your beloved leader is so righteous and benevolent, and won't even consider that maybe he might have made a few mistakes in foreign and homeland policy, I can't be arsed to talk to your dumb ass any more.

I will leave you with some suggestions:

Try watching news from other countries sometime.
Try considering the repercusions of your country's foreign policies beyond the next five minutes.

That's all. I'm going home now. Goodnight.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by Changleen
Stinkle you really are a right wing idiot.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by Changleen
I'd love to go on, but frankly, since you are clearly so sure that your beloved leader is so righteous and benevolent, and won't even consider that maybe he might have made a few mistakes in foreign and homeland policy, I can't be arsed to talk to your dumb ass any more.

You're new here, why not try to take some time to get to know people before jumping to conclusions. $tinkle doesn't think Bush is perfect, in fact, did you look at who started this thread and the first post?

Stop being a jackass and if you didn't come swinging about how our country is so fvcked up, maybe, just maybe $tinkle, et al. would share how we think our country is NOT perfect and how we'd like to make it better. But nooooooo, you have to continue with your garbage.

Well, ya know what Chang, you're mother's fat and needs a dental cleaning!

Makes ya a bit defensive, doesn't it? Perhaps when you return tomorrow, you can take a different approach?

 

[ummbikes]

Meow, hiss.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Changleen

Bush administration seeks to roll back Roadless Area Conservation Plan

Best thing he's ever done. That plan was wrong from the get go. Clinton tried to slide it through on his way out of office.

I spent quite a few nights in focus groups and informational meetings regarding that issue and I stand before you now and say:

"Thank You Mr Bush (and his lackies) For Challenging This Poor Law."

All it did was dissallow recreation other than hiking and remove any chance of forest maintenance (against fires etc) When this proposal sprouted, I sat on the motorcyclist side of the table. The plan would also eliminate all access to the wilderness. Allow dry tinder to build up and lay awaiting a spark (much like the plan being practiced now) This summer was pretty bad for large fires. North/Central WA had a nasty fire that burnt all summer. CA was hit real bad. I am sure there are many others. Now close down forest roads and let them wash out and decay so there is no infrastructure and the problem escalates because you can't get to it to fight it.

The Wilderness act was a good idea that had a poor/ special interest constructed plan. I am all for protecting the national forrests. Don't build house on it......but leave/maintain the roads, do spot burns (been doing them in WA since I remember), allow motorcycles horses hikers MTBr's on the land for recreation. A forrest unchecked will explode like they did this year....and probably more so next year.

Sorry that issue is personal to me. So I can get passionate about it.

I am for multi-use/access of the land....with proper management of the land. The wilderness act was Clinton's way of putting a upswing on exit from office and the Greenies way of getting mass exclusion for everyone but themselves.

Rhino

 

[charmin]

Originally posted by LordOpie
...you're mother's fat and needs a dental cleaning!

It's funny, I was sitting here thinking, I'm going to have to enter into the fray precisely because I thought the President was being insulted. Being President is not the easiest of all jobs and it is very difficult to please everyone.

However, what I think we all can accept as a given is that he is trying his best, and trying to do what is best for the country.

You don't have to like all his policies, and, in fact, there are ways you can influence said policies. It's easy to be a Monday morning quaterback (I *love* the Brett Farve commercial, where he's walking around saying how, if he was doing it he wouldn't have hit the water main, he would've double bagged it, etc.).

And I welcome and applaud Chang's willingness to discuss the issues, but would agree that the issues can be discussed in a respectful manner. So, that way, I don't have to be put in the horrible position of trying to find some defense for drilling in Alaska (if in fact they're doing that).

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by Changleen


What bothers me SO MUCH though, is George Bush's IDIOT policies, his obvious disregard for logic and your country and the world.

Look, what really bothers me is that America could be the greatest thing to happen to Planet Earth for a long time, but instead, under GW, it's turning the whole thing to ****. Sometimes I feel like he's TRYING to make enemies. What I also hate is that some people just refuse to see it. It's fine to love your country, it's fine to feel aggreaved by 9/11, it was an outrage no question about it, but PLEASE try and see the reasons behind it. Those guys didn't attack you for no reason, and what GW is doing about it IS NOT helping!

Ah... you ARE a hater... a hater, hater, hater...

You will be welcomed into the lib/Dim fold now...

Luckily for natives of this land, Algore couldn't manage to steal the election back in 2000.

 

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by N8
Ah... you ARE a hater... a hater, hater, hater...

You will be welcomed into the lib/Dim fold now...

Pot, meet Kettle.

 

[valve bouncer]

Tinkle remove your photo mate....not cool at all

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by valve bouncer
Tinkle remove your photo mate....not cool at all

smudged it out.
sorry to offend.

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by $tinkle
smudged it out.
sorry to offend.

didn't offend me, I've got a strong stomach, just the old NSFW thing.

 

[$tinkle]

top 'o the morn to ya, clancy!

Originally posted by Changleen
So the link is a red herring is it? Bush has done nothing to harm the environment?

at the risk of mollifying you, recall that my 1st post, and a couple subsequent posts specified my annoyance w/ current administration on the environment. i was not letting your blanket claims go unchecked.

Originally posted by Changleen
And you appear to still be maintaining that the US's treatment of prisoner it captured in Afghanistan was OK?

unequivocally

Originally posted by Changleen
I'd love to go on, but frankly, since you are clearly so sure that your beloved leader is so righteous and benevolent, and won't even consider that maybe he might have made a few mistakes in foreign and homeland policy, I can't be arsed to talk to your dumb ass any more.

again, evidence that you either cannot read or understand what i opened this thread with.

Originally posted by Changleen
I will leave you with some suggestions:

Try watching news from other countries sometime.

i like that one channel where they strip during the news.
do you have that?

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by $tinkle

i like that one channel where they strip during the news.
do you have that?

Mollifying?

Subsequent?

Unequivically?

Don't be bringin' yer fancy talkin' up in here.

I saw something on HBO about the Russian news show that is broadcast with naked people. It was quite revealing!

HAHAHAHA

Hmmm. I'm bored with vacation.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by $tinkle
i like that one channel where they strip during the news.
do you have that?

i get all my news from 'em and Daily Show.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Ummbikes
Don't be bringin' yer fancy talkin' up in here.

you're the one about to gradimate - i'm 2 yrs off, jejunely languishing in mediocrity.

Originally posted by LordOpie
i get all my news from 'em and Daily Show.

then you are well rounded - rubenesque even (not as much as your mom, though)

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Originally posted by manimal
pro guns. would you rob someone you knew was armed?

yeah!, i'll shoot first by surprise, take all the stuff later!. way easier.
just like they do in venezuela for example. venezuelans use to think that everybody having guns, would mean a safer place. WRONG, in caracas you get shot, before you get robbed nowadays. a few years ago, you were kindly asked to surrender with a gun, but not shot. i think i'd rather keep my life than a watch or going to jail for shooting a lowlife.

that everybody is armed had happened in other coutries before. all you get is more people dead and the same stealing-kidnapping rates. or robbers get AKMs, FALs or granade launchers. I know cuz we had a level 4 armored car 15 years ago, then robbers and kidnappers got military stuff and we were back to same point.
if in the first place, guns were more controlled, then we could have still roden a regular car, not worried about guys with AKM or elephant hunting rifles, but about guys with knifes of pistols.

in the attack-defense of cat and mouse game. the thief is always gonna have the edge. because if you get a knife, and the thief knows, the thief is gonna attack you with a pistol.
if you get a pistol, he is gonna have a rifle,
if you get a rifle, he is gonna get a rocket launcher plus 2 other guys.

 

[Changleen]

OK, I've had a weekend break now - I've been Dirt Jumping, calmed down a little. Sorry If I offended anyone last week, I was getting really stressed and pissed off by a lot of thinks at work, and a few news articles, and Stinkle provided a great service to me by allowing me to vent, repeatedly.

OK, New foot. Maybe we should get back to the point of this thread...

I am (as Stinkle described) a Euro-style 'centerist' - this doesn't mean I'm totally extremly leftist compared to you lot however, although it does seem I may be a little. Example:

One of the problems we have in the UK is the seperation and co-ordination of our public and prvate sectors. As you might know we have a public health service (The NHS) which is funded by our taxes and (basically) managed by the private sector. This really doesn't work. We have a similiar situation with public transport. The outcome of a public workforce being managed by private interests seems to be that the workforce gets sh*t on from a great height, and the whole system becomes innefficient, slow and problematic.

Therefore I am against public/private partnerships (PPPs) of this type, as they always seem to end up favouring the management and doing over the little guy. I favour the separation of Government and Business. I also favour 'small' government.

How does this relate to the US I hear you ask? Well, in my opinion your (I actually wrote 'our' then) current pres is almost totally in the pocket of Private concerns, making the US the biggest PPP ever heard of - and it seems to be having the same effect. Huge corporations are getting their way at the expense of your 'free market' (the US now has the 10th freeist market in the world, behind most of W. Europe and some ex. Sov countries inc. Estonia) and the values of your Pres seem to me to resemble very closely the vested interests of our time - Oil companies for one - a bad way to be especially in an area that so obviously requires extreme reform for the good of the planet.

Secondly, the welfare state - In my opinion most welfare state systems have become way to liberal. In the UK it is easier for some people not to have a job and sponge off the rest of us than it is to go out and work. I have no time for slackers, and would favour extreme reform of most of these systems.

OK...

Stinkle?

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by Changleen
...current pres is almost totally in the pocket of Private concerns...

He's not that much worse than any other recent president and frankly, it's not any individual politician, but the lobby system as a whole that needs looking at.

 

[Changleen]

Originally posted by LordOpie
He's not that much worse than any other recent president and frankly,

Maybe not that much worse in terms of numbers, (but he is the most lobbied pres ever I think I read somewhere?) but it's also who he's in the pockets of - it's just so destructive.

it's not any individual politician, but the lobby system as a whole that needs looking at.

100% Agreed! I seems pretty obvious to me that anyone who wants to exert a few million dollars worth of influence over the political process should not be allowed to do so.

Actually someone once said that anyone who wants political office should not be allowed it by default...

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Changleen
OK, I've had a weekend break now - I've been Dirt Jumping, calmed down a little.

DJ: the new anti-drug.

Originally posted by Changleen
Sorry If I offended anyone last week, I was getting really stressed and pissed off by a lot of thinks at work, <snip>

no worries mate.

Originally posted by Changleen
Secondly, the welfare state - In my opinion most welfare state systems have become way to liberal. In the UK it is easier for some people not to have a job and sponge off the rest of us than it is to go out and work. I have no time for slackers, and would favour extreme reform of most of these systems.

OK...

Stinkle?

if only everyone were raised "if you want to eat, you have to work"

....if only