The W
Views: 100021859
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
25.10.07 0210
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - 20 Things We've Learned Since 9/11
This thread has 2 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6(2058 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (119 total)
StampedeFan23
Morcilla
Level: 52

Posts: 161/631
EXP: 1082964
For next: 884

Since: 12.1.02
From: BC, Canada

Since last post: 2054 days
Last activity: 1590 days
#101 Posted on 9.8.02 1627.36
Reposted on: 9.8.09 1629.04
Just stumbled on this thread (exploring outside the Wreslting and Random boards I tend to read...). Normally, I don't get involved with political discussion, since I have really radical politics that tend to piss people off... Regardless, here we go with a few points

1) I find the concept of a Liberal media a bit amusing, since I am a journalist by trade. I personally can't watch CNN for more than 10 minutes or read a newspaper like the Globe and Mail (I'm Canadian) because they seem to be too slanted in either a right or left wing way. Isn't there a way that we can discuss both a left and right wing way of a problem without cutting the discussions down? That is what democracy is all about right?

2) Kind of an expansion of the first point: Everyone has an opinion, so why do we feel the need to label the opinion as left or right wing, liberal, communist, fascist, whatever? I feel that most people don't aspire to these rigid ways of thinking, saying "I'm right wing dammit". As someone else pointed out, it's difficult to have a discussion when an idea is labelled "liberal" and is therefore unworthy of discussion.
Okay case in point, most people label me as left wing for my outspokeness on the war against Terrorism. The label applied doesn't matter. The situation isn't that black and white. I happen to think that both sides of this conflict are wrong and, to a point, deluded.
Terrorism, violence and death are wrong no matter who has their hand on the trigger. Be it al-Qaeda, American, Canadian, Iraqi and what have you.
Critizing one side does not necessarily mean that you support the other side.

I'll go back to my other forums now. Have fun, play nice!
Stefonics
Bockwurst
Level: 51

Posts: 72/602
EXP: 1002314
For next: 11631

Since: 17.3.02
From: Queidersbach

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 42 min.
#102 Posted on 10.8.02 2058.31
Reposted on: 10.8.09 2059.01

    Whalebony sez this:
    Where did you learn to hate Pat Buchanan? Hmmm let me guess...the news.
Surpsingly, no. I "learned" to hate him when he decided to inform everyone of his nationalistic policies concerning everything. I don't need the media to make my decisions for me, I have a mind (regardless of what you think) that functions and is able to make such choices (i.e. anything more complicated than choosing which pop tarts to eat for breakfast.)
    Whalebony:
    Calling you a Black Panther wouldn't even be close because they did lots of good things for the community. You seem far too hateful to do any good for society.
I hope that Satan is wearing his union suit because it must be damn cold down there. A Buchanan supporter actually said that the Black Panther party did "lots of good things for the community." Wow, you must be confused. I'm sure that Huey and Eldridge would be happy to have your support.
    Whalebony, again:
    Now, while I may have prejudice towards people like you(and I mean idiots, not people who may be a different color than me), you might as well be categorized as a racist. Why don't you take your reverse discrimination bullshit and shove it.
HA. HA HA HA. Hold on, wait, this is where the best part of the argument is, and I think it needs its own heading.
    The champion of all things Buchanan said:
    By being more cautious in letting people into our country, we might not have had an incident like 9/11.
Here's a suggestion: before you criticize my "reverse discrimination bullshit", maybe you should look at your own "forward" discrimination toward everyone and everything not pure. These statements, made one right after the other, negate any good points you could have possibly brought up about Ol' Pat.
    Whale:
    You should maybe take a lesson from the people you so kindly categorized as "slants" because they have adapted better to the quest for life,liberty, and the pursuit of happiness better than anyone in the last 50 years.
Please explain this to me. Not the idea, but the sentence. It makes no sense, either historically, or logically.
    Sea Mammal:
    They also have a bigger bone to pick than any other race because they were forced into internment camps after Pearl Harbor. They weren't even considered citizens of this country until 50 years ago. They strive to be the best at whatever they do.
Hey, buddy. Let's not get into a pissing contest about which race has been discriminated against the most, historically speaking. Especially not one started by you. That's not why I'm here, and that's not why I write. You should be careful of which words you choose when writing because, judging by the context of the statment, you consider Black people to be lazy as opposed to Asians who "strive to be the best at whatever they do."
    Barnacle boy:
    Maybe you should try the same instead of using reverse discrimination as means to get your point across. Also wanted to mention that no one can say they aren't prejudice. If you say you are not, you are a liar(unless your name happens to be Jesus Christ). Being racist is a far different thing and Mr. Brooklyn you may be just that.
Reverse discrimination is impossible. Absolutely impossible. Discrimination, by definition, entails one race of people holding down another. Now, can you PLEASE explain to me how Black people have the upper hand on White people ANYWHERE? And no, I never claimed to not be prejudiced. And thank you for standing on a moral high ground while you point out that everyone is equal in their having of prejudices. If you're going to call me a racist, then just come out with it. Don't pussyfoot around by first referring to me as "Mr. Brooklyn" than saying that I "may be just that." Be strong in your convictions.
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst
Level: 103

Posts: 248/3029
EXP: 11260518
For next: 210927

Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 17 days
Last activity: 14 days
AIM:  
#103 Posted on 10.8.02 2122.18
Reposted on: 10.8.09 2129.01
I'm just wondering how thrilled CRZ is that this thread has made it to 100 posts? :)
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 404/1084
EXP: 2440056
For next: 21808

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2989 days
Last activity: 2986 days
#104 Posted on 11.8.02 1706.42
Reposted on: 11.8.09 1708.35
I just wonder why me pointing out how a hatchet job did not occur and providing some solid information means that the media is liberal and out to get conservatives.
ekedolphin
Scrapple
Level: 132

Posts: 938/5387
EXP: 27016623
For next: 115381

Since: 12.1.02
From: Indianapolis, IN; now residing in Suffolk, VA

Since last post: 128 days
Last activity: 1 day
#105 Posted on 12.8.02 1328.23
Reposted on: 12.8.09 1329.02
Hey, Kid Brooklyn...

You got something against sea mammals? LOL...

Anywya... there was something else in the first post of the thread that I wish to address, and it has nothing to do with 9/11 or Buchanan. I read the thread fairly thoroughly and I think that this issue hasn't been touched yet outside of the first post.

18. We've learned that Bush&Co. has been a total disaster for the environment, in every way: from reneging on its campaign promise to cut carbon-dioxide and other greenhouse emissions, to backing away from higher fuel-efficiency in cars (we could cut our dependence on foreign oil 20% just by increasing fuel efficiency by 5%), to giving breaks to corporate polluters all across the country, to permitting increased arsenic levels in the water, etc. etc.

Now how can anyone deny that the Bush administration doesn't seem to give a shit about the enviornment? Hell, the fact that Bush wanted to start drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge was one of the main reasons I voted for Gore!

I think it's ironic how Republicans are all, Let's fuck up the environment to reduce our dependency on foreign oil! when it was Ronald Reagan who took a big dump all over Carter's proposed energy bill that would have helped reduce our dependency on foreign oil. Reagan showed that he didn't give a shit, up to the point where he actually removed the solar panels that Carter had installed in the White House. We've been needing to find alternative sources of energy for sooooo many years now, and it seems like the Republicans are simply content to take the oil wherever we can get it. To hell with the environment. If killing a few polar bears will give us enough gas so we can stop buying from Saddam for maybe ten or twenty years tops, then dammit, those polar bears are going to DIE!

The bottom line is this: There is a finite amount of oil in the world. A lot of people seem to think that we'll always have gas whenever we need it, but nothing could be further from the truth. When it's gone, it's gone, and we're all going to be riding bicycles to work and paddling canoes across the Atlantic if we don't get serious about alternative energy sources.

(edited by ekedolphin on 12.8.02 1429)
chazerizer
Italian
Level: 34

Posts: 67/242
EXP: 252223
For next: 1431

Since: 11.7.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 4392 days
Last activity: 848 days
AIM:  
#106 Posted on 12.8.02 1401.17
Reposted on: 12.8.09 1404.00
Agreed.

Just out of curiosity, do you include nuclear power as an alternative energy source, or is that evil too?
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 118/4700
EXP: 21587800
For next: 248862

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1271 days
Last activity: 1068 days
#107 Posted on 12.8.02 1454.27
Reposted on: 12.8.09 1459.06

    Originally posted by ekedolphin
    Hell, the fact that Bush wanted to start drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge was one of the main reasons I voted for Gore!




Because we all know that Bush is evil for wanting to safely drill on 1% of a barren wasteland that even the animals don't populate for DECADES worth of oil that could possibly preclude the invasion of Iraq(let's be frank that's why they want to invade...)
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst
Level: 103

Posts: 249/3029
EXP: 11260518
For next: 210927

Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 17 days
Last activity: 14 days
AIM:  
#108 Posted on 12.8.02 1950.53
Reposted on: 12.8.09 1950.59
DECADES worth of oil? Even the most generous and most conservative commentators are saying it's about a three month's supply.
ekedolphin
Scrapple
Level: 132

Posts: 943/5387
EXP: 27016623
For next: 115381

Since: 12.1.02
From: Indianapolis, IN; now residing in Suffolk, VA

Since last post: 128 days
Last activity: 1 day
#109 Posted on 13.8.02 0019.55
Reposted on: 13.8.09 0029.07
Well, chazerizer...

I'm not going to say that nuclear power is evil per se, but it's certainly not a clean form of energy. If we have a nuclear meltdown big enough, the fallout from that could very well be felt all the way around the world.

By alternative energy source, I'm referring to clean and safe alternatives. Solar power. Water power. Wind power. Things that God has already given us in abundance, all we need to do is develop the technology to make those things a viable alternative to what we've been doing.

And anyway, continuing with the point that OlFuzzyBastard just made... even if it is decades of oil that we could get (and I doubt that very much), once that's used up, what then? Is World War III going to be fought so that the winners can get dibs on oil? What about when all of that is gone, and there is no more oil left in the world? It will happen eventually, because as we know, the creation of oil takes millions of years. Once we've used all that up, we're all going to be S.O.L. (and you know what that means) unless we start working towards building new ways to harness unlimited energy.

The difference between solar power and oil? Using oil drains the supply of oil slowly, while lining the pockets of all those bastards at OPEC. But we shouldn't take that to mean we should rip apart our own soil to get oil for ourselves (which would take years to refine, in any case). Solar power doesn't drain the sun, obviously, and you can get as much of it as you need. Water power simply requires water running at very high water pressures-- waterfalls, for instance. Wind power requires, uh, wind. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that these are the things we should be going for!

I blame the gas companies for protecting their own interests over the common good. I blame the car companies for apparently getting into bed with the gas companies-- hell, I've heard reports that Ford has come up with a more fuel-efficient hybrid car that's not going to be released because of the gas companies. And I blame the Republican party for being so short-sighted that they're willing to go to war with the OPEC countries just to grab a resource that's going to be gone soon anyway. Hey, isn't this why we ostensibly came to Kuwait's aid during the Gulf War, because some other country was invading them for their oil?

Edit:

Have you read CNN.com recently? There's this mile-thick blanket of smog covering a goodly portion of the Asian continent because of the way they burn fuel and don't take care of the environment. That's another reason to seek alternative sources of energy-- they don't pollute, so they allow us to get down to the important pieces of business such as cleaning up the mess we've made before it's too late.

What I'm really concerned about is that hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica that was publicized heavily about ten years ago or so. If Antarctica gets too hot, the polar ice caps will start to melt, the ocean levels will rise, and you can kiss New York, Virginia Beach, and a bunch of other ocean-side cities goodbye.

(edited by ekedolphin on 13.8.02 0123)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 125/4700
EXP: 21587800
For next: 248862

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1271 days
Last activity: 1068 days
#110 Posted on 13.8.02 0613.00
Reposted on: 13.8.09 0629.02

    Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
    DECADES worth of oil? Even the most generous and most conservative commentators are saying it's about a three month's supply.


The North Slope has been compared to the haul that has been pulled out of Saudi Arabia for the last sixty years. So this isn't exactly small potatoes.

I do think it's funny that in case "conservative commantators" about oil are such free-market economic types like the Sierra Club, ELF, etc.
Scott Summets
Sujuk
Level: 64

Posts: 262/1008
EXP: 2147495
For next: 66614

Since: 27.6.02

Since last post: 3907 days
Last activity: 3876 days
#111 Posted on 13.8.02 0819.09
Reposted on: 13.8.09 0821.33
My friends dad is a nuclear scientist, and I can say that while Nuclear power isn't 100% safe, it's much safer than people think. Everyone associates the way we use nuclear power to be like the way we use nuclear bombs, which is very wrong. The chance of a meltdown is near impossible with today's technology. Our plants are many times safer and better than Russia's, so we really have nothing to worry about. If we ever discovered a way to safely store nuclear waste, nuclear power would be the safest energy ever. On the topic of energy, according to Einstein's laws, if we could tap the energy a black hole gives off while it annihilates one drop of water, we could power the Earth for thousands of years.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 129/4700
EXP: 21587800
For next: 248862

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1271 days
Last activity: 1068 days
#112 Posted on 13.8.02 0852.28
Reposted on: 13.8.09 0854.08
Time to spend some time refuting ekedolphin's remarks.

1. Alternate energy sources aren't nearly as close to being cheap and abundant as most people think. It costs a lot of money to make the components to make a little bit of power at this point. I support the further developmetn of such power, but it's not practical yet. It also takes fuel to power such research into alternative energy.

2. The Republican Party is not behind the war in Iraq. The warmonger Neoconservatives are. I am one of many Republicans who think the war is bad bad news(insomuch as for the reasons currently being espoused).

3.Rememeber this about smog: the air and water is a LOT cleaner now than it was 75 or a 100 years ago.
ekedolphin
Scrapple
Level: 132

Posts: 976/5387
EXP: 27016623
For next: 115381

Since: 12.1.02
From: Indianapolis, IN; now residing in Suffolk, VA

Since last post: 128 days
Last activity: 1 day
#113 Posted on 15.8.02 0341.30
Reposted on: 15.8.09 0354.45
Grimis,

You bring up a few very good points. It's nice to see that not all Republicans are wanting to bomb everybody who's ever pissed us off.

However, I still believe that if the Republicans hadn't been all DEATH to alternative sources of energy! back in the '80s, we would already have found the means to make such sources more cheap and abundant.

Scott,

Nice to hear that nuclear power isn't quite as bad as I thought it was. I still remember Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl, but I'll accept your viewpoint on this particular issue as being more educated than mine.

But your comments do bring up the question: how can we find a way to safely store or dispose of nuclear waste? Dumping everything into a landfill in the Southwest isn't the answer, in my opinion-- especially because I believe that nuclear waste has a half-life of thousands of years or so.
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 673/3273
EXP: 12778800
For next: 312553

Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 200 days
Last activity: 1 day
#114 Posted on 15.8.02 1655.04
Reposted on: 15.8.09 1659.02
Well, on nuclear power, remember that a lot of the plants in the country are getting on towards their 20th or 30th birthday or even older. These plants are nowhere near as safe as the newer generation ones, and for the most part their are no plans on how to decommision/upgrade them. If I recall there is a Chernobyl style plant somewhere down here on the southeastern seaboard, still chugging along and being used to produce weapons grade plutonium. Once plants like these are shutdown/upgraded/replaced, then I'll feel safe with nuclear power.

-Jag

But the true fact of the matter is we have no real means for disposing of nuclear waste. So it is not to be considered a 'clean' form of energy.
chazerizer
Italian
Level: 34

Posts: 117/242
EXP: 252223
For next: 1431

Since: 11.7.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 4392 days
Last activity: 848 days
AIM:  
#115 Posted on 16.8.02 0957.42
Reposted on: 16.8.09 0959.05
At least some of the plants (especially the Russian ones, which are the ones that really are bad) are getting upgrades, in the form of new safety systems, etc., etc. I don't know about any of the ones in the United States, but several plants in eastern europe that were built by the Russians are being worked on, as well as some in China. There was also one in England about 5 years back, I think. Not sure about all the dates/places/etc. though.
deadbeater
Morcilla
Level: 52

Posts: 463/623
EXP: 1058899
For next: 24949

Since: 12.2.02
From: Parts unknown

Since last post: 4373 days
Last activity: 4373 days
#116 Posted on 17.8.02 2201.32
Reposted on: 17.8.09 2203.57
If Buchanan was so good, why was he kicked out of the Republican Party, and his very presence in the Reform Party splintered the group, rendering the third party movement impotent?
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 213

Posts: 1145/16309
EXP: 142822686
For next: 544221

Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 8 hours
Last activity: 3 min.
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#117 Posted on 18.8.02 0030.54
Reposted on: 18.8.09 0033.07

    Originally posted by deadbeater
    If Buchanan was so good, why was he kicked out of the Republican Party, and his very presence in the Reform Party splintered the group, rendering the third party movement impotent?
That's what they WANT you to believe! The Republicans paid Buchanan HANDSOMELY to scuttle the Reformers and it was *worth every penny.*
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 585/2108
EXP: 6616999
For next: 33691

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 2 days
#118 Posted on 18.8.02 0500.39
Reposted on: 18.8.09 0501.54
So THATS where VInce got the idea to send Russo and Ferrara to the WCW to sabotage the company...
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst
Level: 104

Posts: 336/3059
EXP: 11572670
For next: 289495

Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 1988 days
Last activity: 1922 days
#119 Posted on 18.8.02 0553.23
Reposted on: 18.8.09 0553.49
Just found this thread. I'm going to offer my opinion on the whole caboodle, but beforehand I feel it fair to tell you: I'm English. Now, whoever wants to decry my opinions has a valid excuse because I'm not at the centre of what is going on.

9/11 has happened. There is no taking it back and arguing over the semantics of it and using it to further a political gender (as the writer of the original column seems to be doing) is just not acceptable. Therefore I have no interest in the detailed political ramblings that have spread out through this thread. What I do have a view on, however, is how this situation has been handled and what led up to the events of 9/11.

Nothing can justify what happened on 9/11. At all. The American's actions back in the Gulf and Cold War were deplorable, especially considering how those aiding them were abandoned after completing their set dirty work. I fully understand why a lot of Afghans have issues with America and their way of life. But attacking civilian soil, decades after the fact, is a terrible response. Especially when doing it as a fanatical organisation, which adds no credence to their otherwise fair problems with America. It would be akin to Germany blindsiding us now for the contrywide ruin following the Cold War: not logical. So yes, I believe that there really was no justification for what happened on 9/11. Having said that, America's actions of the past were responsible for the attacks. Had the country not acted like the World Police and constantly became involved in Middle East wrangles for their own benefit, there would not be the widespread conflict between the two sides. So while the previous American actions do NOT JUSTIFY the Spet. 11 attacks, they do carry some of the responsibility for it. To believe that your country has never put a foot wrong and has constantly fought for justice and equal rights for all is very narrow-minded and ignorant. I am man enough to admit that my country has had some major fuckups in the past (hello, Falklands) and you should be too.

Now, onto the response to the attacks. One word: bullshit. Tell me this: when was the last time you heard reports on the possible whereabouts of Osama bin Laden? Or any of his close associates? Rather than the pinpoint operation that it SHOULD have been, the retaliation became an unfocussed assault on a wide array of enemies. Had both America and Britain focussed it's resources on using intelligence and well-trained troops, they could have found those directly responsible for 9/11 long ago and polished them off for good. No-one would dare dispute the actions in the wake of such a tragedy. Instead, Afghanistan has been bombed repeatedly and there are talks of going after Saddam once again. Why? What has he got to do with 9/11? Diddley squat. 9/11 is being used as an excuse to start a war with one of the few men to escape us in the past. And that's wrong. It has no connection with the Sept. 11 attacks, and it is the same sort of action which, as mentioned earlier, led to the hatred of the West in the past.

And as far as the "civilians die in war" argument: totally hypocritical. It's fair for us to cry about our dead civilians, but it's a fact of life when it happens elsewhere, and by our own hand? Debate the circustances of the deaths all you, civilian lives are civilian lives, and whether they die by terrorist attack (which I'm sure many Afghans saw as "part of war") or bombing raids is irrelevant.

Overall, the loss of human life takes greater precedent over the political situation that surrounds it. Liberals and conservatives should be united on at least one point: no more innocent killings, on EITHER side. Evil begets evil, as shown by the knock-on effect of both World Wars. And unless we step in and change the cycle now, it ain't ever gonna stop. We have to stop looking at it as a matter of "OUR country" and look at it as "OUR world". Humans are gonna have to live together on it for a lot longer than our lifetimes, so we might as well start establishing a peaceful legacy now, rather than keep past hatreds alive for no other reason than territoriality.

And so, this comment is now open for you to rip apart.
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6Thread ahead: Caveat Emptor
Next thread: Georgie's vacation
Previous thread: New mutual fund
(2058 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - 20 Things We've Learned Since 9/11Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.51 seconds.