You have a 10 times greater chance of being struck by lightning as you do of being involved in a terrorist attack.
Maybe we should have a War on Lightning?
You know, make the world a better place?
??? :cool: :cool: :cool: ???
Exactly!
Fuck lightning!! bitch zapping you in the ass and all...
...although I hear it does produce a lot of nitrogen for trees and plants...some of which are quite tasty.
but what if it gets it's hands on a nuclear weapon?!?!
or a WMD?!?!
Lightning with a WMD warhead....even worse!
!!!
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I didn't ignore the question, I just didn't notice most of the posts on the 3rd page.
But I just went back and noticed that Byrnzie actually answered your question.
To which someone (who I think is an Obama supporter) responded with:
:rolleyes:
Is this how people get around what Ralph Nader is out to accomplish? His policies are great and they revolve around a DIPLOMATIC, ANTI-WAR platform. He's going to try to actually move for peace in Palestine/Israel, withdraw troops within half a year from Iraq, and I even read somewhere that he's willing to pay reparations to the Iraqi people...
I'm not saying you have to vote Nader to change this shitty system. I'm saying please vote for WHO YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN. Not the person who you're scared of least, who has a "chance" at winning. the only reason these people have a chance at winning is because you aren't willing to break the system and vote for who you truly believe in. And even if you think your vote won't be enough, atleast we're starting to move in a better direction by having more people change the way this country's 2 parties control everything, and worse, the way corporations control the 2 parties!
And voting is the LEAST thing you can do. There's still much, much more that needs to be done.
do me a favor, when you quote me, please use the entire quote...
do me a favor, when you quote me, please use the entire quote...
Your entire quote was meaningless though. Someone answered the question and you replied with "don't kid yourself." The rest of your point is... well, not a point, because it doesn't refute the fact that someone just pointed out what Nader would do.
I don't understand your point at all.
First, if you know what the definition of an issue is, it's a problem. Nader is addressing the problems here. Other than that, in the first sentence, he says "Nader/Gonzalez would reverse the current policy in the Middle East." He goes on to list the problems in the current policy. It's not that hard to see what he means to do. First of all, he talks abotu a rapid withdrawal from Iraq, and paying "reconstruction costs" to the Iraqi people.
Secondly, he goes on to talk about pre-emptive war, which is likely targeted towards Iran, and how it's disastrous.
He continues FURTHER on, to talk about Israeli peace with Hamas, and how most people want it. Is it so hard to understand what he's saying here? That he's going to be pushing for peace/talks between Israel and Palestine, which could lead to an independent Palestinian state, and maybe even peace between the two? He names groups that have been advocating for peace, clearly to show that he'd be having them work to promote it. He ends it with saying "Nader/Gonzalez will continue to speak out about this humanitarian crisis and side with the strong and courageous Israeli/Palestinian peace movements who are working for a peaceful two-state solution."
Your entire quote was meaningless though. Someone answered the question and you replied with "don't kid yourself." The rest of your point is... well, not a point, because it doesn't refute the fact that someone just pointed out what Nader would do.
I'm sorry, I thought Nader's official website would be a better source than someone's personal interpretation...I guess I was wrong...:rolleyes:
I don't understand your point at all.
First, if you know what the definition of an issue is, it's a problem. Nader is addressing the problems here. Other than that, in the first sentence, he says "Nader/Gonzalez would reverse the current policy in the Middle East." He goes on to list the problems in the current policy. It's not that hard to see what he means to do. First of all, he talks abotu a rapid withdrawal from Iraq, and paying "reconstruction costs" to the Iraqi people.
Secondly, he goes on to talk about pre-emptive war, which is likely targeted towards Iran, and how it's disastrous.
He continues FURTHER on, to talk about Israeli peace with Hamas, and how most people want it. Is it so hard to understand what he's saying here? That he's going to be pushing for peace/talks between Israel and Palestine, which could lead to an independent Palestinian state, and maybe even peace between the two? He names groups that have been advocating for peace, clearly to show that he'd be having them work to promote it. He ends it with saying "Nader/Gonzalez will continue to speak out about this humanitarian crisis and side with the strong and courageous Israeli/Palestinian peace movements who are working for a peaceful two-state solution."
The solutions are there. You just choose not to see it.
yeah, that's it...I chose not to see it...or maybe Nader offers nothing other than speak out about this humanitarian crisis...
listen, I'll give you this, nader would make a good history professor...
watch this, I'm gonna be Nader...
I speak out against the violence is the Middle East!!! Everyone else sucks and I'm the only one who can fix this problem!!! Don't you hear me speaking out...
Damnit! Oh yeah, Corporations suck...
I speak out against the violence is the Middle East!!! Everyone else sucks and I'm the only one who can fix this problem!!! Don't you hear me speaking out...
Damnit! Oh yeah, Corporations suck...
I'm so surprised that you ignored by entire post. No, really, it's quite shocking.
What is that 10%? McCain has flipped on every issue. If you look at their policies they are night and day.
I'm pretty sure McCain voted for the PATRIOT ACT, FISA, supports death penalty, voted in Condolezza Rice, supports military option against Iran, supports Israel.... etc etc etc
Obama has been for keeping troops in Afghanistan since 9/11. He has never wavered on his position.
I wonder why you guys are acting shocked now.
He has said from Day one that the Iraq war was unjust and he wants to redeploy the services to Afghanistan. This has been my position since we started Iraq as I felt we weren't finished in Afghanistan. Yet another position that I see eye to eye with Obama.
im with you there. sounds like what he's saying is that if push comes to shove, he's not going to lie down. i've got no problem with a "war" on terror if we change tactics. i dont think he is at all saying he's going to invade the entire middle east and kill and convert them. for all you guys like to act like the politicians are all saying the same thing, i've got news for you: they're not the bad guys here. the american people LIKE war rhetoric, they WANT to hear that the president is going to be a tough guy (jimmy carter anyone?). you blame politicians for loving war and death. perhaps you should look into the mirror or your neighbor's eyes. that's why you hear this stuff.
"You've never been out of college, you don't know what it's like out there. I've worked in the private sector... they expect results." -Ray
He continues FURTHER on, to talk about Israeli peace with Hamas, and how most people want it. Is it so hard to understand what he's saying here? That he's going to be pushing for peace/talks between Israel and Palestine, which could lead to an independent Palestinian state, and maybe even peace between the two? He names groups that have been advocating for peace, clearly to show that he'd be having them work to promote it. He ends it with saying "Nader/Gonzalez will continue to speak out about this humanitarian crisis and side with the strong and courageous Israeli/Palestinian peace movements who are working for a peaceful two-state solution."
hahahhahahahaha. they've been killing each other for centuries. clinton did peace talks, many presidents have "pushed for peace talks." they've had many peace talks. who knew? this whole time, the world has just been waiting for ralph nader to swing in, wave his magic love wand, and everything in the middle east will be ok!
his plan has no more chance of success than any other yahoo talking about peace.
"You've never been out of college, you don't know what it's like out there. I've worked in the private sector... they expect results." -Ray
hahahhahahahaha. they've been killing each other for centuries.
Nope.
clinton did peace talks, many presidents have "pushed for peace talks." they've had many peace talks. who knew? this whole time, the world has just been waiting for ralph nader to swing in, wave his magic love wand, and everything in the middle east will be ok!
All these "peace talks" have been without serious demands of Israel, by the U.S., and have been while the U.S. funds Israel's army. The U.S. has also vetoed every serious resolution in the Security Council.
beyond that, obama is always accused of being vague, and in this instance...i'd have to agree. what exactly would this mean? is there MORE to what he said, beyond 'with vigor'....? from what i've heard and read, i don't believe he has any plans of pre-emptive strikes nor continuing to wage war. all i've read seems to point in the direction on working to get out of war, and yes....still work to fight terrorism. 'fighting terrorism' is a pretty broad statement, so to take it to mean furthering more war is stretching it imho.
hahahhahahahaha. they've been killing each other for centuries. clinton did peace talks, many presidents have "pushed for peace talks." they've had many peace talks. who knew? this whole time, the world has just been waiting for ralph nader to swing in, wave his magic love wand, and everything in the middle east will be ok!
his plan has no more chance of success than any other yahoo talking about peace
just made me laugh!
that's what the wolrd needs!
although in all seriousness, it would be a great day when peace in this region could be achieved. certainly not making light of the current situation, at all.
All these "peace talks" have been without serious demands of Israel, by the U.S., and have been while the U.S. funds Israel's army. The U.S. has also vetoed every serious resolution in the Security Council.
anyone who has ever been in charge of that little patch of land there has been subject to war, death, and invasion. when you're sitting on top of a worthless hot desert that is only still inhabited becos a bunch of morons still cling to the superstitious belief that there is something special and holy about that particular wasteland, you're going to have hot, hungry, dehydrated, sunburned bastards with a chip on their shoulder ready to kill at the first sign of disrespect of their deity of choice. we ought to just nuke the whole fucking region and tell the christians, jews, and muslims to suck it up and find holy places in their own strongholds and stop fucking up the world becos 900 years ago somebody supposedly took a shit somewhere and marked it as holy.
that and these people do need to exercise their love wands more. if muslim men could see more than the eyes of a woman they'd spend too much time walking into oncoming traffic and tripping over the sidewalk like the rest of the normal world to be so into killing. then israel could stop acting like a little kid with a big gun shooting at everything that moves within 100 miles of them.
"You've never been out of college, you don't know what it's like out there. I've worked in the private sector... they expect results." -Ray
I think most people are focusing on the part that says "Continue the war..." rather than "vigor."
you forgot the most important part, imo......'continue the war on terrorism with vigor'......to me does NOT signify actual WAR necessarily. but with most things, taken out of context things can be shaped into whatever we want them to be. not saying you are doing so...just saying that this entire sentence, in whatever context it was used, would be far more 'informative' with what was said around it, and not merely the statement, alone.
you forgot the most important part, imo......'continue the war on terrorism with vigor'......to me does NOT signify actual WAR necessarily. but with most things, taken out of context things can be shaped into whatever we want them to be. not saying you are doing so...just saying that this entire sentence, in whatever context it was used, would be far more 'informative' with what was said around it, and not merely the statement, alone.
It's pretty obvious what was around it since Barack Obama has been pushing for more military action in Afghanistan. War "on terrorism" is still war.
i personally would STILL like to see it in the context it was spoken. for me, it makes a difference. for you or others, perhaps not.
Well, of course I could be wrong. Still, I don't think my assumption that he was talking about Afghanistan - saying the same thing he's been saying the whole time - is far off.
Well, of course I could be wrong. Still, I don't think my assumption that he was talking about Afghanistan - saying the same thing he's been saying the whole time - is far off.
again, i never insinuated that you were...or anyone really. i just like FULL context, to make up my own mind about things, and to better understand the 'bigger picture' of what anyone says and means by their words.
while personally i far prefer no war, i am also not 100% anti-war. in THIS instance, hell yes i wish we never got in this mess, always thought we should not have, etc. however, we are there...we created this disaster and so on. so i don't see a 'clean break'.....and i may agree with further action. however, i have not made up my mind one way or another. all the more reason i like to read for/against such issues statements in their entirety, figure help me better understand it all, and better form an opinion.
however, it is obvious that the OP wasn't looking to 'educate' at least not fully, but to present a slanted, personal view.
you forgot the most important part, imo......'continue the war on terrorism with vigor'......to me does NOT signify actual WAR necessarily. but with most things, taken out of context things can be shaped into whatever we want them to be. not saying you are doing so...just saying that this entire sentence, in whatever context it was used, would be far more 'informative' with what was said around it, and not merely the statement, alone.
let's not pussyfoot around, that's exactly what he is doing.
"You've never been out of college, you don't know what it's like out there. I've worked in the private sector... they expect results." -Ray
Well, of course I could be wrong. Still, I don't think my assumption that he was talking about Afghanistan - saying the same thing he's been saying the whole time - is far off.
ah, so it's your assumption? this explains everything.
is it even remotely possible that he was referring to 'war on terror' in general, drug war sense? in the sense that he espouses a comprehensive policy designed to reduce terrorism through prevention, security, eliminating the policies that encourage it, etc? that even if he is in favor of more action in afghanistan (aka cleaning up the mess we left when we left those people hanging and finding the guy we were supposed to be getting 7 years ago), that it does not mean he wants more war, but rather to get out of the ridiculous one we are in in iraq, avoid future unnecessary wars in iran or elsewhere, finish the war we started in afghan, and the nature of the war on terror to something that might actually work?
nah, no way that's possible. i know, becos i assume it isn't.
"You've never been out of college, you don't know what it's like out there. I've worked in the private sector... they expect results." -Ray
let's not pussyfoot around, that's exactly what he is doing.
Of course it's what I'm doing. I'm taking the fact that he said "continue the war on terrorism" and changing it to... what exactly? As far as I know, continuing a war doesn't mean having a barbecue... and I haven't "changed" anything he said or taken anything out of context. He's been talking about Afghanistan for ages.
let's not pussyfoot around, that's exactly what he is doing.
At the least, this strategic demonizing of some, and the effective manipulation of people, into polarized camps against the "evil" out there, to the benefit of some, and at potential and actual cost to very, very many, is nefarious and will reap consequences for many years to come. It opens the door to the justification of...well, almost anything.
Which brings me back to the psychological principle of the foot in the door. When we get people to agree to small steps in one direction, it opens the door to getting them totally on board with large and ludicrous steps they'd never ever have agreed with upfront. It's a conditioning of sorts. And the people follow along as .. expected. It's human nature. Just as it's human nature for a minority to notice this as it plays out....
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
Exactly!
Fuck lightning!! bitch zapping you in the ass and all...
...although I hear it does produce a lot of nitrogen for trees and plants...some of which are quite tasty.
but what if it gets it's hands on a nuclear weapon?!?!
or a WMD?!?!
Lightning with a WMD warhead....even worse!
!!!
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
classic.
good stuff, indeed...
do me a favor, when you quote me, please use the entire quote...
here it is:
please read this:
http://www.votenader.org/issues/middle-east/
maybe you'll understand my point...
Fucking fantastic album. I love Suicidal Tendencies, great band. I love Rocky's guitar tone.
I don't understand your point at all.
First, if you know what the definition of an issue is, it's a problem. Nader is addressing the problems here. Other than that, in the first sentence, he says "Nader/Gonzalez would reverse the current policy in the Middle East." He goes on to list the problems in the current policy. It's not that hard to see what he means to do. First of all, he talks abotu a rapid withdrawal from Iraq, and paying "reconstruction costs" to the Iraqi people.
Secondly, he goes on to talk about pre-emptive war, which is likely targeted towards Iran, and how it's disastrous.
He continues FURTHER on, to talk about Israeli peace with Hamas, and how most people want it. Is it so hard to understand what he's saying here? That he's going to be pushing for peace/talks between Israel and Palestine, which could lead to an independent Palestinian state, and maybe even peace between the two? He names groups that have been advocating for peace, clearly to show that he'd be having them work to promote it. He ends it with saying "Nader/Gonzalez will continue to speak out about this humanitarian crisis and side with the strong and courageous Israeli/Palestinian peace movements who are working for a peaceful two-state solution."
It's really not that hard to understand. There are also other parts in the website where Nader talks about withdrawal from occupied territories. http://www.votenader.org/issues/foreign-policy/peace/#17387
The solutions are there. You just choose not to see it.
What is that 10%? McCain has flipped on every issue. If you look at their policies they are night and day.
I'm sorry, I thought Nader's official website would be a better source than someone's personal interpretation...I guess I was wrong...:rolleyes:
yeah, that's it...I chose not to see it...or maybe Nader offers nothing other than speak out about this humanitarian crisis...
listen, I'll give you this, nader would make a good history professor...
watch this, I'm gonna be Nader...
I speak out against the violence is the Middle East!!! Everyone else sucks and I'm the only one who can fix this problem!!! Don't you hear me speaking out...
Damnit! Oh yeah, Corporations suck...
Problem solved...
just because I don't agree with your assumptions does not mean that I ignored your post...
you should be happy, I adopted king ralph's position...I spoke out...
I guess some people are never happy...
im with you there. sounds like what he's saying is that if push comes to shove, he's not going to lie down. i've got no problem with a "war" on terror if we change tactics. i dont think he is at all saying he's going to invade the entire middle east and kill and convert them. for all you guys like to act like the politicians are all saying the same thing, i've got news for you: they're not the bad guys here. the american people LIKE war rhetoric, they WANT to hear that the president is going to be a tough guy (jimmy carter anyone?). you blame politicians for loving war and death. perhaps you should look into the mirror or your neighbor's eyes. that's why you hear this stuff.
Denny Crane!
hahahhahahahaha. they've been killing each other for centuries. clinton did peace talks, many presidents have "pushed for peace talks." they've had many peace talks. who knew? this whole time, the world has just been waiting for ralph nader to swing in, wave his magic love wand, and everything in the middle east will be ok!
his plan has no more chance of success than any other yahoo talking about peace.
Denny Crane!
All these "peace talks" have been without serious demands of Israel, by the U.S., and have been while the U.S. funds Israel's army. The U.S. has also vetoed every serious resolution in the Security Council.
i see this hasn't been addressed?
beyond that, obama is always accused of being vague, and in this instance...i'd have to agree. what exactly would this mean? is there MORE to what he said, beyond 'with vigor'....? from what i've heard and read, i don't believe he has any plans of pre-emptive strikes nor continuing to wage war. all i've read seems to point in the direction on working to get out of war, and yes....still work to fight terrorism. 'fighting terrorism' is a pretty broad statement, so to take it to mean furthering more war is stretching it imho.
and this:
just made me laugh!
that's what the wolrd needs!
although in all seriousness, it would be a great day when peace in this region could be achieved. certainly not making light of the current situation, at all.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Vigor...!!!!
he's going to fight with Vigor....
May god helps us all...
man, i love when humor infects this place. it is so needed at times.
i would still love to see a source, and/or a full transcript of whatever else surrounds this one sentence. context is always a good thing.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
anyone who has ever been in charge of that little patch of land there has been subject to war, death, and invasion. when you're sitting on top of a worthless hot desert that is only still inhabited becos a bunch of morons still cling to the superstitious belief that there is something special and holy about that particular wasteland, you're going to have hot, hungry, dehydrated, sunburned bastards with a chip on their shoulder ready to kill at the first sign of disrespect of their deity of choice. we ought to just nuke the whole fucking region and tell the christians, jews, and muslims to suck it up and find holy places in their own strongholds and stop fucking up the world becos 900 years ago somebody supposedly took a shit somewhere and marked it as holy.
that and these people do need to exercise their love wands more. if muslim men could see more than the eyes of a woman they'd spend too much time walking into oncoming traffic and tripping over the sidewalk like the rest of the normal world to be so into killing. then israel could stop acting like a little kid with a big gun shooting at everything that moves within 100 miles of them.
Denny Crane!
you forgot the most important part, imo......'continue the war on terrorism with vigor'......to me does NOT signify actual WAR necessarily. but with most things, taken out of context things can be shaped into whatever we want them to be. not saying you are doing so...just saying that this entire sentence, in whatever context it was used, would be far more 'informative' with what was said around it, and not merely the statement, alone.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
i personally would STILL like to see it in the context it was spoken. for me, it makes a difference. for you or others, perhaps not.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
again, i never insinuated that you were...or anyone really. i just like FULL context, to make up my own mind about things, and to better understand the 'bigger picture' of what anyone says and means by their words.
while personally i far prefer no war, i am also not 100% anti-war. in THIS instance, hell yes i wish we never got in this mess, always thought we should not have, etc. however, we are there...we created this disaster and so on. so i don't see a 'clean break'.....and i may agree with further action. however, i have not made up my mind one way or another. all the more reason i like to read for/against such issues statements in their entirety, figure help me better understand it all, and better form an opinion.
however, it is obvious that the OP wasn't looking to 'educate' at least not fully, but to present a slanted, personal view.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
let's not pussyfoot around, that's exactly what he is doing.
Denny Crane!
ah, so it's your assumption? this explains everything.
is it even remotely possible that he was referring to 'war on terror' in general, drug war sense? in the sense that he espouses a comprehensive policy designed to reduce terrorism through prevention, security, eliminating the policies that encourage it, etc? that even if he is in favor of more action in afghanistan (aka cleaning up the mess we left when we left those people hanging and finding the guy we were supposed to be getting 7 years ago), that it does not mean he wants more war, but rather to get out of the ridiculous one we are in in iraq, avoid future unnecessary wars in iran or elsewhere, finish the war we started in afghan, and the nature of the war on terror to something that might actually work?
nah, no way that's possible. i know, becos i assume it isn't.
Denny Crane!
Which brings me back to the psychological principle of the foot in the door. When we get people to agree to small steps in one direction, it opens the door to getting them totally on board with large and ludicrous steps they'd never ever have agreed with upfront. It's a conditioning of sorts. And the people follow along as .. expected. It's human nature. Just as it's human nature for a minority to notice this as it plays out....
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!