[Delerak]

#### your post is so long I don't know where to start, I guess at the beginning.

Originally Posted by Obviously you dont understand my statement....if we're loosing our freedoms then why do we still have the right to speak freely, etc? The only real freedoms that are getting taken away are either by liberals (@nd Amendment and First Amendment via Political Correctness and banning books because it might be offensive) or because of liberal backed organizations. E.L.F. ring a bell? Weather Underground? Also consider that the liberal politicians, mostly in nCalifornia and Arizona are committing felonies and getting away with it..but i wont get into legal issues now..

I don't think we have the right to speak freely anymore. Say something to a lot of people with an influential voice that the government doesn't like, and see what happens.

Originally Posted by Ahh..yes..schools where history is re-written to appease some minority that has a non-profit organization with loads of cash backing it....school systems where liberal run/influenced colleges let in people with NO SAT scores that even come close to the required to enter but turn away those who busted butt, got thaty 4.0 GPA and skimped and saved for the tutition only to get turned down because for reasons I wont even discuss here out of respect for Snoozer and the intelligent regs.

No one can know if history is re-written, you read what you can and either believe it or don't. Now what minority exactly are you talking about? A minority is only a minority if they are in a certain area where their are very few like him/her. I was a minority at my high school, which was 70% black, and 30% asian, I'm white. I don't get what you are trying to say though.

Originally Posted by b. smaller military budget = less intelligence gathering = 9/11. A better example...when Pakistan detonated their first nuke, the CIA didnt know..of course this was while Wild Bill was showing Monica his new cigar and 'the executive branch'

Not if Bush did know about 9/11, or had information on it beforehand. No way you or I can know this, but it is a possibility. Maybe he wanted it to happen, so he can have a reason for war, you must remember, politicans are rich, and rich people love war, it makes them richer, and makes the common man poorer because he has to bleed on the battlefield.

Originally Posted by Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and the rest of the middle east terrorists/terrorist backers can care less of you support them..you're still an infidel, you still arent an arabic muslim or Islamic extreemist..therefore you must die..just like the rest of us 100+ million americans.

How do you know that? No one knows what goes through the mind of another human being. Saddam Hussein didn't start the war, and there is still no nukes found in Iraq, which was the whole point of starting the war if I remember what I saw on the news, which can't be trusted anyway. Saddam Hussein also challanged Bush to a live debate on television, Bush was afraid. Of what? A bombing? Wonderful, america's leader isn't just an idiot he is also a coward. I think we all knew that though, or else he would be in Iraq fighting. The only thing you or anyone else knows about those two men are what you've seen and heard on television, so don't judge them. All I've got to say to that.

[CSmith_Fan]

were to begin myself......

ok if Saddam didnt want Americans dead, then why did he not only call us 'Dogs of satan" and "The Great Satan" AND call for jihad on us on Iraqi TV? BTW..this was after he invaded Kuwait...Also how any terrorist groups PRIOR to 9/11 have said "Death to America"? Umm..gee...lets see..Hamaas, the PLO, ****te Extremists...anyone else want to add some more terrorists networks?

Ok, if there is  lost free speach then why is there an internet? Why is there protests? Free speach means that..free. Non-free speach (which is what anti-US government home growns susch as yourself) refere to can be shown in the Stalinist era of Russia. Say "the government sucks" and hello gulag. Dont see that here. If we did then there wouldnt be two political parties. Guess my statement was right..people do take freedom for granted. Go to some dictatorship that isnt some so-called 'US puppet regiem" and see how quickly you loose things you take for granted here every day. Now if I'm reading your reply right :

Originally Posted by I don't think we have the right to speak freely anymore.  Say something to a lot of people with an influential voice that the government doesn't like, and see what happens.

I know you're not talking about the radical anarchist types because if so..the the moment they toss one molitiov, they loose the Right to Peacefully Assemble and Protest. If you mean people who illegally tresspass onto private property, then they break the law by tresspassing. If they tell some cop they dont recognize the laws of 'your facist government', then I firmly believe they should loose all rights because 99% of our laws are based on the Constitution and Bill of Rights. If you dont believe in American laws then you dont believe in Miranda Rights,  you allow police brutality, etc..you loose all rights. Simple as that.


As for the minorties-schools bit..I'll tackle each at the same time, First...where's Irish/Chinese/Hispanic/German/Native American Appreciation month or even week in schools? There isnt. Also..since when does a lazy person with a 1.2 GPA who cant even write a single essay (no..not you) have more right to get into a college than someone who busted tail, got a 4.0 GPA, volunteered for various social services and still cant get into college because of race? No not me..but some colleges do that here in the good old US....and it's not right. History gets rewritten and changed to appease the populace by virtue of PC-ness. From history about Native Americans and Early settlers (still think Thanksgiving was like we've all been told? try the pilgrims nearly died and one person resorted to cannibalism. The indians felt pity for them and gave them just enough to survive..not the Hallmark Moment PC crap we've been fed for years)


Bush and 9/11 - Who cars of Bush knew? If Clinton knew, why didnt HE do something about it? Oh yea..he did..he cut military spending, and ignored the problem. Like that worked for the whole Castro/Cuba problem. Funny..even Ari Flichser (sp) said  to "give it a rest" about WMDs..if you thinks that's the only reason why we went there think again. Iraq backed terrorists, causeed inhuman suffering that the US has yet to equal (unless you consider Nagaski and Hiroshima).or were the mass graves, the videos of people getting beaten in prison because they spoke against the government (which btw...this country doesnt do to it's citizens. In fact prisoners have it better than most middle class, 'bust ass for a living' citizens..gyms, cable tv, internet, 3 hots and a cot, free education even at college level...) and the fact Saddam used nerve agents on bedouins not really there?

Originally Posted by and makes the common man poorer because he has to bleed on the battlefield.

Yes..the same man (or woman) who swore an oath to Protect and Defend the Constitution of the UInited States, against all enemies, foriegn and domestic..to die for the freedoms you take for granted each day and complain you dont have (because so many people are blind...as in 'anyone who complains they have no freedoms in this country&#39

Show me, REAL proof that we've become a regiem like Stalin or Hitler had and I'll concede....which you cant do.

( I edited some typoes..sorry...it's almost 1:30am here.)

[CSmith_Fan]

Oh yea..almost forgot....


1. Sorry my initial post is long..i get caught up sometimes.

2. If anyone is thinking of doing some 2nd Grade "You suck because I'm KeWlLer than Ya!" type of post (or the kind where 98% is nothing but ####'s, then dont reply..this is not a childish argument but a debate...the Kid's Flmes Section is over by Shao Long.

[Delerak]

I'll get back into this tomorrow morning, I need sleep first. And I never said we're a dictatorship, where did that come from? Anyways, until tomorrow...

-Delerak

[Lanthum]

Originally Posted by (Delerak @ Sep. 13 2003,01<!--emo&[img http://www.topmudsites.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif[/img])]I'll get back into this tomorrow morning, I need sleep first.

Yes, and when you respond, please make sure to respond to what I wrote more than refering to a typo I made (calling Europe a country instead of a continent - right after refering to all the countries in Europe).

I would really like to hear how you think comparing all European and American involvement in wars in the last 300 years makes sense, when most of the European countries have been around far longer than the USA.  Not that comparing makes sense at all - but if you are going to try to prove your stance of "Big Bad Ole USA" by way of comparison, then please at least compare each countries war involvement when they were "baby" countries like the US is.

IE:  How many wars was the Czech Rep, Russia, Germany, France, Yugoslavia, or England involved in during their first 300 years, and for what reasons?  I think you will find our reasons seem a little less barbaric.

After all ...  this shouldn't come down to a comparison of countries - but should be more based on an examination of why the US got into confrontations and if the country has largely achieved it's stated goals for those confrontations.  Because, like it or not - if the US is making the world a safer place overall one small war at a time, then it is accomplishing some of what it set out to do even if you don't agree with it.  Even if there are other hidden agendas as well!

[Delerak]

Simple fact is Lanthum, you can't compare the wars of those countries in their beginning, it was a differnt time, a different Age, and a completely different situation then the present, and just because those countries are older means nothing, America needs to take responsible for it's wars. And it doesn't seem to want to, or the Presidents don't want to, they cover it up with words like equality and the war on terror. Bull**** I say, I don't think their has been a truly noble cause in a war for centuries. With the exception of the Revolutionary War, and possibly the Civil, but the Civil War was decided before it began, the North was destined to win. Either way, if you are going to tell me I can't compare America to the other countries in Europe, then give me a good reason why, not some stupid age theory that has no backbone.

-Delerak

[Lanthum]

Originally Posted by (Delerak @ Sep. 13 2003,14:56) Simple fact is Lanthum, you can't compare the wars of those countries in their beginning, it was a differnt time, a different Age, and a completely different situation then the present, and just because those countries are older means nothing, America needs to take responsible for it's wars.  And it doesn't seem to want to, or the Presidents don't want to, they cover it up with words like equality and the war on terror.  Bull**** I say, I don't think their has been a truly noble cause in a war for centuries.  With the exception of the Revolutionary War, and possibly the Civil, but the Civil War was decided before it began, the North was destined to win.  Either way, if you are going to tell me I can't compare America to the other countries in Europe, then give me a good reason why, not some stupid age theory that has no backbone. -Delerak

Delerak, please don't sit there and try to tell me what is stupid and ridiculous.  Listening to you change the basis for your agrument is weak and has no backbone to me ...

Your entire argument is based on comparison.  I will assume that your education has included Math, Writing and Science, all of which tells us that to compare two or more things, they have to share some common quality or otherwise your argument is mute.  Some factor has to be the same, time frame for the country (IE "age" of the country), reasons for the wars, people, or conditions, or you can't compare these two countries (groups of countries).

Obviously the people aren't the same, the conditions aren't the same (some wars some countries were involved in, others weren't), reasons weren't the same, etc. etc.  So what I was trying do (and you failed to understand) was somehow put this ridiculous comparison on equal grounds so it could make sense!  As I said before, I have no idea why you would want to continue proving your BIG BAD OLE USA theory by comparison.  But if you must - then at least choose something to compare!

As for a weak argument, to me, comparing on the basis of "Age" of the country makes the most sense.  When a country is new, it will almost always be involved in more wars as it tries to assert itself and make a name for itself.  If you don't think so - why don't you compare the Eurpean countries, Russia, China, Africa, and the USA during their infancy as countries.  You'll see what I mean.  Oh wait, that's right - you're majoring in history and you already know this!

And that's why you don't want to compare it like that.  Because as such - you have already lost the debate about The BIG BAD Ole USA vs. All That is Good = Europe"  I wonder, is it England you think so wonderful?  Might explain a few things ....

[Delerak]

Your just a flaming idiot now. I never said what you are claiming I did. My whole arguement is based on America's involvement in stupid wars, compared to Europe's countries since the founding of America. Where did I say that this.

Originally Posted by And that's why you don't want to compare it like that. Because as such - you have already lost the debate about The BIG BAD Ole USA vs. All That is Good = Europe" I wonder, is it England you think so wonderful? Might explain a few things ....

No where. How can comparing America, circa 1776 via the declaration of independance to lets say, to make you happy, these three countries in Europe: Germany, France, and Spain. Any of these, which have been around as countries for over a millenia.



Tacitus, an important Roman historian, wrote the most detailed early description of the Germans at then end of the first century CE.. In doing so, be warned, he was commenting on the Rome of his own time, as much as on the German themselves.

Note that although this is most of Tacitus' text, some of the later sections are not in this text.

read more from:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/tacitus1.html

That is from Tacitus, estimated 1 CE (common era).

Peter Abelard

Dialectician, philosopher, and theologian, born 1079; died 1142. Peter Abelard (also spelled Abeillard, Abailard, etc., while the best manuscripts have Abaelardus) was born in the little village of Pallet, about ten miles east of Nantes in Brittany. His father, Berengar, was lord of the village, his mother's name was Lucia; both afterwards entered the monastic state.

read more from: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01036b.htm

Peter Abelard, a French philospher from a thousand years ago.

and now Spain.

THE Visigothic Code, originally in Latin, includes the laws of a number of Catholic kings who ruled Spain from 586 to 71 1. Reccared (586-601), the first Visigothic King to become a Catholic, was also the first king to pursue an active anti-Jewish policy. Some of his successors in the seventh century went farther and allowed the Jews only the alternatives of baptism or exile. Many Jews thus became unwilling converts and secretly practiced Judaism. These were the "Judaizing Christians." In order to stamp out this secret Judaism some kings resorted to most drastic punishments. These actions were prompted both by religious bigotry and the desire for a standardized Catholicism of all citizens. In addition the prospect of gain through confiscation of Jewish property probably lured some of them. Fortunately for the Jews this legislation was not always carried into effect, for the royal authority met with opposition in many parts of Spain.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/jewis...sigothic1.html

What do those tidbits of history have to do with it? Everything, trying to compare the war-history of germany, france, or spain to america when THEY were founded is nearly impossible, and not nearly as logical because they were completely different in that time period those many ages ago, when America was founded France, Spain and Germany were all in the same period, they are far more comparable in the 18th, 19th and 20th century because of better history records; we know a lot more nowadays about the middle-ages and maybe that is a comparable source, but Lanthum you think comparing America in it's 3 centuries of war to Germany, Frances, or Spains, estimated 3 HUNDRED centuries of war? Moronic!

-Delerak

[CSmith_Fan]

Well first off...if we're going to get nitpicky then I have to amned myself as I ask not to include the Korean War because the US didnt go as The US but as part of the UN. Yes we were involved, yes, we consider it one of our nation's 'wars' but it was a UN Police Action per the United Nations.

Next up..CE? Common Era? By what timeline are you refering to? AD or BC is the standard timeframe references. Must be some of that so called 'liberalized education' but anyhoo..going back to part of our discussion Delerak, know all this 'loosing your freedoms?" Well, the Partiot Act is that..an act..not a law. It still had to be voted on by congress and approved by the supreme court to be enacted against citizens. They didnt, and the Dems have the majority. In fact, many of the modern laws and lawsuits are being backed or created by liberals here in the US. From RIAA lawsuits of 12yr old kids (but still not ONE lawsuit against some 30yr old guy in BFE USA who copied 1000s of casset tapes from his dual cassett deck which btw..predates file swapping but falls under that 'copyright violations' umbrella) I think your roman example, Tacitus gave the perfect comment for this situation...The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. [
Tacitus (A.D. 55?-130?)

People whining that the captured Al-quedda prisoners were not given fair trials in a civilian court are brain dead. A week after 9/11 Congress gave it's approval for a war on terrorism, ergo a terrorist now falls under POW status and does not need a civilian court. Of course, there is a Catch-22..the Geneva Conventions do not recognize terrorists as soliders. Still...terrorists always strike a first blow and could care less if you are military form Country A or B because if you follow thier ideals, you're a martyr, if you dont you are a threat anyways and must be eliminated. This is the mindset of a terrorist.

Now mind you..yes I bash the liberals in most of my posts. Probably because they try to cover their screwups and make themselves look the victim, but the COnsertives have also screwed up alot. Just sided with Bush because simply I'm just irritated at all the finger pointing and no one taking responsibility for their own actions (like giving illegal aliens welfare, medicade, food stamps, driver's licences, etc..which amounts to several fraud, and felony charges yet not one senator or congressman or governor has been arrested by the US Marshals. Why? Easy...3 words..'special interest groups&#39

Also, in a prior post, I just used Hitler and Stalin as modern examples of people who's governments had very little if no freedoms for it's populace..and since you said we had no freedom....

[Delerak]

I never said America had no freedom. Freedom can be defined in many ways. The Freedom we do have I am grateful for. You can do whatever you want in the career industry here in America, it's great. But you can also get tired with the bull**** in America. Sometimes people don't need freedom, most people are happy with having food, clothing, shelter and a passtime. I am. And some aren't. That's why America is the way it is, too many greedy people, especially our leaders (politicians).

-Delerak

[Delerak]

Originally Posted by Next up..CE? Common Era? By what timeline are you refering to? AD or BC is the standard timeframe references. Must be some of that so called 'liberalized education'

Uh, it's a substitute for AD, duh.

-Delerak

[CSmith_Fan]

You did state we are loosing our freedoms, and a few times you've stated in one way or another that the newer version of America (not the mid-20th century version unless you agree with the Birch-Putch plan of..erm..I believe 1973 +/- a few years.) that wants to spread freedom is stupid (which pro-equal rights anti government types call a New World Order when in fact having no countries but instead say, regions under a unified governemt where every person of every region was equal, would also decrease the seperatism the liberal left imposes on us)
As for

Originally Posted by and makes the common man poorer because he has to bleed on the battlefield.

I made a point about that and freedom. To slap an addition to that, I beleive Thomas Jefferson once said

Originally Posted by The tree of freedom must occasionally be watered by the blood of patriots

Death happens in war but who is at more of a loss..the dirt poor man who dies for freedom or the anti-american who abuses their freedoms while protesting about the man that died so they could protest? I agree..some people dont need freedom. I wish marshal law would be instated for a brief time..say a week. Let people feel and expierence what a life with no freedom is like. A life where the government is run like they say it's allegedly run already.

[CSmith_Fan]

Originally Posted by (Delerak @ Sep. 13 2003,20:50) Originally Posted by Next up..CE? Common Era? By what timeline are you refering to? AD or BC is the standard timeframe references. Must be some of that so called 'liberalized education' Uh, it's a substitute for AD, duh. -Delerak

What'd they do? Sneak that into the Metric System conspiracy or something?

Ok..gotta toss some humor before getting back to debating...

[Delerak]

Hehe, well as far as I know CE is just a substitute for AD for the people who don't believe in Jesus. Who is historically recognized hence the BC, AD usage in history. I'm tired of debating, so I'm going to take a break, and go use my freedom of gaming and play xbox.

[Lanthum]

1-->

Originally Posted by (Delerak @ Sep. 13 2003,18[img http://www.topmudsites.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif[/img]1)]Your just a flaming idiot now.  I never said what you are claiming I did.  My whole arguement is based on America's involvement in stupid wars, compared to Europe's countries since the founding of America.  Where did I say that this.